Jump to content
Panzer-Red

The BF 109 G6 ( Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio ) at  15% fuel vs 109 F4, G2 and G4 at 100 fuel  ( Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio ). (Gross Weight) FM

Recommended Posts

Sorry for my bad english.

 

The BF 109 G6 ( Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio ) at  15% fuel  

Is better or equal  than   109 F4, G2 and G4 at 100 fuel  ( Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio ).

 

But the flight model of 109 G6 always feels very uncomfortable,  Roll rate , Turning rate , and  Acceleration. vs others 109s

I can understand a difference by fails or lack of aerodynamic adjustment of G6 vs 109 F4, G2, G4.  ( Ok i don't expect the same performance  at FM )

 

But really the G6 feels like a brick ( A BRICK )vs others 109, at the same conditions Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio . 

 

I guees the difference in the flight model should not be so big and uncomfortable.

 

Regards 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this not a noted criticism of pilots at the time that flew these aircraft? Wasn't the Bf-109G series in general known for getting increasingly sluggish and less enjoyable to fly versus the earlier models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Was this not a noted criticism of pilots at the time that flew these aircraft? Wasn't the Bf-109G series in general known for getting increasingly sluggish and less enjoyable to fly versus the earlier models?

Yes , but the difference is huge in the FM.

I would like to see some WWII  charts that show that 109 is a brick at 500 kms / hour


Especially if the G6 with low fuel achieves better ratios weight /power and weight wing load  Than G2 , G4 or  Even  even equal to F4.

 

If the G6 fly with 100 kg of fuel the weight /power  ratio and weight wing load ratio is better than a G2, G4  full fuel load.

Even  even equal to F4  ( or very close ratios ),

 

But the FM of G6 it feels like a brick , the difference  worse flight model of G6  feels too big, badly crazy  . ( For example the A20 FM feels much better )

 

G2 

Standard weight: 2994 kg

Fuel load: 304 kg 

Model: DB-605A

Maximum power in Combat mode at sea level: 1310 HP

 

G6

Standard weight: 3100 kg

Fuel load: 304 kg

Maximum power in Emergency mode at sea level: 1480 HP

 

GL HF !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, G6 is fine. One of my favorites options. I don't feel it bricky. Off course it's heavy, and on low altitude on combat power you are slower than F4 G2 and G4 for obvius reasons. But, if you were capable of use more than 1 minute the 100% of throttle you won't feel anything weird. 

 

Off course, is timer thing, not plane or bad FM thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about olegs IL2 or the BoX series 😄 Because i really can't agree there. G6 FM feels just fine for me in BoX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flight online red side and blue side .

The Flight model of the  A20 full  bombs load,   FEELS Better than 109 G6 Flight model   at 20 %  fuel

I have all planes exept U2 a ju52 .

 

My flight hours in the old il2 1946 no mods + mods packs or clod will be more than 12000 hours

A few days ago... I bought the G6  ( BoX ).

 

And it is the only plane that brought me to complain/talk  in the forum about FM,

 

I was touch the 109 G6 and instantly told myself WTF ? the Flight Model,  WTF! a low fuel load ?

 

My hands have been in a joystick 26 to 30 years in a row.

The last nine months I flew online BOX between 500 to 700 hours. 

 

The next 8 months I will be flying mainly red planes especially the P38, an I will don't care abut the 109 G6 any more. 

 

But I wanted to say what I think, the true.

The A20 at fly  feels with better Flight Model than a 109 g6 ,

 

Something is very VERY wrong with FM 109 G6, taking into account ( Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio )  Vs 109 F4, G2 and G4.

I Can FEEL it , I do not have doubts. .

 

Best Regards

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

The lucky unicorn tells me to ask for a my money after buy the G6🦄

 

 

 

 

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lucky unicorn should better tell you, to maybe try flying the "G6" not being high as hell and having your hands in a stick... 

 

#SayNoToDrugs!

