Jump to content

About the ubermodeled Bf-110 G2


Recommended Posts

It must have been a good pilot in the 110G2, who knows how to "fly coordinated" (Google this).

An inferior plane can outfly a superior plane, if its pilot knows to "keep the ball in the middle". If you're not happy about this, there is always WarThunder, flight sims are not everyone's cup-of-tea. With equal pilots the 110G2 is not a "ridiculous" plane, unless I missed something and there is some flaps exploit or something dodgy like that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =ABr=422nd_RedSkull said:

When will the developers be doing a realistic FM for 110G2? Because it's ridiculous, climb like a 262 and turn like a Zero, when in real life it was little more than a sitting duck.

Hey Skull, when you have time, check this video, this explain very clear the process that involves the design and programing of all parameters of the airplanes in this sim. 

 

This are words from the people envolved in the simulator directly.

 

-S-

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see lots of complaints about the 110 flight model being "too good". I wonder where these people were before Bodenplatte was released, when we all played Eastern Front scenarios (because that's what there was) and the Pe-2 was widely recognized as the best air to air fighter in the plane set?

 

Could it be that these Allied pilots don't mind so much having an overmodeled aircraft on their side?

 

One wonders....

 

Anyways, I haven't looked at historical data at all, but I still won't hold my breath for any concrete evidence that the 110 is massively overmodeled.  Mostly what I see is Tempest pilots going up solo against 3-4 BF 110s and then sour grapes when they get shot down 1v4 against "inferior planes".

 

The 110 was originally conceived as a "heavy fighter".  It's no slouch.   Can't wait for the uproar when the 410 shows up.

Edited by JG13_opcode
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are sitting Ducks though. After dropping Bombs their Sea Level Speed doesn't exceed 500km/h and their Top Speed at 6k doesn't exceed 600. But a good Pilot (like me, tapping selves Shoulders) will do everything in his Power not to present himself on a Silver Plate.

And it doesn't matter which Plane I'm in, if I have you in my Sights and in Gun Range, you go down. And the 110 has 6 Good enough Guns to give any enemy Fighter some Grief.

 

They have two Bf109 Engines in a Package that isn't that much heavier than twice the Weight of a Bf109G, so while their Climb isn't as good as a Bf109, the Bf109 generally being probably the best climbing Aircraft throughout the War when compared to it's contemporaries, the Bf110 is only slightly worse, meaning it's still as good as most of the Allied Fighters.

 

It has a Wing Loading similar to most other Fighters in clean Config, so turning inside her shouldn't be easy, and since its Wings are essentially reworked Bf109E Wings, changed to the old, long Slat Type and full Length Ailerons, her Roll Rate is not great, not terrible.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

all of this is a joke

and maybe future is predectible...

red  players are a niche in to a small nich of players.....  we have to accept this joke if want play to something we like.

and for me, and i assure you i know many other ( usual red players ) , is inevitable lost interest.

 

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a twin engined heavy fighter - similar in concept to the p 38, just not as advanced a design.  It was designed to fight single engine fighters and was supposed to be able to hold its own in this regard.  While we know it was a failure in this regard, at least in the BOB, it is still a highly capable fighter.  One hit from those nose guns can and should make life challenging for the recipient.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Christer Bergström the 110 did not that bad during bob either. 
 

The long range D model was a complete failure though. 
 

However it’s reputation on the eastern front was general good among it‘s crews. 
 

In general - what makes people believe that Russian developers headed by an American had any incentive to portray axis airplanes as unrealistically superior?

 

I have the feeling that they go long distances to make any plane they do as accurate as they can. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

all of this is a joke

and maybe future is predectible...

red  players are a niche in to a small nich of players.....  we have to accept this joke if want play to something we like.

and for me, and i assure you i know many other ( usual red players ) , is inevitable lost interest.

 

 

 

So, you and your pals are going to quit if the devs don't change the aircraft to suit your feelings?

 

What happened to documentation and hard data?

