Axis late war fighters

[Kurfurst]

https://books.google.hu/books?id=8OrH2Jg0UcoC&pg=PP46&lpg=PP46&dq=effect+of+reclined+seat+on+g+resistance&source=bl&ots=jMQLLBl9L6&sig=ACfU3U1I6tpyvu89gD3RBnby_144cdH_qw&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigvP7okYLlAhULqIsKHcXbBIE4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=effect of reclined seat on g resistance&f=false

 

Modern G suit is qouted to provide up to 1.6 G tolerance before GLOC

 

F/16 reclined seat design involves a 30 degree reclined seat, qouted to give appx. 1 G tolerance before GLOC

 

From USAF research it is shown that an extreme seat angle of 82 degrees allows to resist up to 15 Gs

 

Interestingly breathing in pure oxygen is believed to aid with G resistance, or perhaps with the time period of exposire, due exta oxygen stored in the cells. I understand pure oxygen was inhaled by respirators at high altitudes, at least that was the case with German breathing devices which gave pure oxygen from about 8000 meter (also it is reported that the breathing in of pure oxygen resulted in great exhaustion after flying).

Edited October 4, 2019 by VO101Kurfurst

[Talon_]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

It’s odd because at the moment the sim does model g force effect, it does model Allied G-suits, however for some inexplicable reason at the moment it does not model the added G resistance properties of the reclined seating position in all German fighters which did have similar effect - it allowed the pilot the resist G-loads better.

 

 

Thoroughly debunked here and here.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

8 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

 

Thoroughly debunked here.

 

Right, hence why modern jets still use a very similar seating position.  ? 

 

Actually the data posted there confirms what is already known, that reclined seat position improves G resistance, raised leg position itself appears to add about 0,4 G resistance.

 

 

[Talon_]

11 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

add about 0,4 G resistance.

 

Right... so you are looking for an increase from baseline G resistance over Spitfires and Tempests by half a G? How do you know that's not already implemented?

 

I'd also like to point out that the RAF Frank Mark I suit is not implemented. German aircraft should have the weakest G-tolerance overall due to the G-suits worn by both allied nations ?

Edited October 4, 2019 by Talon_

[EAF19_Marsh]

49 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

also it is reported that the breathing in of pure oxygen resulted in great exhaustion after flying).

 

It’s not good for you, depending on the pressure. In unpressurised cockpits it can do nasty things to your lungs in the longer term.

 

The lean back / feet up posture is beneficial to blood heading south under acceleration but probably not much more than being in good shape. That was the rationale for the high rudders in RAF fighters and the 109 reclined position, but the impact was probably marginal. One problem is that, the further your lie back, the greater difficulty in looking behind. One of those compromises.

[Talisman]

34 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

One problem is that, the further your lie back, the greater difficulty in looking behind. One of those compromises.

 

Good point.  An issue in real life, but not for the PC pilot in a home comfy chair and TIR modified angles.  Also, not even a problem in VR either, even in a chair with a laid back seating position exactly like the Bf 109, there is a workaround. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[EAF19_Marsh]

16 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Also, not even a problem in VR either, even in a chair with a laid back seating position exactly like the Bf 109, there is a workaround. 

 

I almost fell off my chair, once, while craning my neck around.

 

Mind you, it is a rubbish kitchen chair and I should really buy something more suitable.

[Talisman]

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I almost fell off my chair, once, while craning my neck around.

 

Mind you, it is a rubbish kitchen chair and I should really buy something more suitable.

At my age I must have a nice comfy chair that I can't fall off, in fact I should strap myself in just to be on the safe side, LOL.

[EAF19_Marsh]

2 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

At my age I must have a nice comfy chair that I can't fall off, in fact I should strap myself in just to be on the safe side, LOL.

 

I'd like one of those purpose-designed, speaker-integrated chairs.

 

But then I'm told that that we should prioritise  'the children' and 'rent' and 'food' etc... ?