Edited by Jizzo
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [LAS]URU-Panzer said:

I flight online red side and blue side .

The Flight model of the  A20 full  bombs load,   FEELS Better than 109 G6 Flight model   at 20 %  fuel

I have all planes exept U2 a ju52 .

 

My flight hours in the old il2 1946 no mods + mods packs or clod will be more than 12000 hours

A few days ago... I bought the G6  ( BoX ).

 

And it is the only plane that brought me to complain/talk  in the forum about FM,

 

I was touch the 109 G6 and instantly told myself WTF ? the Flight Model,  WTF! a low fuel load ?

 

My hands have been in a joystick 26 to 30 years in a row.

The last nine months I flew online BOX between 500 to 700 hours. 

 

The next 8 months I will be flying mainly red planes especially the P38, an I will don't care abut the 109 G6 any more. 

 

But I wanted to say what I think, the true.

The A20 at fly  feels with better Flight Model than a 109 g6 ,

 

Something is very VERY wrong with FM 109 G6, taking into account ( Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio )  Vs 109 F4, G2 and G4.

I Can FEEL it , I do not have doubts. .

 

Best Regards

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The lucky unicorn tells me to ask for a my money after buy the G6🦄

 

 

 

 

Could you maybe feel your way to telling us what exactly is wrong with the G-6? Do you have a track, or a recording, or anything that you can submit to the developers to prove there is something wrong?

Comparing to how other planes 'feel' won't get you anywhere. You need to produce some results, and then prove that those results are wrong with actual proof. You can't develop flight models based on subjective feeling. Plenty of other people in this thread are saying the G-6 feels fine. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [LAS]URU-Panzer said:

We all know that.

If you want  something to be changed at any game in all the games markets , you will need 100 people with torches burning the forums,.at any game ,.

Becouse añy change =  money.

 

Engineers can tell to the pilot  what they want ( Like the plane is OK , ) ,

But  I think the pilot and many hours of flights at the end  tell  to the engineers about if something is wrong with the plane.

 

I take in my hands the joystick and I can feel  in my hands the Flight Model  of A20 full load of Bombs, ,  and the  FM is very enjoyable, i don't need any proof of that.

As clear as that  about  the A20 FM  , the G6 flight model is wrong  ( is the  Brick of the game ,  even with bether ratios than other planes  Power/Weight ratio - Weight/Wing area ratio  ) .

 

I don't have time to buy torches for something that is so obvious .

 

Best regards 

🛒

 

PD: About the 109 g6  I want a refound  to buy some torches  🙈

 

 

 

 

 

What, exactly, do you want fixed? Climb rate? speed? Roll rate? Turn rate? by what amounts? What makes you think these are wrong, other than comparing it to the A20? What, exactly is wrong here?

Engineers can't fix a feeling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Could you maybe feel your way to telling us what exactly is wrong with the G-6? Do you have a track, or a recording, or anything that you can submit to the developers to prove there is something wrong?

Comparing to how other planes 'feel' won't get you anywhere. You need to produce some results, and then prove that those results are wrong with actual proof. You can't develop flight models based on subjective feeling. Plenty of other people in this thread are saying the G-6 feels fine. 

If you ask me ...

What exactly is good with the A 20 FM ? , What exactly is  enjoyable fly the A20 FM  ? .What makes the a20 flight model perfect?

Why do I love the flight model of A 20?

 

If you ask ..

Is the climb rate of the A 20 ?

-Not

Is the rol rate of the A 20 ?

-Not 

Is the acceleration of the A20 ?

-Not

I the Power/Weight ratio of the A20 ?

-Not

Is the Weight/Wing area ratio of ther A20 ?

-Not

I dont need send a track or produce the same results, I CAN tell you  the A 20 have a Good and Nice Flight Model , I Can feel the FM  !.

 

If you ask me ... what exactly is wrong with the G-6?

I Can feel the G6  FM  ! 

