I always end up in a 109

[fogpipe]

I start out to try to learn new aircraft against new adversaries, get the bindings down do the homework etc and by the end of the play session, im in a 109, usually the f series, with the windows shot out, trailing black smoke, trying to pick off one more yak, before sneaking across the border with whats left of my engine and bailing out. 

I have been doing that since the very first il2. I think i need a new routine. Im swearing off the 109 till i at least finish a spit career.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by fogpipe

[SAS_Storebror]

If you've been dealing with Yaks mainly, then the logical next step to see how green the grass can be on the other side would be to fly it yourself.

The Yak series in IL-2 GB is almost as foolproof as the Friedrich: You can hardly overcool the engine and there's almost no limit you'd need to take care of other than blacking out (yes I know there are limits, but reaching them is just as hard as doing so in a 109).

That'd be the easy way to get used to something else.

If you're out for a challenge and want to learn something completely different - still fighter related - I'd recommend the I-16 or the P-47.

 

Mike

[Lusekofte]

P 47 is hard core. In my hands it is totally useless in a equal fight. 
After flying DCS jug I simply lost taste of it in GB. 
I find being good at 109 demand good spotting abilities, I do not have the presence of mind over a longer period than a second after takeoff. 
If I am to be successful I need a maneuverable fighter like the yak or P 39 

and have the fortune to spot a attacking fighter before his cannonshells hit me and get a few good hits while he pass me. 
I done that in the Duck and IL 2 several times. Some in P 39. And I only fly Yak 9 T among that type but never online

[SAS_Storebror]

Probably coming from the 109 F, the Yak-1b Series 127 is the easiest transition as it is quite comparable in speed, manoeuvrability, handling and carefree in terms of engine management.

That's why I suggested it as the quick and easy look over the fence.

 

Sure, the P-47 is hardcore, as are it's guns.

That's why I said that this would teach you a whole different style of fighting, with absolute focus on energy management, good marksmanship and very good SA 'cause you definitely need to make sure that no 109 appears at your six with energy advantage.

 

Same for the I-16, just the other way around: You have to lure your enemy into some kind of low-mid speed turn fight, which against medium experienced pilots will be quite a hard thing to achieve, and you have to pepper your victims and pray for the 1001st bullet to get through the enemy's  tin skin.

 

Mike

[BornToBattle]

I don’t fly anywheres near like I would like to as reality takes (unfortunately) precedence, but when I do fly the Yak series is the one I’ve flown the least but reading the feedback here I may be tempted to switch up my routine. 
 

I did have a career going (play iron man and realistic settings) and one of the more enjoyable ones was in the ‘109 F-4. Also had a good go with the Ju-52. The P-47-28 is my current ride and yes, as stated many times it’s a challenge to overcome being the biggest cannon fodder on the block but that’s just me. I love a challenge, much like I also like babysitting many of the US aircraft, of which the P-40 jumps to mind. There’s just something about doing a mission and returning home after putting the engine through it’s paces with no smoke or vapor trailing you when the wheels finally touch down ala Warhawk.

 

But man, after test flying that P-38 I find myself thinking I’m beating a dead horse with the ‘47. Kinda like being in a bad marriage.

[fogpipe]

I might try the yak, iirc i had a brief intereest in the i-16 but i never really got the hang of the engine managment. The p47 is on my list.

[Finkeren]

If I can make a suggestion, give the MiG-3 a try. It is immensely satisfying to fly and has a lot of interesting quirks. 

 

Against it's 1941 contemporaries, it is VERY capable - only really outclassed by the Bf 109F4, has very nice view from the cockpit and very pleasant handling in the air. 

 

The ground handling is...   ....intreresting. But if nothing else it provided an interesting challenge. 

 

Plus, it's the prettiest aircraft ever built. 

[sniperton]

16 hours ago, fogpipe said:

I start out to try to learn new aircraft against new adversaries, get the bindings down do the homework etc and by the end of the play session, im in a 109, usually the f series, with the windows shot out, trailing black smoke, trying to pick off one more yak, before sneaking across the border with whats left of my engine and bailing out.

Perhaps it's just bad karma. Or you're not born to the 109 (me neither). Forget about it. Take the Yak, or the MiG, or the P-40, or the LaGG, or even a 190. They are all different, and they are all fun. I'm sure you'll find the one which is best fitting to your style.

[flagdjmetcher]

4 hours ago, Finkeren said:

If I can make a suggestion, give the MiG-3 a try. It is immensely satisfying to fly and has a lot of interesting quirks. 

 

Against it's 1941 contemporaries, it is VERY capable - only really outclassed by the Bf 109F4, has very nice view from the cockpit and very pleasant handling in the air. 

 

The ground handling is...   ....intreresting. But if nothing else it provided an interesting challenge. 

 

Plus, it's the prettiest aircraft ever built. 

 

The MiG-3 in winter white with the red stripe is the epitome of fighter pilot cool.  It also suits the way the AI flies better than the 109.  Flying a 109 against AI Migs is noticeably more difficult than flying a MiG against AI 109s.

