About the ubermodeled Bf-110 G2

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

20 hours ago, sturmkraehe said:

BTW there is one thing that has not yet been mentioned here:

 

With low airspeed the heat exchanger will no longer work properly. One should observe steep rises in oil and cooling water temperatures.

The Rads are meant withstand Take-Off with a Warm Engine, they won't overheat immediately at low Speeds.

 

Bf109s have extremely effective Cooling at all Speeds, while the early Russians are troublesome.

 

[354thFG_Panda_]

The recent planes, yak 9s, spitfire XIV and typhoon all have new thermals that when you go vertical the temperature shoots up and overheats. It can even be done in the typhoon by turning when slow as well. Maybe older planes need a revision in the future to be brought to new standard because the effects are rather benign. Some planes need modelling of advantages in cutoff like 109s when damaged.

Edited August 29, 2021 by LR.TheRedPanda

[sturmkraehe]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The Rads are meant withstand Take-Off with a Warm Engine, they won't overheat immediately at low Speeds.

 

Bf109s have extremely effective Cooling at all Speeds, while the early Russians are troublesome.

 

That is true that they can sustain take-off speeds but I would suggest to consider the following:

- during waiting time, the engine is running at idle and only a very vew seconds at higher rpm during engine check if performed at all, but engine check is never done at full throttle.

- during take-off you very quickly gather speed. the portion with slow speed are really very small. Also you usually perform take-off at lower altitudes hence higher air densities. I would think that this increases heat exchanger efficiency.

- Take-off situation is different from prop hanging situation.

 

BTW I did not want to pretend that this effect is not modelled at all. The question is can we assume that it is correctly modelled in all planes?

Edited August 29, 2021 by sturmkraehe

[Bremspropeller]

On 8/26/2021 at 3:42 PM, ACG_Talisman said:

Stock Photo - Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera

Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf-110 Exploding During WW2 Seen Through a Gun-Camera, Stock Photo, Picture And Rights Managed Image. Pic. MEV-11956370 | agefotostock

 

 

That's the 300l external tank under the LH wing exploding. Not the airplane itself.

[[DBS]TH0R]

5 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Bf109s have extremely effective Cooling at all Speeds, while the early Russians are troublesome.

 

Even at max power / prop hang scenario? If so, perhaps this is the clue where to look for the "UFO claims" (also DB engines) ... ?

Edited August 29, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[Denum]

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Bf109s have extremely effective Cooling at all Speeds, while the early Russians are troublesome

Excuse me what?

 

They used to overheat on the ground. Where are you pulling that from?? 

 

The 109E (DB601) overheated extremely fast and 109Fs (DB605A) were known for overheating and catching fire??

 

Even when they started into the G series the engines were having huge issues, enough so it delayed production of the engines. 

 

 

The maneuvers players pull in game would absolutely destroy these engines just from thermal load alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by Denum

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

18 minutes ago, Denum said:

Excuse me what?

They used to overheat on the ground. Where are you pulling that from?? 

The 109E (DB601) overheated extremely fast and 109Fs (DB605A) were known for overheating and catching fire??

Even when they started into the G series the engines were having huge issues, enough so it delayed production of the engines. 

The maneuvers players pull in game would absolutely destroy these engines just from thermal load alone.

 

All Water Cooled Fighters with Wing Radiators had about max. 5 Minutes between Startup and Take-Off.

 

No, the 109s were not known for overheating, the 109F had a DB601E and the early DB605As in the Gustavs failed to an undersized Lubrication System for the new Plain Bearings, weak Pistons and too small of an Oil Cooler for Hotter Climates, like the Desert, where they indeed caught Fire, that's how Marseille died.

They were quickly switched over to reinforced Pistons and by 1943 also got an Additional Oil Pump, but only in 1944 got the bigger Oil Cooler and went from 80 to 115l of Oil capacity.

The 1.3ata Limit did its Job to make the Engine reliable enough for Frontline use.

 

The Manouvers most people pull in the G-2 to early G-6 do kill their Engines due to Oil overheat. Currently low Speed Engagements in excess of 2 or 3 Minutes leave you with a dead Engine.