 

There's definitely a joke here but it doesn't seem to be the 110.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

opcode i think u dont understand me

 

actually now , some good red pilots dont play from some time... game becomes more irritant patch after patch, and here on forum, LW are the winners and any VVS comments against LW planes is simply disrespected.


documentation and hard data , i t think no say nothing about  " tails works like shells"  ,damage on wings no matter to drag speed, until u are next to lose wing, and i dont know what say about how a bf110 can fly and be more fast than lagg-3  after by hitted by 4x37mm.... or maybe yes,  dont care.... 

 

I imagine this hard data remains be the same from start... so along patches things changes and i dont mean about improvements... For example Minnesglosh.  What i want say to you is,  hard data is one thing and final product is another. and of course all we can miss something... Bf 109 tail is another example about  aplications of hard data... after some patches , bf109 tail becomes made by cristal... on next patches move to be "literally" indestructible and now is more hard than il2 tail. Hard data was allways the same... how can we have 3 different tails... because hard data is only start point... end is another history , not needed be the same.

 

And yes some guys stop play some time ago... and other like me really are  losing interest, and the worst, a bit lost of respect to LW side....  now , after some time angry , i start to laugh playing ... is a joke, i must laught, maybe y dont stop to play, but simply play whitout competitive idea...  for try kill someone and see how my plane explodes on second burst , becouse on first  attack i start to leak fuel... try some tarans,  and why not, maybe joins to  blue and enjoy  party. Or made videos, is another way to stay close to my hobby.

 

of note 

 

Unafortunally english is not my  language... but really , what is the problems with feelings in this place? are you a terminator? and of course if i no enjoy game ,better dont play, devs can do what they want, all the people have to do what they want, no problem for me.   From me , the point allways be the same, game need mantain a certain level of comptitivity for keep the interest... and really i think this is a benefit for all ,  but as i can see along years maybe im wrong and you preffer play vs ducks and  unmotivate people or novices... or bots better.  


Anyway im sure.... red meat dont stop to join, and blue team dont stop  grows... in future, servers will be somethng like 55 blues vs 21 reds... oh sorry, this is the present,

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 4:22 PM, icecream said:

you sure it's the 110 being over modeled?

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

@icecream

 

I have to say - I am completely distraught and very angry after watching this. I haven't seen that video before as I wasn't active on the forums a year ago when that video was made but some real thorough analysis of the FM was done by @JG27_PapaFly so credit where its due. Really hope some of those issues are addressed but my guess is its very doubtful.

 

On some recent flights online I was shot down repeatedly in (what seemed to me as a real life pilot) an impossible on-stall climb manoeuvre at 45 to 50 degrees by a Mark IX Spitfire where I held a strong altitude advantage and almost on top of the guy.. it really explains a lot now and I'm quite disappointed about it... players can and are clearly exploiting the landing flaps in a totally ridiculous way and it robs other pilots of their aircraft's advantages including height or position.

 

Not happy but thanks none the less for sharing, I needed to see that for my own sanity check tonight.

 

edit: just want to clarify I'm not talking a limited zoom-climb or a slight climbing turn here - the trailing aircraft was clearly on the edge of stall control for some time and i was watching from that aircraft's perspective as it struggled to maintain climbing attitude, meaning a significant change in AoA like this should have caused airflow separation and an incipient spin. He then deployed the landing flaps (should cause excess drag) and it enabled him then to pull up to this 50 degrees angle of climb with no sign of stalling or spinning shown... just like in this video. Sure you may have a 10mph lower stall speed now, but not an ability to defy physics.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 110s had their stall characteristics revised semi-recently IIRC, they became a little less dangerous after that in my opinion. But the tail gunners (in the game in general) are incredible shots and can ruin your day quick.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

heheheheh

Yes we sound like sour grapes....  afortunally for someones laught about my comments, they (sour grapes) leaving and you dont lisent them now. 

Sadly , following  around this forum, i see from other places, and people who i dont know... are thinking and doing the same....

 

Ok , will be super nice if i had enought knowledge for demostrate you why is wrong...... my formation on phisycs , etc, etc is poor.  