[oc2209]

On 8/3/2020 at 9:42 PM, fogpipe said:

 I think i need a new routine. Im swearing off the 109 till i at least finish a spit career.

 

I have the same problem. It's because the 109F-4 is just so adorable.

 

While I've never read a WWII pilot account where they wax on about the 109 and compare it to either a woman or a horse (I think the Spitfire has had the most man-machine love poetry written on its behalf), I find it the one plane I'm most intuitively in control of. I consider it fun to fly (specifically the F-4; not the F-2), and more than a pragmatic compromise to achieve a certain end in combat. While the La-5FN and Yaks handle very nicely, I find they have too fast a roll rate for me, compared to the 109. In combat, of course, roll speed is a life-saver. But for 'casual' flying I prefer the 109's slow roll.

12 hours ago, Finkeren said:

If I can make a suggestion, give the MiG-3 a try. It is immensely satisfying to fly and has a lot of interesting quirks.

I agree. I started a Russian career in a MiG-3, intending to move on to Yaks later. It was a pleasant surprise in terms of handling and overall combat value. It also has generous weapon loadout options, as well as a lot of .50 cal ammo (350 each?) if you choose to carry dual .50s in the nose.

 

17 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 and you have to pepper your victims and pray for the 1001st bullet to get through the enemy's  tin skin.

Ha ha, I recall taking a lot of heat for saying this in another thread.

[Irishratticus72]

I usually end up in a 109 also. Trouble is, I took off in a yak. 

..... 

[jollyjack]

On 8/4/2020 at 7:42 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

....If you're out for a challenge and want to learn something completely different - still fighter related - I'd recommend the I-16 or the P-47.Mike

 

That little i-16 devil one i really began to appreciate after playing Haash''s Albert's Life campaign.

Fun shooting rockets at Messerschmidt planes and other nasty ones. Out-turns them all too ...

Edited August 5, 2020 by jollyjack

[AEthelraedUnraed]

18 hours ago, Finkeren said:

If I can make a suggestion, give the MiG-3 a try. It is immensely satisfying to fly and has a lot of interesting quirks. 

 

Against it's 1941 contemporaries, it is VERY capable - only really outclassed by the Bf 109F4, has very nice view from the cockpit and very pleasant handling in the air. 

 

The ground handling is...   ....intreresting. But if nothing else it provided an interesting challenge. 

 

Plus, it's the prettiest aircraft ever built. 

Agree on every single one of these points. Its engine management takes a while to get used to with its "mixture" that is in fact more like a boost control, but once you get the hang of it, it's not much harder than the engine management of the Bf-109 while it has 10 times the time limit at max power. Also has great stall behaviour - like the Messerschmitt it'll tell you well in advance when it's about to stall.

 

Makes one wonder why it wasn't exactly known as a great aircraft in real life.

 

As for ground handling, be prepared to learn. I think I botched at least 20 landings before I finally succeeded in not crashing or ground looping. Nowadays, I rarely fail anymore. I even made a successful landing once without both engine and elevators - there's few aircraft I'd do such a feat in!

[Eisenfaustus]

36 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Makes one wonder why it wasn't exactly known as a great aircraft in real life.

Because vvs aviators and commanders were very badly trained and inexperienced. If used like a 109 in free hunt missions with air crew that knew how to use and maintain an energy advantage - it might have gotten a better reputation. Pocryshkin used it to good affect. 
 

But being ordered to fly low and slow means this aircraft was seldom used to it‘s strength.  

[fogpipe]

You guys actually got me curious enough about the Mig 3 that i think i will give it a spin. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

[Leon_Portier]

Same with the Mig 3 for me, I always went so far for a shiny red I-16 ?

[oc2209]

22 hours ago, flagdjmetcher said:

 

The MiG-3 in winter white with the red stripe is the epitome of fighter pilot cool. 

 

I just remembered that I built a model of a MiG-3 in that paint scheme, when I was but a wee lad. Back then, I had no concept of plane performance or their relative success or popularity in the war; when I went into the model shop, I only picked planes out based on looks.

 

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I built a Yak-9T for the exact same reason. I built a 109K because it lacked the ugly bumps. Years before, my brother built a G series with the bumps; and even at the age of, like, 5, I instinctively knew those damn bumps just didn't look aerodynamic.

[cardboard_killer]

All Yaks are beautiful. All Bf-109s are pretty in the dark.

[oc2209]

6 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

All Yaks are beautiful. All Bf-109s are pretty in the dark.

 

*smashes beer bottle and brandishes the jagged rim*

 

Them's fightin' words, mister. I won't have none of that talk about my 109F-4.

 

Now, the G series. Yeah. Totally lights off with her.

[cardboard_killer]

I'll give the F series a nod, so bandage your head and order a new beer.

[oc2209]

2 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

I'll give the F series a nod, so bandage your head and order a new beer.

 

No, you've got the roleplaying all wrong. I smashed the bottle on the imaginary bar counter. This is a bar scene, possibly in the old west.

