Hs 129 impressions

[BladeMeister]

Not sure why you all think the HS-129 is not strong enough to kill Russia Tanks, but I have

no problem taking them out. I can do this all day long, no problem.

 

S!Blade<><

 

To be fair, this was my first attempt at using my mouse as a flight controller. Not bad Eh?

Edited September 16, 2017 by BladeMeister

[Lusekofte]

I did not read the entire topic, has anyone said it is bad knocking out tanks. The only armoured vehicle to speak of in this game is the T 34 and it is fairly easy to kill if you do not hit a tree in the prosess. I personally think it is easier to kill a tank with the HS 129 than the IL 2 when it comes to cannons

[Juri_JS]

Can anybody tell me what the cruise speed of a fully loaded Hs-129 (MK 101/103 + Bombs) was in reality? At the moment I am working on a campaign for the Hs-129. I have to set the speed to 240 km/h or less, otherwise the AI is unable to hold their formation, which does of course lead to very long flight times. Is such a low cruise speed really realistic? I know the Hs was slow, but I would have expected a cruise speed of around 260-270 km/h.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Juri_JS

[Lusekofte]

Well maybe the AI fly with auto pitch and continuous mode. This will effectively bring the plane down to 240 KM/ H while with 65 % pitch in manual and full throttle will keep it well over 300 KM/t in continuous mode. 

This is the official notes on how it performed ,

 

 

• Max Speed 407 km/h (220 knots, 253 mph) at 3,830 m (12,570 ft) (clean)
• Range: 690 km (372 nmi, 428 mi)
• Altitude normal: 9,000 m (29,530 ft)
• Rate of climb: 8.1 m/s (1,595 ft/min) I think this is what you find in wiki and other not too accurate sources

[JtD]

According to the manual it should do 325 with Mk101 and bomb racks, no bombs at sea level at 1.1ata/2350rpm cruise setting.

At fuel save setting, another part of the manual that simply states nothing WRT to load out, but gives the same speed for 1.1ata/2350rpm, and states 285@SL@1.0ata/2050rpm.

Yet another part of the manual simply states 'ETC + no bombs', agreeing with 285@SL@1.0@2050, and gives further speeds at different altitudes.

 

Since this all looks like a single set of data, I suppose all speeds refer to Mk101 fitted, ETC fitted, no bombs loaded. Therefore, normal cruise speed for this would be 325 at sea level, fuel save cruise 285 at sea level, or 310 at 2km. Fuel save mode gets to 240@SL.

 

Han gives sea level top speed at combat power as 349 in game, if that is for the clean aircraft it is probably a bit slow...it should be at around 350 with Mk101 and bomb racks mounted. Well, yet another thing to check.

[Juri_JS]

As player I have no problems to achieve speeds above 300 km/h with MK101 and bombs, but the AI can't. Once I am above 1.0 ata/2300 rpm my AI comrades are unable to follow and formation flying becomes impossible.

[JtD]

Compared to manual figures it is roughly 10km/h too slow in game, but that's not enough to screw AI the way you describe it. It's easily possible that AI is unable to properly deal with the aircraft - manual pitch and stuff. Might be worth a bug report.

Edited September 16, 2017 by JtD

[Lusekofte]

 

As I have read about the plane, the view was terrible in this plane. The steel frame and lack of moving the body inside the tight cockpit combined with the 75 mm windscreen obstructed vision in such a degree that it was disliked by its pilots. Same was the heaviness and underpowered flight dynamics. All these issues seems to have been ironed out in this simulator with no real complaint from the community. If this had been a russian plane I suspect the reaction would have been much more noticeable from this community. 

However I do not complain, I just wonder if my impression of the real plane and what we have can be so wrong, I think I have read all available stuff written about this plane. 

My impression of this plane in the game is as such:

It is pleasant to fly with all load outs and full fuel

It is very manuverable with all load outs 

The view is excellent

With track Ir you have no restriction of movement 

I see absolutely nothing similar to what I read about the plane in this game. Quite opposite in fact.

Without load out the plane was 12% overweighted and 8% underpowered it says several places I have searched , I thought these two where related, but whatever. 

 

Again this is not a complaint, I just want to see if I am totally misinformed from multiple sources 

[JtD]

12% overweight and 8% underpowered? Please elaborate. Who determined that?

 

Personally I think the aircraft, if anything, is worse in game than it was in real life. Not just 10km/h slower than specification, just generally conservative. And where exactly are the fire extinguishers?

[LLv24_Zami]

And where exactly are the fire extinguishers?

These are not modeled atm.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

12% overweight and 8% underpowered? Please elaborate. Who determined that?

 

It is from documents during test flights, I have seen similar numbers on wiki. I never really got that point of view on how those parameters work 

 

 

Personally I think the aircraft, if anything, is worse in game than it was in real life. Not just 10km/h slower than specification, just generally conservative. And where exactly are the fire extinguishers?