Edited October 4, 2019 by EAF19_Marsh

[Blackhawk_FR]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Spitfires had two-position rudder pedals. With your feet on the upper footrests, you wouldn't be in the position shown in the illustration.

 

It wouldn't be a big deal for the G tolerance. 

 

For sure, it would be way more "confortable" (easier) to take G in a 109 than in a Spitfire (or any aircraft with similar position). But I just can't give numbers of how much it help to handle Gs.

 

 

EDIT: Didn't saw the tests and numbers given here.

Edited October 4, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Cybermat47]

As someone who mainly plays as the Luftwaffe, I have absolutely no problems with Allied aircraft being better. There’s a reason why the Luftwaffe’s fighter force never recovered from the day of Bodenplatte, and was in a pretty poor state before that.

 

Besides, wether you’re doggedly attacking Hitlerite trucks in your hole-filled IL-2, or just trying to survive until the end of the war in a Bf-109, playing as the underdog can be pretty fun.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

It wouldn't be a big deal for the G tolerance. 

 

For sure, it would be way more "confortable" (easier) to take G in a 109 than in a Spitfire (or any aircraft with similar position). But I just can't give numbers of how much it help to handle Gs.

 

The 2 approaches would have almost the same effect - which would be marginal in the extreme.

[Ribbon]

Devs please give Spit mk.XIV to the axis ?

[blitze]

I dunno about the inferiority of mid war VVS aircraft.  I enjoy taking them up against QMB Western Allied Aircraft. 

 

The Yak 1b and 7 and the La5 FN would be on par with the Spit IX and P51 without the 150 Octane fuel.

 

We will be getting later war VVS variants down the track and again that will be fun banging heads with all of their peer aircraft from any nation.  Then again I have enjoyed the P40, P39 and even the Spit V up against their German counterparts.  Finding the Spit V quite effective against G2 and G4's now I know how to manage her.

 

Still very fond of my La5 and now getting to learn the ins and outs of the Yaks, their engine cooling systems are the key to them.  Similar to the P39 which is probably why the VVS pilots adapted well to them.

 

All planes are fun even E7s and I16's and don't scoff the Ju88's defensive armament, I took out 2 fighters last night online in one.  Mig 3 and a Spit IX.  Not as lethal as a Pe 2 but  still capable.

[MooseintheNorth]

21 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

That's because of that thingy they have called the Pe2. Legendary in speed, agility, armor, defenses. The Blues? A huge slow 111 that's got laughable defense and the 88 which is just as weak, but faster. You can see why reds love their bombers.

Dont forget the A-20

[Mac_Messer]

4 hours ago, blitze said:

I dunno about the inferiority of mid war VVS aircraft.  I enjoy taking them up against QMB Western Allied Aircraft. 

 

The Yak 1b and 7 and the La5 FN would be on par with the Spit IX and P51 without the 150 Octane fuel.

Since Kuban VVS planeset is on par with LW below 4000m, while still retaining the turning advantage they`ve had from `41.

[Sublime]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:12 PM, QB.Creep said:

Yeah dude, I was prepared to fly that bird no matter what because I have always been fascinated with Kelly Johnson’s designs. I am thrilled at how well it performs in the sim. It is a dream to fly! 

You summed up exactly how I feel.

Ill also add the P51 handles *really* well and Im totally eating my hat on my prediction the US fighters would be nerfed (happily btw)

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

4 hours ago, blitze said:

The Yak 1b and 7 and the La5 FN would be on par with the Spit IX and P51 without the 150 Octane fuel.

 

Not really... the Spit LF Mk IX has the speed, turn and climb advantage over the mid war Yaks at all altitudes. Even the FN is more or less tied with the Spit LF Mk IX speed at mid altitudes. And the P-51 is in another league completely in speed.

