109 elevator effectiveness

[VesseL]

IIRC the Soviets tested both (G-2 captured at Stalingrad, and a Lend Lease Spit LF IXc) and measured 20 secs and 18 secs respectively for a 360 degree sustained turn at 1000 m altitude.

 

20 would be about what i have read. Spit is better sustained turner i have read also. 18 and 20 sec are what i would expect. Thanks!

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

IIRC the Soviets tested both (G-2 captured at Stalingrad, and a Lend Lease Spit LF IXc) and measured 20 secs and 18 secs respectively for a 360 degree sustained turn at 1000 m altitude.

Was the altitude maintained in this tests?

[Kurfurst]

I believe so.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, just my 2 Cents.

 

Kurfuerst most likely also knows the Source of an F-2 Cell being tested for Rate of Roll, with best Rate of Roll at 600kph IAS and 92°/Sec, very quickly decreasing above that. 

Right now best rate of Roll for the F and G Cells is around 450. 

Edit: I think Stick Pressure was also given in the test, I remember it was better than Emil, but not exactly how much.

 

I also feel that the Elevator may be slightly too heavy now, to the Point that you can't even Push into a Dive properly without trimming into the Dive as well, serving you as a Death Sentence. In order to maintain a Dive I often have to trim quite far Nose Down in order not to recover against my will. Not on my Rig Currently, but you guys could just try out

• Maintain Certain Dive Speeds, 650 to 750 fully pushed and note the necessary trim Setting. I think you will find that quite a lot of nose down is necessary. 

PS: Kurfurst: Some of your Original Document Links are no longer working, many of the Original Pictures can't be seen. Could you maybe re-link them to Imgur or something? I quite like your Page, it is an amazing Weapon. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=160997.

What are the roll rates in AH?

 

You should read the first graph BTW, the thick line (ymax=15) shows the roll rate at 15degrees stick deflection in radians.

 

The other line Em=15 shows the roll rate at 15 degrees middle value aileron deflection. The Bf 109`s ailerons deflected assymetrically, upwards 22 deg 40', dowards 11 deg 20', middle value being about 16. Appearantly this line shows the max possible deflection, so going by the max aileron deflection values (until limited by stickforce), we get :

 

Max roll rate of Bf 109F-2, at 30kg/66lbs stickforce :

 

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)

300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)

400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)

480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit

500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)

600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value

700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)

800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

 

Considering the aircraft reaches it`s peak roll rate at rather high speed, the stories about the set in cement, ineffective ailerons are really reaching.

 

To conver radians to degree:

Take the radian reading, divide it by 6.28 (ie. 2phi), then multiply with 360 to get the degree/sec value.

 

 

 

This pretty well agrees with both anecdotal evidence and other measured data :

 

"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire.  A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf.   One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left.  Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."

 

-Dave Soutwood on flying Black 6 (Bf 109G-2/trop), 109 Lair

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

 

Ie.

4-4.5 sec for 360degree roll at 460kph = 80-90 degree/sec roll rate.

 

And also this doc states ~4.5sec for 360 degree roll at 450 kph, ie. ~80/sec :

 

 

The NNW-SSW lines show the stickforce limiting the available roll rate in kg. 20kg = 44lbs stickforce, 30kg = 66lbs stickforce. So if AH models with 60 lbs, the 30kg line is just about compatible, 6 lbs diffo won`t change much.

 

So is there a roll rate chart for the Bf 109F-G for AH to compare with

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang.  At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g.  Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use.  For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim.  This causes no excessive stick forces during the display.  Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Just need the original source now.

[VesseL]

What are the roll rates in AH?

 

You should read the first graph BTW, the thick line (ymax=15) shows the roll rate at 15degrees stick deflection in radians.

 

The other line Em=15 shows the roll rate at 15 degrees middle value aileron deflection. The Bf 109`s ailerons deflected assymetrically, upwards 22 deg 40', dowards 11 deg 20', middle value being about 16. Appearantly this line shows the max possible deflection, so going by the max aileron deflection values (until limited by stickforce), we get :

 

Max roll rate of Bf 109F-2, at 30kg/66lbs stickforce :

 

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)

300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)

400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)

480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit

500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)

600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value

700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)

800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

 

Considering the aircraft reaches it`s peak roll rate at rather high speed, the stories about the set in cement, ineffective ailerons are really reaching.