 

Absolutely not possible. If the plane flew like it does in this game , the opposite would not have been reported. But I was not after it to be bader in this game, I wanted new information. I guess the developers have been making FM after real facts , So in perspective of multiple sources I have got it wrong totally or there are to be changes 

[JtD]

I have seen similar numbers on wiki

Wiki just says the the prototype was heavier and less powerful than specified. It says nothing about the Hs129B. Neither does it say anything about flight tests carried out with the B series. You are aware that the prototype was driven by 360hp Argus engines and not the 580hp GR engines the B models used? That the wing was modified on the B? The cockpit completely redesigned? The nose reworked? Internal installations moved?

[Max_Damage]

Its much better then IRL. Some pilot commented that heinshel flight carreer has been giving him nightmares after the war. The cockpit is extremely claustraphobic and the stick is too short and has a huge load. The plane is not suited for long flights because it is very uncomfortable for the pilot. The weapons were ineffective against tanks. The only part which was appreciated by the pilots is that the cockpit was very tough and provided good protection in crash landings.

 

You can pretty much ignore all of these complaints in a PC game.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Max_Damage

[LLv24_Zami]

Its much better then IRL. 

No, it isn`t.

 

The cockpit is extremely claustraphobic and the stick is too short and has a huge load. The plane is not suited for long flights because it is very uncomfortable for the pilot. 

These things are pretty much impossible to model, just like the heavier workload of the pilot on Soviet planes compared to the German ones. Kommandogerät is an advance in combat which is not reflectied in this game or any other simply because it can`t be done imo.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Zami

[Guest deleted@50488]

Is it possible to feather the props on a failled engine ? How ?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think you have to put the pitch control in manual mode first

[LukeFF]

Some pilot commented that heinshel flight carreer has been giving him nightmares after the war. The cockpit is extremely claustraphobic and the stick is too short and has a huge load. The plane is not suited for long flights because it is very uncomfortable for the pilot. The weapons were ineffective against tanks. The only part which was appreciated by the pilots is that the cockpit was very tough and provided good protection in crash landings.

Source?

[LukeFF]

As for sources:

 

"Another advantage was the excellent field of vision which the pilot enjoyed from his armored cockpit. This meant that it was possible for us to remain at very low altitude once we had taken off from our airfields."

 

-Gebhard Weber, Hs 129 Panzerjaeger!

 

"In the Hs 129, Nicoulas had designed an aircraft eminently suitable for use as a ground attack aircraft - most notably for anti-tank work...the Hs 129 is criticized only by those who have never flown her or who had no feeling for this sturdy, reliable twin-engined aircraft...all the pilots who flew the Hs 129 with success were enthusiastic about her."

 

-Fanz Oswald, Hs 129 Panzerjaeger!

 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

No, it isn`t.

 

 

These things are pretty much impossible to model, just like the heavier workload of the pilot on Soviet planes compared to the German ones. Kommandogerät is an advance in combat which is not reflectied in this game or any other simply because it can`t be done imo.

A big aspect that is not modelled in the sim regarding the "bad vision" is that the winscreen is so close to the pilot and also steeply angled, that in case of rain the windscreen it becomes almost intransparent. If it was angeled more the drops get blown away quicker.

 

Other than that, the vision is not that bad. But having an aircraft that doesn't let you see ahead in case of precipitation is really not cool. If you have just your one frag to give in real life with real weather, I'm sure you'd be happy to trade it for an alternative. In the sim, I think it is a fun plane.

[Venturi]

 Kommandogerät is an advance in combat which is not reflectied in this game or any other simply because it can`t be done imo.

 

Sure it could. You just model engines correctly.

 

You know, require that pilots match RPM and manifold pressure, and manifold pressure to mixture on manual-engine control birds ...

 

the problem is not the German automated controls, it's that the aircraft without them aren't penalized.

 

The one eyed man in the land of the one eyed is NOT king.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Sure it could. You just model engines correctly.

 

You know, require that pilots match RPM and manifold pressure, and manifold pressure to mixture on manual-engine control birds ...

 

the problem is not the German automated controls, it's that the aircraft without them aren't penalized.

 

The one eyed man in the land of the one eyed is NOT king.

I agree, it's something that erked me for a long time, but I think it would just unbalance the whole sim, which is reasonably even at the moment. Experts would, I'm sure, cope very well, but I think the majority would struggle which is maybe realistic but not neccesarily fun plus we have to bare in mind that most online combat is ahistorical anyway. It would certainly be challenging, which might be part of the fun for some, but, having thought about it, I just don't think the subtleties of feedback, vision, sound, vibration, smell etc are really there to give pilots enough of a sense of what the aircraft is experiencing and manage it accordingly.

