Bf-109 real life pilots overview

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

109 at low and mid speed is highly maneuverable, and if you pull to hard it won't stall and spin like use to do before patch, now 109 recover itself if you loosen pressure on the stick. I also heard/read about how dangerous 109 was to take off because it's narrow and diagonal undercarriage. There were many accidents recorded because of it.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

....And "we know" about spitfire hard to operate ailerons - jet another subjective opinion but this one you accept without doubt.

No my friend, that the Spitfire is hard to operate ailerons is not my opinion, is the result of a comparative RAF test.

""The report claims that The 109-E needed 37 lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot."" 

Edited October 2, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

No my friend, that the Spitfire is hard to operate ailerons is not my opinion, is the result of a comparative RAF test.

""The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.""

Spit 1 vs 109 E is different story, we did talked about e/g version this quotation is not important because we talked about something else.

[303_Kwiatek]

Emil got better roll rate dpcause squared wing tips and Spitfire MkV got metal airleons so roll rate expecially at higher speeds was also better

[Scheintot]

I read this a couple of days ago:

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/124/Bouncing-Clouds--Flying-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109.aspx

 

Enjoy.

[Irgendjemand]

Well, I dont fly the 109 much because i do like the FW better.

But recently since the newest patch i tried tha F2 and F4 and i have to say this seems barely plausible. This plane gets sooooooo heavy on the roll and the elevator as soon as its a little faster than 350 to 400 km/h its feels like a brick.
I really hope this is not right and will see revision.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[Scheintot]

I do not think it has been done correctly in BOX. I do think (in terms of what I read and heard about it) that the BF-109 gets harder to fly on high speed but it definitely got exaggerated like it is right now. 

 

Pilots of the 'Luftwaffe' - for example Erich Hartmann - flew 2000m (2km or around 6500ft) higher than their enemies to dive on them. They used their speed to get as close as possible, then to climb away from their enemies after trying to shoot them. Especially Erich Hartmann used this tactic also to maximize the damage of his guns. He has learned this tactic (or lets call it a procedure) from Krupinski who also was a known ace of world war II.    

Tactics like this are still possible, I do not reject this argument but like I've already mentioned, the attribute at high speed in the FM of the BF-109 got exaggerated in BOX and I realy doubt that german pilots would have used this procedure if it got so fixed at high speed. Again, which does not mean that the plane is a UFO. I am talking about exaggerated FM characteristics.

Also the USAAF reported that the germans were almost every time above them - not below or at same altitude.

 

PS: Erich Hartmann was realy strict on this procedure. He never broke this rule after he has learned what he did wrong at the start of his career in the 'Luftwaffe'. 

He was always disciplined in terms of staying 2km above the enemy before he has engaged his enemies in a fast-speed dive.
 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Scheintot

[Guest deleted@83466]

Well, I dont fly the 109 much because i do like the FW better.

But recently since the newest patch i tried tha F2 and F4 and i have to say this seems barely plausible. This plane gets sooooooo heavy on the roll and the elevator as soon as its a little faster than 350 to 400 km/h its feels like a brick.

I really hope this is not right and will see revision.

 

350 to 400 kph, the 109 still feels pretty light on the controls to me, certainly not a brick!  When you start getting up around 600 kph, then it becomes substantially heavier, as it should, according to many flight test reports.   Whether it's overdone or not, is pretty subjective.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Iceworm

[Irgendjemand]

Just sayin i hope its overdone. No time doing any tests or stuff.
As is you cant really use it well do do a highspeed attack anymore. Just too little controllability.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[303_Kwiatek]

Trim settings was change a lot with new FM in 109. Before there was need about 35% ( +1) trim settings to fly straight at medium speed now is need about 75% ( +2) thats why now is much harder to pull up with correct trim to level flight.

 

I got such problem with Force Fedback ON before new patchb becasue with FF ON i need exacly about  75% positive trim and suprisly without FF i need only 35% to fly straight. Thats why i disabled FF in game. 

Also as JTD test showed that roll rate of 109 is now worse then RL data the same roll rate of La5 and Lagg3 is even better then Fw 190 at higher speeds which seemed greatly overdone.

Edited September 20, 2017 by 303_Kwiatek

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

After the patch v. 2.012, the neutral trim in all Bf-109 have been eliminated.

Neutral trim at Zero position at cruise power, and cruise speed, like Volker Bau stated in the video (minute 5:00) no work now in game.

Edited September 21, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Guest deleted@83466]

Just sayin i hope its overdone. No time doing any tests or stuff.

As is you cant really use it well do do a highspeed attack anymore. Just too little controllability.

 

Well you might be right about it being overdone, don't know.  I think the problem for developers is making the distinction between Stick Force required to move the control surface versus the effectiveness of the control surface itself.  We know from pilot accounts that the 109 became heavy and above certain speeds you had to put both hands on the stick to do any maneuvering.  But that said, if you had the muscle power to fully deflect the control surfaces, what would the roll and pitch rate actually be?