 

To conver radians to degree:

Take the radian reading, divide it by 6.28 (ie. 2phi), then multiply with 360 to get the degree/sec value.

 

 

 

This pretty well agrees with both anecdotal evidence and other measured data :

 

"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire.  A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf.   One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left.  Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."

 

-Dave Soutwood on flying Black 6 (Bf 109G-2/trop), 109 Lair

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

 

Ie.

4-4.5 sec for 360degree roll at 460kph = 80-90 degree/sec roll rate.

 

And also this doc states ~4.5sec for 360 degree roll at 450 kph, ie. ~80/sec :

 

 

The NNW-SSW lines show the stickforce limiting the available roll rate in kg. 20kg = 44lbs stickforce, 30kg = 66lbs stickforce. So if AH models with 60 lbs, the 30kg line is just about compatible, 6 lbs diffo won`t change much.

 

So is there a roll rate chart for the Bf 109F-G for AH to compare with

 

 I cant add anything, but the roll peak at 600kph is a surprise. How much kg´s  it would need at 600kph? 30kg? This all you posted goes above my understanding, but it seems to be important. Thanks!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Source Links are above. They aren't really sources, but they did contain the Originals once, which are now unfortunately lost, or at least no longer online. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I think they had Graphs for different Stick Pressures up to 30kg. The 20kg remark was probably about what was modelled in the Flight Model. According to the Charts full stick deflection was possible with less than 20kg up to 480kph, and up to 600kph could be maintained with less than 30kg. 

 

The F-2 has the weakest of the modern 109 series. 

The G-series added 2 Wing ribs per Wing, 1 at the Aileron Level, one at the Wheel, in a Stressed Skin Wing this adds torsional rigidity would have decreased control forces further. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Also: Eric Winkle Brown may not have been Perfect, and his word ain't Gospel. But in many ways he is a hero of mine. He was probably the best Test Pilot the World has ever seen, the last man to fly a Rocket Powered Me-163, the first to Carrier Land a Mosquito, he flew more types than most of us will ever. 

 

He is an Idol in that he could adapt to any plane, be flexible and not fall into nasty habits. This flexibility in thinking, a true open mindedness is what made him probably one of the best fliers the world has ever seen. 

He never liked the 109, he heavily disliked Willy Messerschmitt and he never warmed up to it. A pity really. 

[Venturi]

Could have been a reason for it.

[Dr_Molem]

 I cant add anything, but the roll peak at 600kph is a surprise.

 

Speed is TAS, and test was done at 3000m.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Yep, thanks for the Correction. 

[VesseL]

Speed is TAS, and test was done at 3000m.

 Thanks. Its about 500kph IAS?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Here is the Talk about him, and Erics stated opinion of Messerschmitt and his 109. Eric Brown detested Messerschmitt, didn't have a Second to spare on him, due to his Nazi affiliations.  

Edited November 10, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Holtzauge]

 Regarding Brown’s statement “the controls felt as though they had seized!” he has also said this:

 

“At one time, late in 1942, the Spitfire IX widened the performance gap so much that the Messerschmitt temporarily disappeared from the chart to be replace by the Fw 190A , but then came what was probably the most efficient and long lived Messerschmitt breed, the Bf 109G series”

 

Source: “Four of the finest” by Captain Eric Brown

 

So how does this tab with what really happened at the time? So the Friedrich was so bad it was withdrawn and had to be replaced with the 190A in 1942? Really?

 

I too respect Brown and have read a lot of good accounts from him but sometimes it’s good to verify things from multiple sources before jumping to conclusions based on a single quote.....

Edited November 10, 2017 by Holtzauge

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, it speaks to his intelligence. He made nuanced statements, taking both strengths and weaknesses into account in their historical context and according to his opinions.