But one Prop Hang with Speeds of less than 200km/h for less than 15 Seconds simply wouldn't have been an Issue back then and aren't ingame.

 

The 109s have a Max Power Climb Speed of 250-270km/h up to FTH. And the Cooling back then was laid out for that and could take it.

 

[ATAG_SKUD]

9 hours ago, sturmkraehe said:

No, do you?

I'm not the one complaining about planes I have difficulty shooting down.

[Denum]

21 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The Manouvers most people pull in the G-2 to early G-6 do kill their Engines due to Oil overheat.

 

I can assure you they don't. 

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

But one Prop Hang with Speeds of less than 200km/h for less than 15 Seconds simply wouldn't have been an Issue back then and aren't ingame.

 

The 109s have a Max Power Climb Speed of 250-270km/h up to FTH. And the Cooling back then was laid out for that and could take it.

 

The cooling headroom depends on the ΔT first and foremost, then all other variables.

And this is taking sub 200 km/h speeds at max power (emergency) quite liberally when compared to 250-270 km/h at climb power.

 

I'd like to see some data backing this up. Especially since in-game many of these zoom climbs happen with no excess speed which would help the already working hard cooling system, but more often as a follow up after several turning maneuvers where the speed was low and engine power high for some time.

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[ZachariasX]

On 8/29/2021 at 12:14 PM, sturmkraehe said:

- during waiting time, the engine is running at idle and only a very vew seconds at higher rpm during engine check if performed at all, but engine check is never done at full throttle.

It is very easy to burn your engine when running it idle. Think of those planes as regular cars without a radiator fan. You can easily disconnect the fan in your combustion engine car and it is not likely to overheat during regular highway driving, but as soon as you hit a red light, things do go south.

 

These warbirds have a very restricted time for running idle on the ground for that reason, you have almost no air exchange in the cooler. Also you have to rev up to 1200 rpm frequently, because otherwise the bromide in your fuel cannot act as a lead scavenger on your sparks. If you let it run full idle, the engine will still overheat and your sparks will be fouled.

Edited August 30, 2021 by ZachariasX
typos

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Pilot's notes clearly state ground idle should be kept at minimum due possible over heat. In the air 109 had no problem maintaining operating temperatures. The radiator design in F and forward was very effective for it's size. At higher altitudes it was adviced to manually control the rads to prevent overcooling.

 

Oil cooler was automatically controlled by a thermostat, no pilot input for it in F/G/K series. In the 110 it was manually controlled in all versions. 

 

With this said, 109 pilots I had a privilege talking to, like Gunther Rall and Kyösti Karhila, never complained about overheating. Only take-off had to be done within 2-4mins after startup. In the air radiators kept the plane perfectly within limits, even at combat. They said only thing they looked at was temperatures in combat, as long as they were below maximum they could fight with increased power. After combat engine cooled effectively to normal at cruise speed/power. 

 

The modelling of engines is quite different in "the other sim". Try same prop hangs and helicopter moves and you will blow your engine or severely damage it. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by LLv34_Flanker

[Creep]

On 8/2/2020 at 4:31 PM, JG13_opcode said:

 

Flaps are broadly too effective at generating lift in this sim; there was a similar "UFO" issue with the P47 a while ago. Not sure if it was corrected or not.

100% this. planes are too floaty in this sim, period. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by QB.Creep

[jollyjack]

On 7/21/2020 at 8:47 PM, =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.

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I'm ok with the maneuvers a 110 (either model) can do.  I do find the seeming lack of inertia in making sudden, large changes to trajectory path and instant responsiveness to control inputs to be the unrealistic part.   

[jollyjack]

On 7/21/2020 at 8:47 PM, =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.

 

Leave it be, we need super planes ... the more the merrier.

[PatrickAWlson]

I enjoy flying the 110 in career mode, but I do it more or the fun of flying the plane than because the plane is somehow a world beater.  You are slower than many contemporary fighters and its roll rate does not compare.   The 110 can hold its own, especially against AI flown opposition, but climbs like a 262 and turns like a Zero is ... ahem ... not accurate.