My imagination is great, and i made some numbers..... probabilly im totally wrong and i simply are fooling... me.

 

Lets compare Bf110g vs Yak1b

 

Data we know :

 

BF-110 height : 4975 kg - 1100 HP x2 (2200hp)  sealevel

Yak-1b Height; 2330 kg - 1240 HP sealevel

 

 the relation weigh/power is:

 

Bf110 -  4975/2200 hp = 2.26 kg x HP

Yak1b- 2330/1240 =  1.87 kg x HP 

 

Yak is around 20% best performance.

 

Theorical climbrate: sealevel

 

Yak 1b  17,1 m/s

Bf110   10.3 m/s

 

yak clim 166% vs 100% bf110 climib

 

You can reply the next test, take ya1b or Bf110 , at 300mts altitude, pull gas to top speed and try climb all you can before stall.... my results are the next

 

Yak 1b: max speed reached 550 km/h , start climb 300, end climb 1600 before stall. - altitude climbed 1300 mts

Bf110:  max speed reached 450 km/h , start climb 300, end climb 1300 mts before stall - altitude climbed 1000 mts

 

Now i try ( im sure i miss lot of things ) made some king of relation betwen data and test results;

 

ya 1b = 1300mts /550 km/h = 2.36 mts x km/h

bf110= 1000mts/ 450 kms/h= 2.22 mts x km/h

 

Effective climbrate :  

yak 1b clim 106% vs 100% bf110 climb .

 

Thats line ( non totally scintific ) shows me something is wrong , the huge adavantage on teorical climb rate 166% on time because is m/sg  now is only a 106% in therms of converter  speed to climb... what happens? is bf110 some kind of stheal fighter with ultra low drag? have germans enginery anothers values for gravity force? ;) i dont know.


I repeat, i dont have de right base and maybe some one with right knowledge can clarify numbers... on my "numbers" i dont see clever how it is posible and playing game i aprecciate this kind of things... bfs 110 doing increible climbs  and theorical fighter advantage gone.... and this "joke" situation was reflected on my numbers i think.

 

For example, considering both planes have same drag if we apply power/weight relation.

 

If bf110 can climb at 450 km/h -- 1000 mts

then yak1b can climb at 550 km/h - 1460 mts

 

I suposse because have more big front perfil, bf110 had more drag, then  diference in  results will be more hughe.

 

take appart other strange things on DM ( 0.5 are semi nerfed and only damage on engines and pilots are enought relevant)  and supereffectivness of minesglosh and you are cooking this coktail.... and some sour grapes dont want drink more :)

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. You admit you aren't strong in physics and don't know enough about aerodynamics, but then you say you're leaving because the math that you say you don't understand tells you "something is wrong"?  Help me understand.

 

What would make you stay?

 

Are you only going to stay if the developers change the aircraft to make Allied aircraft better, even if the data doesn't support it?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry,

if friends keep i will stay , simply need change chip, no play for win nothing ( less motivation at the end ) play less time for stay with friends. I think will be a good exit, maybe touch another fight sim game... devs can do the best they think,  and jokes apart, the true is red tema are under "bad blood wave" . Demonished feelings. On resume a part of costumers are more unhappy than usually be.... if is a astrological cause , collective imagination...  i dont know. at he end i think is no good for product.

 

Nocke, as i must admit, im very poor on physics.... and far to be able to explainme ... Thx for your comment.  Yes teorichal climb rate is a made by me concepts,  i needed some way to explain things from ignorance... sure im wrong.

But taking in consideration your comment.

 

Higher  mass is higher kinetic energy i understand.

 

Energy state of object is _ Kinetic energy + Potencial energy 

if we change direction, in this case we climb

at constant speed Kinetic energy remains be the same  and only changes some values for potencial energy for adquires new moviment ( climb )

 

yes, u have more kinetic energy  due mass , and this all kinetic energy+potencial energy  mantains level speed at 450 km/h , the same higher mass what provides more kinetic energy , when climb causes ( i imagine more inercity, maybe more gs )  but my point is . More mass not means more work , more energy consumption? on resume, maybe your total energy state is higher... but when u climb, work to do it will be higher due your higher mass. In the same way you can have more totally energy but move more slow than another with less totaly energy who moves more fast. On the same way , u can having more totally energy  and move more slow,  u can climb less. 
¿How much less?


i dont know exactly the maths... i play a bit, and dont find the logical...