He disliked Messerschmitts craze about lightness, his disregard for creature comfort and I think he felt that the 109 didn't win the place as Fighter Mainstay fairly. But because he is a respectable Character he was able acknowledge that the 109 was nonetheless a success.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

So how does this tab with what really happened at the time? So the Friedrich was so bad it was withdrawn and had to be replaced with the 190A in 1942? Really?

 

Eric Brown wrote down that statement in other books as well.

 

I think we are not really considering an aircraft in the same way as he would do back then. For us, these aircrafts are Sportgeräte, toys for sports. In this respect, the 109 is and remained a suitable item. The problem is when you are going to war, you have slightly different requirements.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Not really, the 109 was absolutely built for War. It was easy to maintain and repair without heavy machinery or special tools, ran well on low quality fuels and was of simple construction that was easy to Produce. It's degree of automation made it's engine easy to manage for novices and it's handling characteristics were not overly complicated.

A 190 on the other Hand ran on 100 and 150 Octane and the Wings and Fuselage could only be seperated by lifting the fuselage off the Wings by use of a Crane.

[ZachariasX]

Not really, the 109 was absolutely built for War. It was easy to maintain and repair without heavy machinery or special tools, ran well on low quality fuels and was of simple construction that was easy to Produce. It's degree of automation made it's engine easy to manage for novices and it's handling characteristics were not overly complicated.

A 190 on the other Hand ran on 100 and 150 Octane and the Wings and Fuselage could only be seperated by lifting the fuselage off the Wings by use of a Crane.

That it was. But the world 1944 was not the same anymore as 1939. That they could make plenty of it made it „alternativlos“, on the other hand it was an aircraft that could do only a small set of missions. Basically defending your airfield. Range is poor and if you put in those funny tuning devices, that goes at cost of a range that you‘re not having in the first place. Plus, it had a relatively low combat speed. What was enough to be an airsuperiority fighter in the beginning of the war, was good enough to hold your ground later on.

 

The Spitfire had a similar predicament, that was masked after Overlord, when 2TAF got plenty of airfields near the action. Beyond that point it missed the war, because Mustangs and Tempests had the range as well as the speed for CAP deep behind enemy lines. There were some 109 K, few in absolute numbers compared to flocks of Spit Mk.IX LF, this basically negating energy fight, while retaining the option to flee the scene (discretion was good reasons often preferred over heroism). The Spit also should have been phased out by 1944 and replaced with the MB5. But it was not meant to be.

 

If the Spit „was better“ than the 109, well, whatever. They are both types that should have been phased out by 1944 but were kept in service for almost similar reasons.

 

Note to self: This is about the elevator.

Edited November 11, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Holtzauge]

But I think you guys miss the point I was trying to make: One Brown quote above is not a 100% true is it? So maybe we should not take the other quote as gospel truth either? OTOH, Erwin Leykauf said he could outturn Spitfires in his Me-109 so by the same logic we can conclude then that the Me-109 is a much better turnfighter than the Spitfire!

[ZachariasX]

But I think you guys miss the point I was trying to make: One Brown quote above is not a 100% true is it? So maybe we should not take the other quote as gospel truth either? OTOH, Erwin Leykauf said he could outturn Spitfires in his Me-109 so by the same logic we can conclude then that the Me-109 is a much better turnfighter than the Spitfire!

At very low speed the 109 G outurns the Spitfire. This is no secret and was no secret then. However, at normal combat speeds, the Spit has a smaller circle than the 109 making it impossible for the 109 to stay with the Spit in a turn without bleeding his energy. It gets worse above 20000 ft where the Spit turns significantly better. No matter what mark of 109. This made it very unattractive for a 109 to take on a Spit. Plus, to quote Günther Rall , „the 109 couldn‘t follow the Spit in a climbing turn“. In the Interview I guess he referred to a Gustav vs a MK.IX LF. The K variant was not present in strong numbers compared to the Spit at that time and it was not flown as you would do it online. Fights in 1945 were mostly at low level and not the typical energy fight the Germans would force upon the Brits up to 1943. So while the K was a very competent aircraft, it surely didn‘t leave an impression as game changer, as such was reserved to other aircaft types.