 

GL HF ! 

 

 

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

What, exactly, do you want fixed? Climb rate? speed? Roll rate? Turn rate? by what amounts? What makes you think these are wrong, other than comparing it to the A20? What, exactly is wrong here?

Engineers can't fix a feeling. 

 

The next 8 months I will be flying mainly red planes especially the P38 70% of the time , the P51 20% of the time and the tempest 10% of the time.

And  I will don't care abut the 109 G6 any more. 

 

I just wanted to say what I Must  Say. 

 

I just hope that the P38  FM , will be based on the flight model of the  A 20. 

 

🤘

PD : At the end  ....WWII Test pilots say they feelings and impressions about the planes to the engineers.

 

 

 

 

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, [LAS]URU-Panzer said:

I dont need send a track or produce the same results, I CAN tell you   the A 20 have a good and nice Flight Model , I Can feel the FM  !.

 

If you ask me ... what exactly is wrong with the G-6?

I Can feel the FM ! 

Can't get that picture out of my head.

 

You, in the A 20.

 

Overtaking Luke Skywalker's X-Wing in the "Death Star Trench-Run", 

 

blowing the damn thing up with just some well placed 50 cal hits, going...

 

#I Can Feel The FM!

 

:pilot:

Edited by Jizzo
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jizzo said:

Can't get that picture out of my head.

 

You, in the A 20.

 

Overtaking Luke Skywalker's X-Wing in the "Death Star Trench-Run", 

 

blowing the damn thing up with just some well placed 50 cal hits, going...

 

#I Can Feel The FM!

 

:pilot:

 

I speak seriously I am not kidding .

 

I know it's a battle that I can't win and that doesn't goes to anywhere.

 

I just think that

 

Alpha and Beta testers didn't have the courage to say , that had to be said a the right moment and the right place . I guess ....

 

I still enjoy fly and have fun online, that's why I'm grateful to the development team.

But about the FM of G6 ...

Well Fuc* th** sh** .

 

 

 

I leave  my own thread.

 

Best regards

🍌

 

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested the G-6 compared to the G-4 and G-2 in acceleration and climb, all with the same weight configuration (2900 Kg) by changing the fuel levels, and the same 1.3 ata power.

To throw some hard numbers
 

G-2 276 liters of fuel 2900 Kg
Acceleration at 1.3 ata, time taken to go from 300 to 450 km / h: 25.03 s

G-4 250 liters of fuel 2900 Kg
Acceleration at 1.3 ata, time taken to go from 300 to 450 km / h: 26.00 s

G-6 137 liters fuel 2900 Kg
Acceleration at 1.3 ata, time taken to go from 300 to 450 km / h: 27.80 s


G-2 276 liters of fuel 2900 Kg 1.3 ata, time to climb to 5000 meters: 4 min 19 s  

G-4 250 liters of fuel 2900 Kg 1.3 ata, time to climb to 5000 meters: 4 min 20 s

G-6 137 liters fuel 2900 Kg 1.3 ata, time to climb to 5000 meters: 4 min 26 s

They are rather similar when the weight is normalized, there are some small differences but I guess those can be attributed to the increased drag. I don't know the math to determine if the drag effect in climb and acceleration is accurate or not.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never speak about the G6   acceletion ratios  or climb rate .

 

Maybe .. you are not even able to understand what I am talking about.

But it is interesting to see yours tests. Thanks for your work. ! 

 

I give you my lucky unicorn 🦄

And One Apple 🍎

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk about acceleration, weight/wing area ratio, power to weight ratio, etc in your first post and title. Those parameters are important in acceleration and climb rate. If there were some big discrepancies they would translate to those numbers. I don't do turning tests because I can't do it well enough. JtD can do it, would be interesting to see how the G-6, G-4 and G-2 compare in turn times with the same weight and power.