17.1 m/s vs 10 m/sg on papper seems hughe advantage... on game 1000 mts at 450 km/h vs a 1300 mts at 550 km/h seems dont reflect what say pappers... but i repeat, unafortunally im not scientific.

 

Anyway, maybe you have the right formation and im talking shit, dont waist much time to explain me, i will trusth you. sincerly. 

Thx in advance anyway.

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

@icecream

 

I have to say - I am completely distraught and very angry after watching this. I haven't seen that video before as I wasn't active on the forums a year ago when that video was made but some real thorough analysis of the FM was done by @JG27_PapaFly so credit where its due. Really hope some of those issues are addressed but my guess is its very doubtful.

 

On some recent flights online I was shot down repeatedly in (what seemed to me as a real life pilot) an impossible on-stall climb manoeuvre at 45 to 50 degrees by a Mark IX Spitfire where I held a strong altitude advantage and almost on top of the guy.. it really explains a lot now and I'm quite disappointed about it... players can and are clearly exploiting the landing flaps in a totally ridiculous way and it robs other pilots of their aircraft's advantages including height or position.

 

Not happy but thanks none the less for sharing, I needed to see that for my own sanity check tonight.

There were some changes to the spitfire flap behaviour in the last year or so - so after that video was taken. Not sure if it changed the specific behaviour.

Guys kill me from impossible angles online all the time. Or at least it seems to me impossible. How did that 109 follow me in the turn when I have a g-suit and very nearly blacked out? For that matter, How did he follow me back from the target all the way across my lines when visibility in-game is supposedly so terrible? How could he do what looks like a -9G outside loop and not burst a blood vessel? I could drive myself crazy or just try and enjoy the game. I already drive myself crazy in other things, I don't need more.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I can't wait to see the reactions when people see what a monster of a climber the Spitfire XIV is. 😄 

Climbing like a cat on a hot tin roof, except with rocket boots.
*nyaaaa* *hispano noises*

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

Dont worry,

if friends keep i will stay , simply need change chip, no play for win nothing ( less motivation at the end ) play less time for stay with friends. I think will be a good exit, maybe touch another fight sim game... devs can do the best they think,  and jokes apart, the true is red tema are under "bad blood wave" . Demonished feelings. On resume a part of costumers are more unhappy than usually be.... if is a astrological cause , collective imagination...  i dont know. at he end i think is no good for product.

 

Nocke, as i must admit, im very poor on physics.... and far to be able to explainme ... Thx for your comment.  Yes teorichal climb rate is a made by me concepts,  i needed some way to explain things from ignorance... sure im wrong.

But taking in consideration your comment.

 

Higher  mass is higher kinetic energy i understand.

 

Energy state of object is _ Kinetic energy + Potencial energy 

if we change direction, in this case we climb

at constant speed Kinetic energy remains be the same  and only changes some values for potencial energy for adquires new moviment ( climb )

 

yes, u have more kinetic energy  due mass , and this all kinetic energy+potencial energy  mantains level speed at 450 km/h , the same higher mass what provides more kinetic energy , when climb causes ( i imagine more inercity, maybe more gs )  but my point is . More mass not means more work , more energy consumption? on resume, maybe your total energy state is higher... but when u climb, work to do it will be higher due your higher mass. In the same way you can have more totally energy but move more slow than another with less totaly energy who moves more fast. On the same way , u can having more totally energy  and move more slow,  u can climb less. 
¿How much less?


i dont know exactly the maths... i play a bit, and dont find the logical...

17.1 m/s vs 10 m/sg on papper seems hughe advantage... on game 1000 mts at 450 km/h vs a 1300 mts at 550 km/h seems dont reflect what say pappers... but i repeat, unafortunally im not scientific.