 

I still agree with you though, it's just that I've moved on. ( RoF still bugs the tits off me though so much so that I haven't touched it in years )

Edited September 18, 2017 by HagarTheHorrible

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Hagar with all do respect how on Earth you have problems with ROF kites? I trust it is just lack of time or patient. I would love to see need of realistic operation of engine management IMHO I think most who choose expert mode on this combat sim do to.

Edited September 18, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[LLv24_Zami]

Sure it could. You just model engines correctly.

 

You know, require that pilots match RPM and manifold pressure, and manifold pressure to mixture on manual-engine control birds ...

 

the problem is not the German automated controls, it's that the aircraft without them aren't penalized.

 

The one eyed man in the land of the one eyed is NOT king.

No, you can`t. We don`t have to roll wheels or turn knobs, we just use buttons on our hotas sets.

 

German controls are fine now, the advantage of it is not showing in game as I said. 

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

Afaik the Bf 110 with 37mm wasn't used that much? I bet Panzerbar knows and has the exact numbers

From spring 1943, Panzerjagerstaffel 110, then renamed in 3./V.Kdo fur PzBk.. It was then again renamed into Pz.Jg.St./ZG1, wich fought in Orel area in july 1943, and was disbanded and split into II./ZG76 staffeln.

[NETSCAPE]

Can anybody tell me what the cruise speed of a fully loaded Hs-129 (MK 101/103 + Bombs) was in reality? At the moment I am working on a campaign for the Hs-129. I have to set the speed to 240 km/h or less, otherwise the AI is unable to hold their formation, which does of course lead to very long flight times. Is such a low cruise speed really realistic? I know the Hs was slow, but I would have expected a cruise speed of around 260-270 km/h.

 

Sorry to hear this... reminds me of my issues with the Stuka. 

 

Unfortunately you might have to bend on the historical realism...closer airfields perhaps.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Hagar with all do respect how on Earth you have problems with ROF kites? I trust it is just lack of time or patient. I would love to see need of realistic operation of engine management IMHO I think most who choose expert mode on this combat sim do to.

I don't want to derail the thread, but it was a general disillusionment, having enjoyed RoF immensely for several years and it gave me a far deeper insight into the why's and wherefores of WW1 aviation, the mindset and tactics If I where to illustrate it with one example, the Eindecker, I think there was a reason Immelmann invented the Immelmann turn, a very daring and risky manoever for the time. It was about the only way the aircraft could efficiently turn 180deg while remaining in contact. A roll and banked turn had absolutely no merit which is why, having enjoyed great success it very quickly became defunct. You would never ever come to this conclusion from flying RoF. That was only one straw that broke this Camels back, I just ended up not believing, I came to see it as not so much a flight sim as an Arcady shooter with wings attached.

 

Engine management could also have done with a more challenging and complex mode for "expert" flyers.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I don't want to derail the thread, but it was a general disillusionment, having enjoyed RoF immensely for several years and it gave me a far deeper insight into the why's and wherefores of WW1 aviation, the mindset and tactics If I where to illustrate it with one example, the Eindecker, I think there was a reason Immelmann invented the Immelmann turn, a very daring and risky manoever for the time. It was about the only way the aircraft could efficiently turn 180deg while remaining in contact. A roll and banked turn had absolutely no merit which is why, having enjoyed great success it very quickly became defunct. You would never ever come to this conclusion from flying RoF. That was only one straw that broke this Camels back, I just ended up not believing, I came to see it as not so much a flight sim as an Arcady shooter with wings attached.

 

Engine management could also have done with a more challenging and complex mode for "expert" flyers.

 

Hagar, when you say "I came to see it as not so much a flight sim as an Arcady shooter" and "Engine management could also have done with a more challenging and complex mode for "expert" flyers." are you referring to Rise of Flight or Batlle of Stalingra/Moscow/Kuban ?

 

Or is it your opinion that from tha perspective BoS/M/K get it a lot better in terms of not being arcadish in the flight dynamics ?

[HagarTheHorrible]

Hagar, when you say "I came to see it as not so much a flight sim as an Arcady shooter" and "Engine management could also have done with a more challenging and complex mode for "expert" flyers." are you referring to Rise of Flight or Batlle of Stalingra/Moscow/Kuban ?

 

Or is it your opinion that from tha perspective BoS/M/K get it a lot better in terms of not being arcadish in the flight dynamics ?

Rise of Flight.

 

I think BoX is far better, the information the developers have to work with is far more complete, the engine more refined and the programmers more experienced.  The aircraft in the BoX time frame also tend to be far more predictable where as in WW1 they could be very quirky as the designers tried lots of different things to get an edge that might come with benefits but also probable downsides.   I wish I could say differently about RoF but I just stopped believing the flight models made any sense and as such fell out of love with it.  Sad but true.  I don't want to give the impression that I think I'm definitely right or that anyone should even give my thoughts more than a seconds consideration, it's simply my own conclusion that's very hard for me to shake.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thx for explaining Hagar!