About "brick feelings" there isn't much more to it... you could be absolutely right, yet without concrete evidence finding out what's wrong exactly and how it could be corrected there aren't many chances of getting things to change.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, [LAS]URU-Panzer said:

I speak seriously I am not kidding .

 

I know it's a battle that I can't win and that doesn't goes to anywhere.

 

I just think that

 

Alpha and Beta testers didn't have the courage to say , that had to be said a the right moment and the right place . I guess ....

 

I still enjoy fly and have fun online, that's why I'm grateful to the development team.

But about the FM of G6 ...

Well Fuc* th** sh** .

 

 

 

I leave  my own thread.

 

Best regards

🍌

As long as you don't back up any of your "intense FM feels" with a fact or actual test, like other folks already did here.

 

I think pretty much no one even cares about the funky stuff you pull out of your nose, nor the insults toward the testers.

 

I just hope you will not start telling us, how you feel about the "Banana FM" next.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jizzo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jizzo and SuperEtendard.

 

Alpha and Beta testers didn't have the courage to say , that had to be said a the right moment and the right place .  I guess ....

 

One day the truth will be clear even if nobody believes it , also for the g6 flight model .

 

I will take my A 20 into Death Star Trench-Run .  👇

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Better  leave  my own thread. ⚠️

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....   how does the plane "feel" at 500kph with the throttle at 0%?   Power-to-weight ratio doesn't really mean anything if it's an aerodynamics vs. weight issue.  

 

It's always been my impression that as more weight and "chunkiness" was added to the base frame of the 109, turning performance was reduced.  Sure, power could add to straight line speed but, trying to use more motor power to pull the plane through the turn can result in said motor essentially resisting the turn.  That said, if the weight of the plane is on the verge of causing wing/control surface loading to become unacceptable and more engine power is needed to sustain the turn, then the plane will feel like a brick.   

 

It seems to me that boom and zoom was always the strong point of the 109 and turn and burn knife fighting becomes increasingly a bad idea as the model iterations progress. 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

So....   how does the plane "feel" at 500kph with the throttle at 0%?   Power-to-weight ratio doesn't really mean anything if it's an aerodynamics vs. weight issue.  

 

It's always been my impression that as more weight and "chunkiness" was added to the base frame of the 109, turning performance was reduced.  Sure, power could add to straight line speed but, trying to use more motor power to pull the plane through the turn can result in said motor essentially resisting the turn. 

This is an very acceptable explanation., my respects Friend ! 🦄

0.3 wing profile added ,

 

Its Close enough to close my mouth, But.

 

Supermarine Spitfire Mk.VB

Standard weight: 2979 kg

Maximum power in Take-off mode  at sea level: 1100 HP

Fuel load: 274 kg

 

Spitfire Mk.IXe

Standard weight: 3359 kg

Maximum power in Take-off mode at sea level: 1320 HP

Fuel load: 274 kg

 

Take note about it , The turn rates or roll ratio.

 

Which plane turns  better.... a lot better...

 

The punishment is too big for the g6 at FM .

 

The punishment of g6 is based on 2  pilots  stories. 

 

 As if took in account  Pierre Clostermann  ... and his book The Big Show ... Clostermann  flying  the Tempest at 810 kilometers hour at Deck 

The mathematics does not close the result.

 

🦕 The olegg's old dinosaur heritage ruls the game/sim  even today . 

I have seen very few different things at the The olegg's rules.

 Except for  Bf 110 G2 .

Well some day....

Laminar Flow Airfoil will be the matter at dogfight.

Spoiler

 


 

 

Edited by [LAS]URU-Panzer
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the unicorn!  I was going to just ask but, I'm glad I could earn it!  😀

 

I don't know but do both Spitfires use the same dimensions for the wing design?  It is possible that the mk. IX, while the heavier plane, might have lower wing loading.