 

Anyway, maybe you have the right formation and im talking shit, dont waist much time to explain me, i will trusth you. sincerly. 

Thx in advance anyway.

 

Sorry ... 5 minutes after posting I realized exactly what you are writing about energy conservation and deleted my stupid post, hoping nobody had seen it yet.

I should think first and post second, not the other way round ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

Dont worry,

if friends keep i will stay , simply need change chip, no play for win nothing ( less motivation at the end ) play less time for stay with friends. I think will be a good exit, maybe touch another fight sim game... devs can do the best they think,  and jokes apart, the true is red tema are under "bad blood wave" . Demonished feelings. On resume a part of costumers are more unhappy than usually be.... if is a astrological cause , collective imagination...  i dont know. at he end i think is no good for product.

 

Nocke, as i must admit, im very poor on physics.... and far to be able to explainme ... Thx for your comment.  Yes teorichal climb rate is a made by me concepts,  i needed some way to explain things from ignorance... sure im wrong.

But taking in consideration your comment.

 

Higher  mass is higher kinetic energy i understand.

 

Energy state of object is _ Kinetic energy + Potencial energy 

if we change direction, in this case we climb

at constant speed Kinetic energy remains be the same  and only changes some values for potencial energy for adquires new moviment ( climb )

 

yes, u have more kinetic energy  due mass , and this all kinetic energy+potencial energy  mantains level speed at 450 km/h , the same higher mass what provides more kinetic energy , when climb causes ( i imagine more inercity, maybe more gs )  but my point is . More mass not means more work , more energy consumption? on resume, maybe your total energy state is higher... but when u climb, work to do it will be higher due your higher mass. In the same way you can have more totally energy but move more slow than another with less totaly energy who moves more fast. On the same way , u can having more totally energy  and move more slow,  u can climb less. 
¿How much less?


i dont know exactly the maths... i play a bit, and dont find the logical...

17.1 m/s vs 10 m/sg on papper seems hughe advantage... on game 1000 mts at 450 km/h vs a 1300 mts at 550 km/h seems dont reflect what say pappers... but i repeat, unafortunally im not scientific.

 

Anyway, maybe you have the right formation and im talking shit, dont waist much time to explain me, i will trusth you. sincerly. 

Thx in advance anyway.

 

Post video making this. You have a problem if you can not outclimb a 110 E with a yak1B or maybe you are talking about the 110G with almost 3000Hp? 

 

On 7/27/2020 at 11:57 AM, HRc_Tumu said:

 

actually now , some good red pilots dont play from some time... game becomes more irritant patch after patch, and here on forum, LW are the winners and any VVS comments against LW planes is simply disrespected.

 

 

Do you realice that you are making the same than LW winners? All I see from the guys you mention not playing and making post on the forum is whining without data and whining about Luftwhiners.

Post a decent test and make your point 

 

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 3:57 AM, HRc_Tumu said:

 

actually now , some good red pilots dont play from some time... game becomes more irritant patch after patch, and here on forum, LW are the winners and any VVS comments against LW planes is simply disrespected.


 

 

 

in fact .. several of those ''bad boys'' stopped coming in after the change of the simulator render ( the putdown of migoto and reshade from servers ). The short time they spent during those weeks their kill streaks on various servers became different from the simulator before migoto and reshade, quite strange no?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

Lets compare Bf110g vs Yak1b

 

Data we know :

 

BF-110 height : 4975 kg - 1100 HP x2 (2200hp)  sealevel

Yak-1b Height; 2330 kg - 1240 HP sealevel

 

Sry but the data you are starting with is complete bonkers.

I dont know where you got your weight values from but these seem rather like empty weights, not normal takeoff weights.

 

The Bf110G-2 weighted ~7500kg on takeoff (full fuel, full ammo, no external stores)

The Yak-1B weighted ~2900kg on takeoff (full fuel, full ammo)

 

Engine power for the Bf110s DB605As was 1310PS at Combat, 1475hp at WEP rating, both attained at sea level.