 

After a friend offered me BoS, two years ago, I was so positively impressed that I decided to buy RoF and a worth of DLC stuff for it. 

 

I ended up playing the sim, which I still think looked great graphically and even in terms of damage modelling, although I am far from an expert in air combat and air combat simulation, no more than a few hours. Uninstalled and installed it a few times ( usual in me, when trying to like something... ), but I moved on into BoM and now BoK.

 

I think I understand part of your desillusionement, although I don't know anywhere near about the details of those ww1 machines and their flight characteristics, engines, systems, to be able to make my own judgement.

[ZachariasX]

Rise of Flight.

 

I think BoX is far better, the information the developers have to work with is far more complete, the engine more refined and the programmers more experienced.  The aircraft in the BoX time frame also tend to be far more predictable where as in WW1 they could be very quirky as the designers tried lots of different things to get an edge that might come with benefits but also probable downsides.   I wish I could say differently about RoF but I just stopped believing the flight models made any sense and as such fell out of love with it.  Sad but true.  I don't want to give the impression that I think I'm definitely right or that anyone should even give my thoughts more than a seconds consideration, it's simply my own conclusion that's very hard for me to shake.

You are honestly disapointed when it dawns uopn you that the FM of a $5 plane in a sim is not 100% match to a 100 year old plane and that couldn't be crosschecked with flight tests? With that little info on hand and for that price, I think 777 did a stellar job with RoF. I still love it.

[HagarTheHorrible]

You are honestly disapointed when it dawns uopn you that the FM of a $5 plane in a sim is not 100% match to a 100 year old plane and that couldn't be crosschecked with flight tests? With that little info on hand and for that price, I think 777 did a stellar job with RoF. I still love it.

They aren't $5 planes.

 

Example; If you clubbed together with several thousand friends to buy a Spitfire ( a real one) and when it was delivered you were given a Cessna 152 you might feel a bit peeved, you might complain, the seller might then retort " hey, you paid $ 5, what did you expect ?" . It isn't the individual contribution, it the sum total that is important.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Many of the differences between aircraft in BoX, the subtle differences that promote superiority over sloppy seconds are way beyond my understanding and as such I just enjoy BoX for what it is, bugs aside I just enjoy it. With RoF I did lots of reading and studying and while by no means an expert, or even close, It did give me a far deeper insight into the aircraft, the mindset and the tactics that evolved from that. Ultimately it didn't help with my enjoyment of RoF, I wish it hadn't, but there you, it's my loss.

[LukeFF]

Guys, this is the BoS forum, not ROF...

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

Impressions? It's kind of like a flying bathtub but I can't help but like it.

 

[JtD]

Taking baths is very pleasant, so what's not to like about a flying bathtub?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Taking baths is very pleasant, so what's not to like about a flying bathtub?

 

 

It's wunderbar!

[PatrickAWlson]

Sure it could. You just model engines correctly.

 

You know, require that pilots match RPM and manifold pressure, and manifold pressure to mixture on manual-engine control birds ...

 

the problem is not the German automated controls, it's that the aircraft without them aren't penalized.

 

The one eyed man in the land of the one eyed is NOT king.

Could be done but IMHO it is more of an AI thing than an FM thing.  They would have to emulate a delay in other AI processing while engine management was happening.  The delay in doing the next thing would emulate the pilot workload.  

 

Not entirely simple though.  Engine management would have to be a appropriately prioritized on the decision tree.  You would not see a real pilot start fiddling with mixture right at the moment that he had a shot, was about to collide, etc.

So ... I was flying the HS129 trying to shoot tanks.  Very difficult.  They are tiny little buggers and the flit about all over the place.  Had a grand time blowing up soft stuff, but I am guessing I was only scratching a bit of paint on the tanks.

 

Big question: how close do you get and how do you keep from crashing?

[Venturi]

All they need to do RE AI, is to recreate what they already do for the AI in German aircraft.

If they want to implement a penalty for the AI, I would argue that it would not be transparent to the player, who would not notice a transient decrease in airplane performance.

 

The point is more for the player's experience while flying said planes, and for historical accuracy.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I use it mostly for emmergency trainning :-)

 

It makes up the best asymmetric engine failure trainner among all flight sims I use :-)

 

I real PITA to bring it to a safe landing when one of the engine fails... even when we manage to feather it in time...

[L3Pl4K]

The plane is a real gunboat, and the rear gunner is quite as good as the 111/88 cross eyes

Edited September 20, 2017 by L3Pl4K

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I was testing engine out flying and it seems you only can keep level flight if you set boost on and combat power.

 

Any engine setting in continuos mode to keep single engine level flight???