 

Also IIRC the G6 didn't have a retractable tail wheel because the retracting mechanism couldn't handle the force of landing due to the extra weight.  You'd be surprised how much drag that can create.  It's actually worse if the tail wheel can't be locked and is flapping in the wind.  That shouldn't be a problem for the G6 though.

Edited by =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

You talk about acceleration, weight/wing area ratio, power to weight ratio, etc in your first post and title. Those parameters are important in acceleration and climb rate. If there were some big discrepancies they would translate to those numbers. I don't do turning tests because I can't do it well enough. JtD can do it, would be interesting to see how the G-6, G-4 and G-2 compare in turn times with the same weight and power.

 

According to my performance testing, including turning, there's nothing wrong with the G-6 in relation to the F-4, G-2 or G-4. Or in relation to real world data.

 

The F-2 is porked in some ways, the E-7 overperforms in some ways. The G-14 has/had MW50 injection modelled wrong. That's where I'd start if I were to tune 109 FM's. F-4 to G-6 would be way down on my list.

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 3:50 AM, JtD said:

 

The G-14 has/had MW50 injection modelled wrong.

An the K4 Has/had MW50 injection modelled ok ? 

About the work of MW / 50 system pressure gauge ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I noticed that the stall behavior is a little different from Eric Brown's numbers he gave in the book

"Famous Aircraft of the Luftwaffe" (Motorbuchverlag).

Specifically, he writes on the G6:

 

"The stall occured with half the fuel, without external  weights and idle power at 168 km/h,

along with heavy shaking of the tail. The slats came out 30 km/h before that. The control

via the aileron became harder due to the asymmetric activation of the slats. The stall itself

was pretty harmless, the nose and left wing dropped simultaneously by 10°. In landing config

that stall occured at 160 km/h, but without the heavy shaking of the tail."

 

The stall with full fuel on the G6 is now about 20 km/h lower than the numbers given, there is

also no left tendency on the stall.

 

Besides giving that information which may be valueable to the developers, I wonder if

there is a way to adapt the flightmodel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2019 at 1:39 AM, frumpy737 said:

Hi there,

 

I noticed that the stall behavior is a little different from Eric Brown's numbers he gave in the book

"Famous Aircraft of the Luftwaffe" (Motorbuchverlag).

Specifically, he writes on the G6:

 

"The stall occured with half the fuel, without external  weights and idle power at 168 km/h,

along with heavy shaking of the tail. The slats came out 30 km/h before that. The control

via the aileron became harder due to the asymmetric activation of the slats. The stall itself

was pretty harmless, the nose and left wing dropped simultaneously by 10°. In landing config

that stall occured at 160 km/h, but without the heavy shaking of the tail."

 

The stall with full fuel on the G6 is now about 20 km/h lower than the numbers given, there is

also no left tendency on the stall.

 

Besides giving that information which may be valueable to the developers, I wonder if

there is a way to adapt the flightmodel?

 

 

The official stall numbers for the G-6 (Tech specs page) are between 177 kph at maximum weight and 160 kph at minimum operational weight, so 168 for a weight in between those limits is reasonable. These were done with a "robot" according to the developers, to be consistent.  The game stall speeds are also consistent with the wing behaving in the same way as for other 109 models with a CLmax of about 1.39

 

You have to be very careful when trying to measure the stall yourself: technically the stall speed is exactly at the moment that the plane is unable to maintain altitude: not when you notice a sharp drop. People tend to underestimate it because they do not notice that they have already dropped a few meters of height.

 

The developers are likely to have this data already and much more besides, so you should not expect any changes.  They do not get everything right first time but you need a very high standard of proof before they will admit error. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi unreasonable,

 

thanks for your answer. I think the comparison is not really fair, even if Brown is a very good pilot,

he does not fly like a robot.

It's not easy to say when the altitude loss occurs, since there is no v/s indicator in the G6. I wonder

if there is any way to display AOA or v/s? I'll recheck on the numbers and in case I've got anything significant to tell, I'll report.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...