Engine power for the M-105PF was 1260hp on takeoff (max).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx Karaya,

I take data from here

 

https://il2sturmovik.gamepedia.com/Bf_110_E-2

https://il2sturmovik.gamepedia.com/Yak-1b

 

bui i see i mistake model of 110   :) , i will do numbers with right model.

 

Any way i expected numbers dont change to much...  i will do more comparations... i interesetend in FW 190- Flaps- UFO

 

 

*****

 

Good point geramos

not is the best academic test is true.... anyway seems better than any other test  i see from your side for validate this "float" climb especifications.

Yes i do more work on it.... im sure i have interesting results and maybe i can understand phisics rear this things.

An no matter if im winning... im no crying here because i cant kill one enemy in one salvo with my minesglosh....  about it, now is posible, now yours dont cry. Seems its the way, and really.

 

NO me importa geramos, estoy por irme a la mierda asi que de veras no me importa y dejaros disfrutar solitos por aqui. :)

 

*****

 

Nocke, thx for test. it.

and for add to me some interesting concepts... yes , the key can be energy conservation ... due less drag? or i dont know what.... 

My idea is test rest of planes and take a general picture....

 

***

 

 

 

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once in our squad we had split teams to balance the server. I was surprised how easy was to stay in a turn fight in 110 against a lag, it was easier in 110 than in a 109F4. and the lag pilot was not an average pilot but an excellent one. When the flaps are dropped it was like a Zero with excellent low speed handling. Immediately we incorporated as a rule do not slow down with a 110, one of the guys has to make him turn and when he drops the flaps and slows down he is an easy kill for another attacker. Recently the flight model was corrected in that regard to add more drag to the 110 and the p47.  

So it is no wander that a pilot with good gunnery skills can wreak havok among unaware of the capabilities allied fighters (especially when the 110 has an energy advantage). It is tricky to attack, however the same is of the pe2 because of the rear gunners. Also there are legends about Kirill capabilities in his il2 on wings of liberty about what happens when you overshoot him. On the other hand those attack missions are so difficult to survive that I can tolerate this, as an advantage given to those attack plane players. And there are players that train exclusively for that type of engagements and it is no wonder some people get surprised.

 

Edited by JG27_Kornezov
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG27_Kornezov said:

Once in our squad we had split teams to balance the server. I was surprised how easy was to stay in a turn fight in 110 against a lag, it was easier in 110 than in a 109F4. and the lag pilot was not an average pilot but an excellent one. When the flaps are dropped it was like a Zero with excellent low speed handling. Immediately we incorporated as a rule do not slow down with a 110, one of the guys has to make him turn and when he drops the flaps and slows down he is an easy kill for another attacker. Recently the flight model was corrected in that regard to add more drag to the 110 and the p47.  

So it is no wander that a pilot with good gunnery skills can wreak havok among unaware of the capabilities allied fighters (especially when the 110 has an energy advantage). It is tricky to attack, however the same is of the pe2 because of the rear gunners. Also there are legends about Kirill capabilities in his il2 on wings of liberty about what happens when you overshoot him. On the other hand those attack missions are so difficult to survive that I can tolerate this, as an advantage given to those attack plane players. And there are players that train exclusively for that type of engagements and it is no wonder some people get surprised.

 

This weird things happened a lot with the Flaps etc. There was something weird on some models with the flaps like on the 110 or the P47. To oershot a furious Il2 can cost you a lot hehee. You have really good pilots that fly jabos like xjammer as well that are good making you to overshoot. Is something I strugle a lot as well flying with the P51s. Yo risk everything to hit the enemy but the damaged plane still can fight when you overshoot is really difficult to kill on one pass with 50 cals when the other is woobling at close distance with your weapons on the wings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@HRc_Tumu

 

Tested the climb rates 

 

Bf110E2 

Fuel 600L armament: just Mgs

starting altitude: sea level

starting speed: 270 km/h

final altitude: 2500m

climbing speed: 270km/h 

power: 1.3 ATA (limit 5 min)