 

If I were a beta tester, this is an issue I would be exploring---trying to make sure that that they aren't making the aircraft controls "feel" heavy at the expense of actual, attainable roll rate, pitch rate. And we know what those numbers are, so the simulated aircraft ought to attain them. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If I were a beta tester, this is an issue I would be exploring---trying to make sure that that they aren't making the aircraft controls "feel" heavy at the expense of actual, attainable roll rate, pitch rate. And we know what those numbers are, so the simulated aircraft ought to attain them. 

You don't need to be a beta tester to establish a qualitive or quantative proof that this is indeed wrong. Only because we have different tags under our name doesn't mean all issues the game has (or might have) can be blamed on us.

 

That being said this is an argumentative dead end. Speculating what could be wrong without actual support of the claim is not moving things forward. Not even a beta tester does have this abiliity.

Edited September 23, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Guest deleted@83466]

You don't need to be a beta tester to establish a qualitive or quantative proof that this is indeed wrong. Only because we have different tags under our name doesn't mean all issues the game has (or might have) can be blamed on us.

 

That being said this is an argumentative dead end. Speculating what could be wrong without actual support of the claim is not moving things forward. Not even a beta tester does have this abiliity.

 

You know what?  You need to chill the hell out, man.

 

If you re-read my post, it does not cast "blame" on anyone, nor does it make any claim that anything is wrong or right.  It simply responds to Irgendjemands post, that yes, it's possible that the issue could benefit from another look...I was partially agreeing with him for crying out loud.

 

So tired of guys like you creating strawmen in an attempt to act like they know what they are talking about....

Edited September 23, 2017 by Iceworm

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

How do you explain this than?

If I were a beta tester, this is an issue I would be exploring---trying to make sure that that they aren't making the aircraft controls "feel" heavy at the expense of actual, attainable roll rate, pitch rate.

There have been multiple attacks on the tester team in the past for various reasons so I can hardly sympathise with such statements. Could be this comes all down to unfortunate comunication but I have my reasons for being skeptical about such things.

 

Anyway, if you agree with Irgendjemand and have the numbers as you claim it'd be a good start to write a report to show it to the devs for comparison with their own numbers.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Listen up, Slick

 

If you think when I said "if I were a beta tester..." it was an "attack" on the the beta team, [edited]  It wasn't even a claim that anything was wrong, only that it could be.  Obviously, the roll rate performance is being questioned by people, and I gave my point of view on that.

 

[edited]

Edited September 25, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

As I said before speculation aint gonna help. Neither do personal insults.

 

Thats my final say in this matter.

Edited September 24, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[SYN_Haashashin]

Keep it civil guys...personal attacks are not welcome. Attacking Beta tester as a group is also not welcome, they are volunteers.

 

It has been said hundreds of times already, make a report with RL data vs ingame data and send it to the devs, if they agree with it they may do something about.

 

One more "trouble" and Im locking.

 

Haash

[Guest deleted@83466]

Keep it civil guys...personal attacks are not welcome. Attacking Beta tester as a group is also not welcome, they are volunteers.

 

 

 

 Please quote the post where the "attack" on the beta tester group supposedly takes place.  Otherwise, I have no idea what your reprimand is referring to other than 5tuka's strawman. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Iceworm

[LukeFF]

​At its rather disappointing low-level cruising speed of 240 mph (386 km/h) the Gustav was certainly delightful to fly, but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400 mph (644 km/h) the controls felt as though they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 10,000 ft (3048 m) was 440 mph (708 km/h) and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book. However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e., above 25,000 ft / 7620 m) it performed efficiently in both dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. 

 

-Eric Brown, Wings of the Luftwaffe

[Venturi]

Eric Brown would know.

[LukeFF]

^All of those quotes have been posted countless times before.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

^All of those quotes have been posted countless times before.

Brown's quotes have been posted countless times before.

[CUJO_1970]

^All of those quotes have been posted countless times before.

 

Yep, just like your Eric Brown quote.

 

The current elevator forces are modeled like you only have one hand available to maneuver the aircraft. It's no problem to model high stick forces per se - but 2.012 over exaggerated the relative high-speed handling  - making the assumption that only the 109 got heavy controls at high speeds.

 

But Yak? LaGG? MiG? - these aircraft just flit right out of the way at high speeds as if they just have the lightest stick forces ever, while 109 locks up.

 

Is there any actual data showing how tight a turn a MiG could make at 500km/h and over compared to 109? LaGG at 500km/h and over compared to 109?

 

What were the control forces for those planes and how tight could they turn relative to the 109 at these speeds? Because the relative performance handling gap at high speeds for these fighters is currently pretty dramatic. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

After dozen hours spent in multiplayer environment with 109 it can say it could have just little better but still perceptible difference in elevator authority during entering high speeds.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I find it good for the job.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

this is some kind of 2 standards. on one hand try to implement classical standard for human pilot limitation for one-hand stick force. one the other hand no limitation for the pilot's fatigue of the high G maneuvers. very interesting.