[Sublime]

57 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

Since Kuban VVS planeset is on par with LW below 4000m, while still retaining the turning advantage they`ve had from `41.

Ive wanted someone to create a mission (or even campaign..) With west vs VVS hypothetical ww3 1945.

Or if it was a single mission maybe model one of the several dogfights that actually happened between the VVS and USAAF P51s several times.  I dont remember what the Russians were flying though (i.e. if its yak3 or 9 we.re s.o.l.)

However like you said in QMBs the Yak1b, 7 and La5FN are fairly dangerous.  As much as Im ever really going to see with an AI opponent unfortunately- that said I did notice flying against VVS planes was actually harder than Luftwaffe sometimes (however this was totally anecdotal and also heavily based on feeling from my previous few qmbs that had me fighting Fw190A8s and 109G14s..

Still honestly I have no idea what anyones complaining about.  The 190D is still very lethal and just as capable as any of the newly released planes IMO. I dont like the 109K as much but I admit its dangerous af in good hands

 

Edit: etendard having read your reply Id like to point out that the data and how fights go are two different things. Its not only the enemy aircraft and your ac but is the enemy ai? Are you a good pilot? What if you suck at boom n zoom like me but otherwise youre decent? And so on.  I agree its a bit of a stretch to say the 43 VVS are *every bit* the equal of the planes in discussion - then again the planes discussed are a year or 2 newer.  Yak 3s would do really well, otherwise it just is reality and didnt matter for the VVS. Their planes did what they wantwd and especially at the regular fighting altitudes of the eastfront.

 

Just my dumb opinions

Edited October 4, 2019 by Sublime

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

9 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Right, hence why modern jets still use a very similar seating position.  ? 

 

By that you mean one in the form of the F-16?

The other aircraft with the ACES II like the F-15 have their seat angled at half as much. The main reason for this was for the F-16 to be able to be flown by tall (6ft + ) pilots, where if the seat was at its standard angle of ~15 degrees this was not possible.

[=Elite=BlitzPuppet]

On 10/3/2019 at 9:46 AM, QB.Creep said:

 

Could not agree more. I saw a guy lose his goddamn mind a night or so ago in CombatBox - "f*#& this" and "F!*@ THAT" and "F)(@! YOU BECAUSE I GOT SHOT WITH .50 CALS FROM A P-51!!!!!111eleven"

 

I was smiling ear to ear.

I think I know who you're talking about, lol.  And to be fair, if it is the same person, he's having the same problem as me as not being able to hear himself getting shot at.

 

The ragequitting is always funny though.

[Krisu]

On 10/3/2019 at 11:18 AM, Finkeren said:

 

oppression Olympics ENGAGE 

 

bringing SJW vibes to a server near you 

On 10/3/2019 at 1:27 PM, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Really?  A bunch of guys fly nothing but German for years.  It doesn’t matter how stacked the sides are, they fly German.  Not because they have a big advantage, they say, but, you know, reasons.  Now that we have some parity in fighter aircraft they suddenly disappear.  Or change their profile names.  Either way, it’s pretty funny.

 

Dude I legit feel like some sort of communally induced GUILT for choosing an F4 if I go online... (maybe less now although I do feel obliged to try and get good at the allied side or flying all together really). Honestly Germans are pretty noob friendly, they are the most stable gun platforms for me it's easiest to hit stuff in them even if .50 do reach out far they need more finesse to concentrate shots, same with Russian aircraft firing on these really thin german airframes, plus you never worry about managing an engine. Maybe it's just the insecurity of having to learn something new that holds them back, who knows ... -_-

[CountZero]

On 10/3/2019 at 4:15 PM, danielprates said:

In my perception the Dora is better than all the new allied planes!

Heretic, Tempest all the way to blackout and ground ?

[Krisu]

9 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

It wouldn't be a big deal for the G tolerance. 

 

For sure, it would be way more "confortable" (easier) to take G in a 109 than in a Spitfire (or any aircraft with similar position). But I just can't give numbers of how much it help to handle Gs.