[gimpy117]

23 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I'm ok with the maneuvers a 110 (either model) can do.  I do find the seeming lack of inertia in making sudden, large changes to trajectory path and instant responsiveness to control inputs to be the unrealistic part.   

agree, it feels way to "light" for such a heavy aircraft. 

[ACG_Cass]

On 11/9/2021 at 4:54 AM, gimpy117 said:

agree, it feels way to "light" for such a heavy aircraft. 

Wish the 47 got the same treatment

[PatrickAWlson]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:54 PM, gimpy117 said:

agree, it feels way to "light" for such a heavy aircraft. 

 

Not sure that I agree.  When I go from a 110 to a 109 I feel like I have gone from a plough horse to a race horse.  There is no aspect of flight, other than range and maybe a dive, in which a 110 is better, and IMHO it's not even close.  Comparing the 110 to its competition, Russian single seaters can mostly fly rings around the 110.  The speed difference is not as great but roll rate in particular is much better than the 110.

 

The 110 was designed as a fighter so it should not be a complete pig.  It should be faster and more responsive than a bomber.  In real life it was not hopeless in this role, just not as good as the 109 (or, more importantly,  a Spitfire).  I don't know enough to get down into minutia, but I think the 110 is about what it should be.

[Aurora_Stealth]

On 11/8/2021 at 5:35 AM, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I'm ok with the maneuvers a 110 (either model) can do.  I do find the seeming lack of inertia in making sudden, large changes to trajectory path and instant responsiveness to control inputs to be the unrealistic part.   

 

One design feature that is fairly consistent among the Luftwaffe fighters in contrast to many Allied ones is the high wing loading.. as seen with both Bf 109 and Bf 110... (among numerous others). That is to say - they have relatively low wing area for their length, weight and size. The higher the wing loading, the higher the potential responsiveness you can achieve in the controls, due to less surface area and weight (off centre) to move/deflect. However a high wing loading can also imply lower maneuverability (there are ways of enhancing it).

 

It's a very deliberate part of the design methodology that Messerschmitt pushed for in his designs and is quoted on in numerous books, alongside his absolute obsession with lightweight design principles... to minimise wing area, tail area... anything that reduces the size, (profile) drag and weight. Obviously over the course of the war things did change, and the Me 210/410 erk-hmm didn't go 'quite to plan' lol but you get the point.

 

Of course, other designers including Kurt Tank also emphasised high wing loading's in several Focke Wulf designs so these are just easy examples.

 

A lot of this goes back to origins of their design thinking, for example Messerschmitt started his career through designing gliders... well before making his debut later in the 30's with monoplanes and you can see the influence of the glider design features. High wing loading, relatively long fuselages [think Bf 109 / Bf 110 / Me 410] this creates a long 'moment arm' in engineering terms i.e. inertia which can then be used to direct the aircraft about a point... in this case to create a highly responsive control surface input... and that's while having low wing / tail area ... because you're applying a lot of force onto that point due to the moment arm / distance between lever point and aircraft centre.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[JV69badatflyski]

Raw numbers, on take off
me110c wingload 157 kg/m2
Yak series (depending on type) +/-180 kg/m2
Fw-190 240kg/m2
Pe-2 186kg/m2
bf-109 g +/- 190 kg/m2
Poney-D  +/- 230kg/m2

From where do you get this idea for the high wing load on the bf-110 ??? 

 

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Raw numbers, on take off
me110c wingload 157 kg/m2
Yak series (depending on type) +/-180 kg/m2
Fw-190 240kg/m2
Pe-2 186kg/m2
bf-109 g +/- 190 kg/m2
Poney-D  +/- 230kg/m2

From where do you get this idea for the high wing load on the bf-110 ??? 

 

me110c wingload 157 kg/m2?
There is no C in the game.
110 e wingload with full fuel: 174 kg.
110 g wingload with full fuel:  195 kg.

With 45% fuel( at 45% the plane pump the fuel from the outer wing into the inner wing--->Better roll rate, turning)
110 e: ~161 kg
110 g: ~181 kg.