Notes: I started climbing with rads closed because after idling and diving a little bit I did not want to overcool the engine so i open rads at 50% both when I reached 1600m this gave a litle bit extra performance on the 110 but not too much I guess

Time to 2500m : 3min 35 segs

 

Yak1b

Fuel 300L armament: just Mgs

starting altitude: sea level

starting speed: 270 km/h

final altitude: 2500m

climbing speed: 270km/h 

power: max ata max rpm (no time limit)

Notes: I started all the climb wiht 50% oil and water did not need to close rads because i was leveled for more time so the temp went normal after some time. I chose 2500m to evade the drop of performance on the stage change so that would make more consistent clib rate all the alt. 

Time to 2500m: 2 min 27 seg

 

Do you really have problems outclimbing 110s with yaks? 1 min difference in 2500m is quite a big one... (Take in mind no bomb racks on my test 110 so that would hurt the performance as well)

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a cursory lit review using the official published performance data from the developers and compared it to the data available on Mike Williams' excellent site for the Bf-110G-2 which is what I imagine is the model giving most people trouble online.

 

In-game:

  1. Maximum speed of the Bf-110G-2 is 489 km/h in Combat mode (1.3 ATA, 1310 horsepower)
  2. Best sustained climb is 15.6 m/s
  3. Maximum TAS occurs at 6500 m in what I assume is the standard atmosphere, where it will reach 581 km/h TAS (again at 1.3 ATA)

From Mike Williams' archives:

 

First document: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Bf110G-2_data.jpg

  1. Maximum speed (it doesn't say but I'll assume TAS) is 571 km/h at 6500m (a 1.7% difference from the game)
  2. On the deck that aircraft flew 462 km/h (no word on atmospheric data that I can see but I don't speak German) which represents a 5.5 % difference from the game
  3. I see some time-to-altitude data but no actual climb rates

Second document: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/me110G-2-chart.jpg

 

  1. Maximum speed appears to be at 5800m where it flew 505 km/h, and this particular aircraft only flew 430 km/h on the deck which is a solid 7% slower than the previous data.  Anyone have any details on this test?  Atmospheric data, aircraft condition?  If I'm reading the chart correctly this was at kampfleistung which should be 1.3 ATA, so I'm curious why this test underperformed the previous one.  Anyways, taking this at face value it would mean our in-game 110 is some 13% faster than this test data at altitude and 12% faster on the deck.
  2. I see about 12 m/s climb from the deck but again this test underperformed both other historical tests by a fair bit so without additional context I'm not sure how reliable this number is.
  3. About the only things I can see to explain the difference (again, my German sucks) is that this aircraft appears to have been flown some 950 pounds heavier than the Me-110 in the previous test, which might be because of what's listed on the second page:  It's smudged but it sure looks like it was equipped with the werfergranate which would add extra drag and would explain the low speed and poorer climb.

 

Third document: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me110G-level-speed.jpg

 

This is a level speed-only chart but it does show that an 8200 kg Me-110G was flown at about 495 km/h on the deck and 565 or so at 6000m (again nothing about atmospheric data that I can see, maybe this has been corrected to ISA?). On the deck this aircraft is faster than our in-game aircraft by about 1.2% and slower at altitude by 2.5% or so.

 

Fourth document:  http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me-110-G3_Flugzeug-Daten.jpg

 

I'll just take the speed data here and note that this 110G-3 (which was the long range recce version) did 561 km/h at 5800m.

 

--------

 

Some takeaways:  The differing altitudes at which the tested (real) aircraft achieved their maximum speed could be attributable to differences in air temperature, as a few dozen degrees can easily skew altimeter readings by a thousand feet or more.  So forgetting the altitude, a first-pass guess without delving into DB605 supercharger specifics shows that our in-game Bf 110G is between 1% too slow and 12% too fast on the deck, and between 1% and 13% too fast at altitude.