 

So yes, the 109 definitely was one of the lesser real concerns for the allies in the last 2 years of the war.

 

Note to self: This is really about the elevator.

Edited November 11, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Holtzauge]

Seeing the results I'm sorry I brought up the analogy. The idea was to show the danger of relying on single quotes but I never anticipated it would result in this type of strawman, least of all from you Zacharias.

[ZachariasX]

Hm. Maybe it is. Sorry for that.

 

I retract the the last comments then and let me ask, is there an Experte who scored well flying the Kurfürst?

 

I am sking this because it would have been up to that type to redress the balance that Browns qoute thereads upon, as previous versions like the Friedrich did. As well as it sould adress limitations of the earlier type (such as this thread is about). If there were not many, it would just show that the disparity in piloting abilities were larger than any deficiencies of a certain plane type might be, leaving out operatioal limitations.

Edited November 11, 2017 by ZachariasX

[LukeFF]

 

 

I retract the the last comments then and let me ask, is there an Experte who scored well flying the Kurfürst? I am asking this because it would have been up to that type to redress the balance that Browns quote treads upon, as previous versions like the Friedrich did. As well as it should address limitations of the earlier type (such as this thread is about). If there were not many, it would just show that the disparity in piloting abilities were larger than any deficiencies of a certain plane type might be, leaving out operational limitations.

 

 

From my recollection, the K-4 did not really find any notable success, because - as you allude to - the state of pilot training and the qualitative and numerical superiority of the Allies by late 1944 was too much for the Luftwaffe to overcome. 

[ZachariasX]

From my recollection, the K-4 did not really find any notable success, because - as you allude to - the state of pilot training and the qualitative and numerical superiority of the Allies by late 1944 was too much for the Luftwaffe to overcome.

 

There are two sides to it. On one side, in the east, it supposedly an aircraft deemed to be sub par by Eric Brown, featuring some issues (as discussed in this thread) that still allowed some pilots to be tremendously successful with it. Yet in the east they didn‘t really ask for the K type. In the west, where the type was issued in numbers, but proficient pilots chose the Fw190D9 and D12, using that one sometimes with remarkable success.

 

For the better or the worse, it seems if you are used to a ride you can make a lot of use from it. I take Browns statement as a comment adressing a different issue than absolute capabilities in air combat. If you fly a lot of aircraft types, you get to appreciate certain handling qualities other than getting proficient in exploiting specific strenghts of a type.

 

Thus, I don‘t think Brown‘s statement is in direct contradiction of any proficient fighter holding his 109 in high regards.

Edited November 11, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Holtzauge]

 

Hm. Maybe it is. Sorry for that.

 

I retract the the last comments then and let me ask, is there an Experte who scored well flying the Kurfürst?

 

I am sking this because it would have been up to that type to redress the balance that Browns qoute thereads upon, as previous versions like the Friedrich did. As well as it sould adress limitations of the earlier type (such as this thread is about). If there were not many, it would just show that the disparity in piloting abilities were larger than any deficiencies of a certain plane type might be, leaving out operatioal limitations.

 

Brighten up Zaharias! There is no need to retract anything you said: I totally agree with your analysis of the Me-109's development. I remember that Adolph Galland himself said it was outdated by 1943 ( I interpret that as the referring to the G and later models, i.e. the K as as well) and should have been phased out gradually from that point but was kept in production to bolster production numbers.

[Kurfurst]

There are two sides to it. On one side, in the east, it supposedly an aircraft deemed to be sub par by Eric Brown, featuring some issues (as discussed in this thread) that still allowed some pilots to be tremendously successful with it. Yet in the east they didn‘t really ask for the K type. In the west, where the type was issued in numbers, but proficient pilots chose the Fw190D9 and D12, using that one sometimes with remarkable success.

 

The combat reports I have show Major Meimberg scoring 3 P-47s in 109K when he was attacked by several Thunderbolts on a return sortie from Strassburg in 1945 before being forced to belly land due to radiator damage. It happened but as you have noted, skilled pilots and tactical opportunities were rare.. 