[Aurora_Stealth]

11 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Raw numbers, on take off

me110c wingload 157 kg/m2

Yak series (depending on type) +/-180 kg/m2
Fw-190 240kg/m2

Pe-2 186kg/m2
bf-109 g +/- 190 kg/m2
Poney-D  +/- 230kg/m2

From where do you get this idea for the high wing load on the bf-110 ??? 

 

The Bf 110 C was an aircraft operational in 1940 so I'd recommend comparing it with aircraft of the same year, you will see the contrasts more clearly this way. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to be found, its just a trend. If you compare a 1940 aircraft (Bf 110 C) with a 1944 aircraft (P-51 D) its not going to make any sense.

 

My point being that the later into the war you compare, the more the trend moves towards higher wing loaded fighters on all sides. That's the convergence of new designs towards higher and higher speeds.

 

I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe fighters always had the highest wing loading (over the course of the war things changed and new designs came along that capitalised on new research and lessons learnt - the P-51 is an obvious and prominent one) but the trend was pushing towards that direction.

 

FYI - I'm talking fighters, the Pe-2 wasn't designed to be a fighter although I get why you added it.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[gimpy117]

15 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

The Bf 110 C was an aircraft operational in 1940 so I'd recommend comparing it with aircraft of the same year, you will see the contrasts more clearly this way. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to be found, its just a trend. If you compare a 1940 aircraft (Bf 110 C) with a 1944 aircraft (P-51 D) its not going to make any sense.

 

My point being that the later into the war you compare, the more the trend moves towards higher wing loaded fighters on all sides. That's the convergence of new designs towards higher and higher speeds.

AFAIK the P-40E has about the same wing loading and about the same power to weight ratio as the 110E, but I seriously doubt the P-40 performs as good, I'm not the greatest pilot...but In my experience it's by far outclassed. 

[C6_lefuneste]

I'm pleased to know that Bf110 G2 is an uberplane, but I never had this feeling...

So let's say I have an ennemy from 44 planeset in my 6, what should I do to avoid to be shooted down and use its uber possibilities ?

Edited November 12, 2021 by C6_lefuneste

[JV69badatflyski]

On 11/11/2021 at 2:29 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

me110c wingload 157 kg/m2?
There is no C in the game.
110 e wingload with full fuel: 174 kg.
110 g wingload with full fuel:  195 kg.

With 45% fuel( at 45% the plane pump the fuel from the outer wing into the inner wing--->Better roll rate, turning)
110 e: ~161 kg
110 g: ~181 kg.

Show me one person using 45% of fuel in the quake arena's 
with 45%, in the 110 you can cross all the maps...twice.
they're all flying on vapours, whatever the plane.

 

On 11/11/2021 at 10:08 AM, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

The Bf 110 C was an aircraft operational in 1940 so I'd recommend comparing it with aircraft of the same year, you will see the contrasts more clearly this way. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to be found, its just a trend. If you compare a 1940 aircraft (Bf 110 C) with a 1944 aircraft (P-51 D) its not going to make any sense.

 

My point being that the later into the war you compare, the more the trend moves towards higher wing loaded fighters on all sides. That's the convergence of new designs towards higher and higher speeds.

 

I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe fighters always had the highest wing loading (over the course of the war things changed and new designs came along that capitalised on new research and lessons learnt - the P-51 is an obvious and prominent one) but the trend was pushing towards that direction.

 

FYI - I'm talking fighters, the Pe-2 wasn't designed to be a fighter although I get why you added it.

Took The C because the data was directly available, without the need to go through the manuals.
But the Creep is general, all planes had their wingload going up through the years and evolutions, so are all planes actually with a high wingload? philosophical question 

[Aurora_Stealth]

15 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

AFAIK the P-40E has about the same wing loading and about the same power to weight ratio as the 110E, but I seriously doubt the P-40 performs as good, I'm not the greatest pilot...but In my experience it's by far outclassed. 

 

The P-40 should do fine against it, but its not going to be straightforward or black and white. Gunners are fairly effective in-game which can make an approach complicated... but more importantly, regarding the P-40 - the current engine timing/limitations in this game is affecting the comparative performance. Some of it is too stringent and not really reflective of what could be expected in the field. But again that's another can of worms.