 

 

EDIT: Didn't saw the tests and numbers given here.

 

I felt it was easier not to pass out in a F4 than a Yak or spit. There is also a significant delay from the motion that causes you to pass out to what you actually see on screen as well (in terms of it getting darker/losing color). Basically if it's a sharp motion on the stick near the G-loc range then it's a just as sharp + delayed passing out, pretty cool stuff. It's possible even that you stay passed out for longer depending on how brutal the maneuver was, or how many times you passed out just before. Really cool if that's the case 

[danielprates]

53 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

Heretic, Tempest all the way to blackout and ground ?

 

After this new physical endurance system, all fighters became equally deadly! .... for their own pilots.

[Krisu]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:53 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

On the SP front it should be interesting.  The Axis will have to soldier on with 109 Gs and 190 As for a chunk of 1944 until the 109 Ks and 190 Ds start coming on line.  

 

Is it really "soldiering on" with a G-14 ... 

[CIA_Yankee_]

15 minutes ago, Krisu said:

 

Is it really "soldiering on" with a G-14 ... 

 

Isn't the G14 essentially a K4 with the potential for a 20mm cannon and no MW50 gauge? Or are there more tangible performance improvements in the K4?

[Voidhunger]

1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Isn't the G14 essentially a K4 with the potential for a 20mm cannon and no MW50 gauge? Or are there more tangible performance improvements in the K4?

 

yep, more tangible performance improvements

[CIA_Yankee_]

19 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

 

yep, more tangible performance improvements

 

Such as? Genuinely curious why it would be said to be equivalent, to be honest.

 

I guess the DC engine is an obvious difference, mind you... but what if you don't count it?

Edited October 4, 2019 by 71st_AH_Yankee_

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

32 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Isn't the G14 essentially a K4 with the potential for a 20mm cannon and no MW50 gauge? Or are there more tangible performance improvements in the K4?

The K-4 is much more aerodynamic, and it's engine is much better at high altitudes (while barely sacrificing low alt performance) so it is a much faster plane overall.

 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

Yooo, the K4 can pull a 30 meter/second climb rate in combat mode for like 3 minutes straight under 5k. No other plane can do that that I've seen; not even the 262. 

[PikAss]

1 minute ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Yooo, the K4 can pull a 30 meter/second climb rate in combat mode for like 3 minutes straight under 5k. No other plane can do that that I've seen; not even the 262. 

 

The best climbrate ingame has the Spitfire IX with 150 Octane. It beats the K4 in that all day Long. Or you are relating to the Spit IX already and i am just too stupid to see the sarcasm.

[EAF19_Marsh]

6 hours ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

 

The best climbrate ingame has the Spitfire IX with 150 Octane. It beats the K4 in that all day Long. Or you are relating to the Spit IX already and i am just too stupid to see the sarcasm.

 

Is that so? I always though the K-4 with anti-matter boost climbed faster. They are about the same weight, with Spit having a lot more wing and the 109 more power.

[Talon_]

24 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Is that so? I always though the K-4 with anti-matter boost climbed faster. They are about the same weight, with Spit having a lot more wing and the 109 more power.

 

The Spitfire is only just behind on +18lbs, and on the hot sauce just occupies another dimension in space and time compared to everyone else:

 

 

[Kurfurst]

It’s pretty amazing that while the real life Spitfire’s climb rate on + 25 lbs fell rapidly off after ca. 11000 feet, or about 3300 meter altitude (because the Merlin 66 supercharger just could not maintain the boost anymore), our Spit not only does not start to fall off but even increases up to twice that altitude, or up to about 6000 meters.

[DD_Arthur]

On 10/4/2019 at 12:25 AM, LukeFF said:

 

I like Clostermann's book as much as anyone else, but that's a serious stretch right there. There is no way in the world that the Allied supply lines were being interdicted by 262s to anywhere near the level of it becoming a problem. 