 

The K-series had a high altitude engine just like the G-10 or the /AS versions. Its engine was meant for high altitude and thus for the Western Front and although it was OK for lower altitudes when MW was (seldom) used, it would be a waste for the Eastern front's characteristically low fighting altitudes at a time when high altitude performance was required at the Western Front and to escort aging Fw 190As. In fact, pilots I have read flying the similar G-10 on the Eastern front said its nice but a low-medium altitude G-14 would be preferable.

 

Pilot's do not choose their mounts, its the high command that sets production goals and which unit would be equipped with what. Consistency in equipment is also an issue, i.e. its usually not optimal to have different kinds of aircraft in a single unit due to logistics, tooling, spares and know how issues, or to switch pilots to another plane or type they have experience with. The Fw 190 was simply relegated to the Western Front because a) initially the type's air frame and engine was not mature and reliable enough to be posted on any real front, as engine failures would mean unnecessary losses over the sea, the desert or behind enemy lines.

 

Edited after having read Major Meimberg's report.

Edited November 12, 2017 by VO101Kurfurst

[ACG_KaiLae]

Back to my original question...do numbers exist anywhere where an estimation can be made of what the correct values are?

[ACG_Smokejumper]

You be surprised how stiff controls can get much before that speed. To paraphrase Eric Brown, at 240 mph the 109 is a joy to maneuver. From then on it starts to get harder to the point at 400 mph (at low altitude!) where you are significantly restricted in maneuvering the plane.

 

 

 

 

The posted video of a G4 is telling me different than what I see in game though. Looks nimble at lower speeds han what I see when I play.

 

Too bad we can't get a high speed dive and pull out but these are treasures now and can't be abused, I guess.

 

If I ever win big on the lottery perhaps I'll settle this for everyone lol.

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[ACG_Smokejumper]

There is a German aviation anecdote that said when a Focke Wulf crashed, Kurt Tank would find the parts that broke and made them stronger, when a Messerschmitt crashed Willi would find the parts that survived and make them lighter..

There are a number of instances where 109 tails failed when pushed beyond limits, this is not to try and say 109's are weak but that Messerschmitt 'ideology' was to make things as light as possible to do the job and not a bit more

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

They did, saving war materials and going to a wooden tail in the G got pilots killed until I assume a fix was made. Or was it the F they started using some wood and sheet steel?

Edited December 13, 2017 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[ACG_Smokejumper]

But I think you guys miss the point I was trying to make: One Brown quote above is not a 100% true is it? So maybe we should not take the other quote as gospel truth either? OTOH, Erwin Leykauf said he could outturn Spitfires in his Me-109 so by the same logic we can conclude then that the Me-109 is a much better turnfighter than the Spitfire!

 

Galland said so too. As far as I understand it that could only be done at high speed.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

sorry for late reply.

Yes g loading also Effects the stall speed of the wing directly (if a wing is rated with X wingloading a g increases that wingloading increase and stall speed also.

If a wing stalls under 1g at say 200kph then under 2g (wing now carrying twice as much weight it will stall at higher speed)
can't find the formula lol think it was pretty linear
Here is 1 old chart i found but cant find rest. 



So if the stall speed being say normally 200kph (clean config 109 @ 2,000m 75% fuel) then at
2G the stall speed would be about 325kph
4G the stall speed would be about 400kph (and this is where we get that buffeting shaking and Accelerated stall from)

also there is TAIL Stalls (the horizontal Stabilizer can also stall but due to the fact its often an inverted airfoil providing a downwards force on the tail keeping the nose heavy plane level (this is why some planes nose under or "Tuck" at high speeds as the tail goes too fast the airflow stalls and it looses ability to keep the nose up and nose goes even further into the dive.

Note: Just because i don't fly fighters in IL2 much, but that don't mean i'm entirely dumb :D

In my OPINION only i think that maybe the 109's tail is stalling in the high speed dive and airflow is braking away and the elevator tab is being taking out of the flow loosing authority. (if this is the case only way to pul out would be +100% Stab Trim )

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by =TBAS=Sshadow14

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I can't remember when I made aerodynamic stall , ah yes Fw190 before FM patch. In 109 I can black out for dozen second but I hardly can pull much G's because of stabilizer speed and elevator stiffness. I think that I can't do flick roll maneuver (kick rudder and pull elevator) at any speed.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

u never pulled the stick and had the plane spin or half rotate upside down ?

i think almost all planes in game but 88 n 111
flying at good speed pull stick into lap

for me 109,190,202,87,110 stall and roll over or buffet

Edited December 13, 2017 by =TBAS=Sshadow14

[VII.Racetrack]

Hi all, problably first post in the Forum..