 

The Allison engined P-40 is probably one of the worst affected by the engine limitations, which were often exceeded by the British (for example) as they knew the engine was generally highly reliable and could/did take extra boost pressure because the performance needed to be high enough to deal with the opposition they had.

 

46 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Show me one person using 45% of fuel in the quake arena's 
with 45%, in the 110 you can cross all the maps...twice.
they're all flying on vapours, whatever the plane.

 

Took The C because the data was directly available, without the need to go through the manuals.
But the Creep is general, all planes had their wingload going up through the years and evolutions, so are all planes actually with a high wingload? philosophical question 

 

Regarding the 45% stuff, some of that is just gaming the system isn't it - you can't easily stop people from taking low fuel loads to gain agility when the situation presents itself online. People will always do that, so I'm not sure you can really blame the Bf 110 design itself for that... but I get your gripe.

 

I agree with you - all aircraft were indeed suffering from weight creep as the war went on, the situation and requirements of aircraft were developing all the time - that's not anything unique to German aircraft... but the willingness to accept much higher wing loading's in new designs did change a lot between the 30's and 40's and was influenced greatly by the initial designs Germany fielded.

 

What I was trying to get at... (not very well I suppose) is that in the late 30's after the German aircraft manufacturers started figuring out how to build monoplane fighters and the potential they brought... they became convinced and were willing to accept much higher wing loading's than had been done before (20 - 40% more) and more than what might have been considered acceptable by pilots, air forces, governments... The pilots who had survived the first world war often believed that turning circles and maneuverability was a high priority and therefore a low wing loading i.e. lots of wing area was the direction to be going in and had pushed this view - this is a huge contrast.

 

So I'm not talking changes here or there due to adding equipment or situational needs, I'm talking about a break from convention in how fighter designs were prioritising manuverability, agility and responsiveness which can be measured in one sense through wing loading.

 

This meant aircraft manufacturers literally telling governments: if you want high speed, agility (roll performance) and responsiveness in your controls to beat the opposition... then accept a much, much higher wing loading in your new designs than your competitors... and at the cost of some turning circle / maneuverability.

 

Obviously the German's weren't the only ones experimenting and learning (i'm not claiming that)... but their success in paving the way with the Bf 109 (first flown 1935), followed by the Fw 190 (first flown 1939) and early on in the war... both which had much higher wing loading's than most of the opposition single engined fighters of the time... showed the direction things had to go.

 

So by succeeding with them (including at their own internal trials at the RLM) this influenced a lot of other future designs towards accepting what had seemed only a few years before to be a controversial subject and potentially unacceptable compromises to maneuverability.

 

I hope that makes sense, if not... fml - I did try.

[JV69badatflyski]

On 11/12/2021 at 6:16 PM, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

All that...

[Aurora_Stealth]

Just a couple of loose ends I had to clarify and read up on...

 

I was quite amazed to read that the Bf 110 can (at least according to the spec sheets) pull a much higher AoA than the P-40 (worth knowing), and as the 110 is a pretty stable gun platform with loads of ammo they can pull off quite a volley/spray of cannon fire at you before you'll even get the chance to tighten your manoeuvre and get out the way of it.

 

Just one last thing to keep in mind, the P-40E we have in-game is the rough equivalent of the Bf 110 E / F in terms of an historical match-up... so if you're fighting a Bf 110 G (1943-44) in the P-40 E (1941-42) we have in-game then its going to be a mismatch. The Bf 110 G is upgraded with DB605's that give much more power and performance than the earlier versions.

 

So I think in real life... the equivalent variant to the Bf 110 G would be something like the P-40 L, M or maybe even N... none of which we have in-game. So just be careful with match-ups as IL-2 has lots of different expansions that don't all have equivalent aircraft models.

 

Frankly, I'd love to see a later model P-40... it would be a nice collector plane. I think it was used more in the Mediterranean and North Africa though and not so much in northern Europe which is probably why we haven't got it yet.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[357th_KW]

Does anyone in here have any actual performance data for the 110G2 other than what is publicly available on www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org?