 

Moving right along: what about the E series and earlier? Tail struts are a huge turn-off, but the square wings have their charm.

[cardboard_killer]

Just now, oc2209 said:

I smashed the bottle on the imaginary bar counter. T

 

Sorry but your posts seemed to indicate some form of skull fractures.

[oc2209]

3 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

Sorry but your posts seemed to indicate some form of skull fractures.

 

I sometimes forget that everyone isn't into LARPing on forums.

[Finkeren]

On 8/5/2020 at 3:41 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Makes one wonder why it wasn't exactly known as a great aircraft in real life.

 

A simple question with a complicated answer - or at least with several answers, most of which probably contributed to the downfall of the MiG-3. 

 

1. The VVS was right in the middle of a massive transitioning to a new generation of aircraft, which would replace pretty much all types over the next couple of years. The result was, that pilot training was severely lacking. The MiG-3 was by far the most advanced aircraft fielded by the VVS at the time, and the pilot retraining program simply couldn't keep up. This meant, that there were always more MiGs available than there were pilots trained to fly them, and the pilots who were ready had very little experience with them. 

 

2. The MiG we have in the sim is a late production variant, which solved a lot of the teething problems of the earlier production examples. It has reduced fuel load due to the deletion of the ventral tank, which caused stability issues when full. An added inert gas system reduces the risk of fuel tank fires. And the addition of slats significantly improves handling at or near stall. The MiG design team actually ironed out many of the issues with the design faster than the Yak- and especially the LaGG teams, but it still meant that more than half of all MiGs produced lacked one or more of these improvements. 

 

3. The MiG was seldom flown in the clean, elegant configuration we are used to seeing. For one thing, at least half of the 1941-production MiGs were fitted with either the UB underving guns or (more commonly) rocket rails for RS-82s, both of which severely hampered performance. Unlike the German Rustsätze, these could not easily be removed when not needed, so pilots had to fly with them constantly. 

Issues with the canopy becoming stuck also led to many pilots flying with open canopies or simply removing the sliding part entirely (photos of MiGs with canopies removed are very common). Furthermore, there were problems with the tailwheel sometimes refusing to deploy for landing, so most MiGs had the tailwheel locked down permanently and some late production examples deleted the retractable tailwheel altogether. 

So if you want to fly a MiG in its historic configuration, always bring rockets and always fly with an open canopy. 

 

4. The MiG was a highly specialized high-altitude interceptor (a role it was actually under-gunned for) but it was practically never used as such. It was pressed into service in all manner of roles, often at low altitude where the performance of its engine wasn't optimal. It was still fairly fast but didn't have anywhere near the edge it potentially could have at higher altitude. 

 

5. In the end the MiG-3 just wasn't the right aircraft for the war that had materialized on the Eastern Front. It was a high-altitude interceptor that wasn't really very versatile, had trouble operating from rough airfields, was fairly expensive to produce and was a bit of a gas-guzzler (the AM-35 had one of the largest displacements of any fighter engine of WW2 - larger than the Napier Sabre, if you can believe it). Worse, its production held back production of AM-38 engines for the IL-2, which was deemed critical for the war effort, so it's easy to see, why production was ended in spring 1942.

 

I hope this adds a little more nuance as to why the MiG-3 was never a succes. It's a lot more complicated than the simplistic (and wrong) assumption, that it was overall a poor design - it absolutely was not. 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Finkeren

[Eisenfaustus]

10 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Now, the G series. Yeah. Totally lights off with her.

Watcha sayn bout ma busty Gustavia?!?

[Irishratticus72]

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

No, you've got the roleplaying all wrong. I smashed the bottle on the imaginary bar counter. This is a bar scene, possibly in the old west.

 

Moving right along: what about the E series and earlier? Tail struts are a huge turn-off, but the square wings have their charm.

I kinda like the struts. Then again, I also liked season 8 of GOT, so, fuck me. 

[Finkeren]

4 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

I kinda like the struts. Then again, I also liked season 8 of GOT, so, fuck me. 

 

Wait a minute... 

 

You LIKED season 8??!?? As in "felt positive about it"? 

 

Yeez man, you're off the deep end. 

[Irishratticus72]

39 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

Wait a minute... 

 

You LIKED season 8??!?? As in "felt positive about it"? 

 

Yeez man, you're off the deep end. 

Man, that epic crossbow shot was straight outta Vasily Zaitsev's playbook! 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 8/6/2020 at 9:42 AM, Finkeren said:

the MiG-3 [...] was a bit of a gas-guzzler

Yes, I've noticed. It actually has a pretty large tank, but if flown at max boost, 50% fuel is barely enough to last a single dogfight.

[oc2209]

On 8/6/2020 at 1:31 AM, Eisenfaustus said:

Watcha sayn bout ma busty Gustavia?!?

 

I never thought of 'der beulen' as breast analogies.

 

Makes me wonder how much American pilots would lewd-up the 109 if they'd flown it; 3-dimensional nose art?