 

At this time the allies did have a general problem with supply but this was more to do with the failure to capture both sides of the Scheldt estuary and thus being unable to use Antwerp as a port until the end of November '44.

Also,  as far as Clostermann is concerned,  the workers at the Hawker factory producing the Tempest went on strike and production of the aircraft was seriously hampered for several weeks. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

17 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

At this time the allies did have a general problem with supply but this was more to do with the failure to capture both sides of the Scheldt estuary and thus being unable to use Antwerp as a port until the end of November '44.

Also,  as far as Clostermann is concerned,  the workers at the Hawker factory producing the Tempest went on strike and production of the aircraft was seriously hampered for several weeks. 

 

Clostermann and reality intersect, but that is often coincidence.

27 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

t’s pretty amazing that while the real life Spitfire’s climb rate on + 25 lbs fell rapidly off after ca. 11000 feet, or about 3300 meter altitude (because the Merlin 66 supercharger just could not maintain the boost anymore

 

*sigh*

 

All engines lose pressure with altitude, this is a physics issue and not one confined to the Merlin. Indeed, both the Spit and P-51 famously retain quite a lot of power at altitude thanks to their 66 series, but this depends crucially on specific gearing, rations and optimised FTA. Some engines work better under certain conditions, some under others. This is a design decision. The 70 was the high altitude engine, the 66 the medium and cropped 66 LF the lower. We have the latter IIRC, but performance should start to fall off because  it was optimised for low level and hence had a high-pressure compressor. This was not a design flaw, this was a design decision.

 

Chill out and give a rest to the chip on your shoulder.

[Kurfurst]

Nobody said its a design flaw and if you can't wrap your head around that, then it's your issue. The Merlin 66 was a low-medium altitude tuned engine, and that's okay. BTW it did not have a cropped blower, that's the Merlin 4xM series.

 

However the issue is that currently it has about twice the full throttle altitude at +25 lbs compared to its real life counterpart, leading to massively inflated climb rates at far higher altitudes than it should possess.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Yes, apologies, that was a typo for 61 vs 66 However, the IX and the P-51 achieve max speed at 20,000-odd feet: the 66 was never intended for simply low-altitude flight and performed capably up to medium-high altitudes: better, if you believe 190 pilots, than the 801.

 

So your suggestion that the 66 could not maintain boost is not correct. It could maintain about up to 20k-plus, however the higher-boost worked best at a lower altitude which is about 15,000ft. That does not mean that the engine did not perform well higher than this altitude, just that optimal performance was 15 - 20k.

[Kurfurst]

The Merlin 66 could maintain +18 lbs at to about 20-22k feet in fast flight; depending on the particular test plane (FTH varies between individual planes); and to somewhat lower altitudes when in climb (16k iirc) since the airspeed is low and the supercharger is not aided by air pressure from moving through the air fast.

 

However, +25 be maintained to considerably lower pressures only (obviously +18 was maintained to the same altitude as before). It’s obvious because the supercharger was already running at maximum capacity to give +18 lbs pressure; it cannot just conjure out an additional +7 from nowhere, unless the altitude is lowered enough that the supercharger still has that surplus, that would be otherwise throttled down to +18.

 

The FTH is simply far lower for +25 than it is for +18.

 

The real life data clearly indicates that the Merlin 66 in climb conditions could not maintain +25 lbs for more than about 500 (!) feet altitude in MS gear, and about 11500 or so feet in FS (full supercharger speed). It simply cannot give +25 anywhere above that, so boost and power and therefore climb levels begin to decrease if you go higher. 

 

The observed issue on the in-game test graph is that it does not seem to work like this. At around 3-3500 meters, the boost should start to decrease and so should climb rate, because power is decreasing. In contrast it seems FS gear just kicks in the game and power and climb is even increasing, all the way up to 6000.