 

That second test seems like an outlier, because the other 3 test data documents I've linked to here all seem to agree pretty readily with each other, and it's hard to tell from the smudge on the page but it looks like that aircraft had under-wing nebelwerfers so at least as far as level speeds our Bf 110G in game appears to be within 5% of historical performance.

 

The only climb rate quoted in meters per second was from that second test which seems suspect, but perhaps someone can go do some sawtooth climbs with werfergranaten equipped and see if they get around 12 m/s which might solve that mystery.

 

Bottom line:  The in-game Bf 110G-2 agrees within 5% of historical speed data, and further investigation is required into the climb data but if I'm right about the nebelwerfer then I'd be willing to bet our 110 is right on the money.

Edited by JG13_opcode
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 5:03 AM, HRc_Tumu said:

Any way i expected numbers dont change to much...  i will do more comparations... i interesetend in FW 190- Flaps- UFO

 

These days I was flying an Fw190 A3 on Berloga Server. Tumu was flying Yaks and was worried about the FW190 UFO flaps
Edited by 3./JG15_Kampf
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kampf .

 

hahah kampf u are a good dogfighter pilot who knows how can exploid her weapons... as i do in my yak.  Difference is on yak, only on close turn  flaps  help something... but on FW , flaps can be deployed all the combat, and " offers " some kind of extra float... due stall of FW is super soft, easyly u can point you nose to objective.  I don say all are easy, no. ( maybe except aim in blue planes , what is really easy ) i say , i dont go against pilots who exploid limits of airplane... i go agains limits of airplane. Thats all.  And Kampf of course u simply are the last... nothing especiall against you mate.

 

Krampf

 geramos ( i dont talk about outclimb another plane, i talk about uberclimb performance vs especs )

 

Im working on tests:

 

Methodology is , take a plane at sea level, try reach max speed, try your best fast climb,  take note of speed, time, altitude , dive and do a second climb. Test is more about energy retention.

Im using Tackview and excel.  Results are interesting.

 

Yak 1b ;                          62 m/sg       ( climb rate 17 m/sg)

Bf110E                          48.5 m/sg    ( climb rate 10.3  m/sg)

FW190A3                      53.5 m/sg    ( climb rate 16.4 m/sg)

Lag3                               51 m/sg       ( climb rate 14.9 m/sg)

Il2AM38-1941               40.5 m/sg    ( climb rate 9.4 m/sg)   

 

An i want test more planes, and maybe repeat test for planes for have some "constant" result. 

 

First impression is , as Nocke comment to me, Kinetic energy have something to do. An planes like Bf110 and Il2 , with poor ratio on weight/HP have very good response on fast climbs. I think something is missing in this point.  I think more mecanic energy  need be request for change trayectory this heavy figthers , seems like change direction dont affect enought and this "heavy" planes change direction wiht high retention of energy, thats explain how heavy an poor ( powered ) planes obtains this results.

 

With more planes tested, will be easy have a idea about general relation of , data climb rate, power, and data test. From now, u can aprecciate some logical except betwen bf110 and il2,  bf 110 is 8 m/sg faster and climb rate is only 0.9 better. But i repeat on general i dont understan how works this heavy fighters. both have excelent response. Wil be interesting know bf110g , p2 , stukas and a20 . Anyway test are showing to me a kind of correlation.  And heavy fighters are out of the curve...

 

about acceleration, more fast is foke ( 67.3),  yak1b( 61.5)  anf bf110 (61.6)  are practically equal,  lag3 ( 55 )  and il2. ( 43.9) , in this case, heavy fighters have logical respones ( for me ) because on dive thrust energy of plane go in favor to gravity.   but in the opposite side when u climb , this thrust energy go against gravity for that i expected worst results. 

 

 

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 11:57 AM, HRc_Tumu said:

actually now , some good red pilots dont play from some time... game becomes more irritant patch after patch, and here on forum, LW are the winners and any VVS comments against LW planes is simply disrespected.

Aha...devs ignored this topic since 2016 until nowadays...and it has historical evidences:

So please stop this "Devs care more about LW" thing. Please.

  • Upvote 1
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...