 

What I can say is that, after a couple of dozen fo hundreds test (well i'm pretty sure) in this Sim the 109 F4 start to have the "blocked controls problem" (can I name it like this?) at 530 km/h.

So if you manage the plane well you can reach that speed flying in level...

 

This means that even the most slow attack dive would end in a Miss because of the impossibility of the plane to pitch up good to aim....

Indeed you can try as many times you want but you will never go in G-Loc with the 109.

 

This problem cause the plane not be very good in dive attack.

 

Now, in all others WWII sims that i Flew the 109 was always a very good dive-attack plane, shooting ad 600 km/h.

 

I don't know if it was realistic or not, my point is to say that here in BoS the 109 is not a good plane for dive-hit-regain energy.

 

If you fly a Lag (for example) you start having that problem at 600 km/h (maybe i'm wrong), this means that with the Lag or any other Russian plane (or the Macchi) you can do better dive-attack than the 109?

Mmm I don't think so...

 

Do anybody agree with this?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Hi all, problably first post in the Forum..

 

What I can say is that, after a couple of dozen fo hundreds test (well i'm pretty sure) in this Sim the 109 F4 start to have the "blocked controls problem" (can I name it like this?) at 530 km/h.

So if you manage the plane well you can reach that speed flying in level...

 

This means that even the most slow attack dive would end in a Miss because of the impossibility of the plane to pitch up good to aim....

Indeed you can try as many times you want but you will never go in G-Loc with the 109.

 

This problem cause the plane not be very good in dive attack.

 

Now, in all others WWII sims that i Flew the 109 was always a very good dive-attack plane, shooting ad 600 km/h.

 

I don't know if it was realistic or not, my point is to say that here in BoS the 109 is not a good plane for dive-hit-regain energy.

 

If you fly a Lag (for example) you start having that problem at 600 km/h (maybe i'm wrong), this means that with the Lag or any other Russian plane (or the Macchi) you can do better dive-attack than the 109?

Mmm I don't think so...

 

Do anybody agree with this?

Yes I can confirm that adjust pitch or yaw at speed mentioned above is almost impossible , to score hit in dive or even at Max level flight speed I must predict lead to match enemy break but if enemy do not break I can't adjust enough because of frozen controls and vice versa when I assume enemy will not break and I fly pure and he breaks . This situation is normal but margin to adjust even few inches in 109 is hardly believable to me at Max level flight speed or some dives. Just personal opinion.

[VII.Racetrack]

Yes I can confirm that adjust pitch or yaw at speed mentioned above is almost impossible , to score hit in dive or even at Max level flight speed I must predict lead to match enemy break but if enemy do not break I can't adjust enough because of frozen controls and vice versa when I assume enemy will not break and I fly pure and he breaks . This situation is normal but margin to adjust even few inches in 109 is hardly believable to me at Max level flight speed or some dives. Just personal opinion.

So you think that this is okay?

This means to me that the 109 here is better in turn fight but obviously it isn't.

So why should I fly the 109 if it is not good on Dive Attack nor in Turnfight XD?

[Solty]

So you think that this is okay?

This means to me that the 109 here is better in turn fight but obviously it isn't.

So why should I fly the 109 if it is not good on Dive Attack nor in Turnfight XD?

109 not good in a dive? You tried to follow the109 in a dive with LaGG or Yak or P40? After a few seconds the 109 is outside engagement range and especially G2 will leave you far behind.

 

Bad at turn fighting? E7 is one of the best turning planes in the game and F4 is still superior to most except yak1 at low alt and Spitfire.

 

109s are the easiest planes to fly and be good in as well as having least amount of system management.