BF-109 Stats For Ultimate Axis MOD

[chesmart]

Bubi you just mad my day! I was getting confused with the FW-190 to many models and you just gave me all the answers thanks.

Do you have the ranges ?

[Nemo121]

Bubi,

A few questions:
1. Are you really saying the Bf109s were more manoeuvrable than the Zero up high? Neither they nor the Zeroes were good high-altitude performers but I find it difficult to thinkof th 109 as being more manoeuvrable.

2. The high altitude differential between your 109s etc and the Ta-152H seems far too small..

3. Bombers with manoeuvre of 0 ???

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Bubi,

A few questions:
1. Are you really saying the Bf109s were more manoeuvrable than the Zero up high? Neither they nor the Zeroes were good high-altitude performers but I find it difficult to thinkof th 109 as being more manoeuvrable.

2. The high altitude differential between your 109s etc and the Ta-152H seems far too small..

3. Bombers with manoeuvre of 0 ???

1. The way I understand it, the Bf-109 was decent at low levels, but lacked power and manuevre at higher altitudes.

2. Ta-152H was designed as a high altitude interceptor. It generally shoudl perform worse at lower altitudes the way I understand it.

3. Should even the heavies be around 2-4?

[Dili]

Depends of what Bf 109 we are talking about. Those with DB-605 were certainly better than Zero at altitude. Fw 190 wwre only good at low-medium level.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
3. Bombers with manoeuvre of 0 ???

Note that in stock most bombers have a manuever value, but no individual values for alttitude bands. I am not sure why this is, but I believe that it is intentional and should thus be followed for any bombers that are added later.

[Nemo121]

Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

But its -not- zero. Only the individual alttitude maneuver values are 0, but the 'general' manuever values are not 0.

This is exactly the same as for all the bombers in the standard AE scenarios. Thus, it is as it should be.

Illustrated here;

[chesmart]

Here are the updated stats using Bubi's Data:

BF-109E-3

MVR: L 24
M 24
MH 21
H 18
VH 15

Service Rating 2

I am still working on the ranges

[chesmart]

Here are the updated stats using Bubi's Data:

BF-109G-6

MVR: L 22
M 22
MH 22
H 20
VH 16

Service Rating 2

I am still working on the ranges

[chesmart]

Here are the updated stats using Bubi's Data:

BF-109K-10

MVR: L 21
M 21
MH 21
H 19
VH 16

Service Rating 2

I am still working on the ranges

[chesmart]

Here are the updated stats using Bubi's Data:

BF-109T-1

MVR: L 25
M 25
MH 22
H 19
VH 15

Service Rating 3 (as it is a CV aircraft)

I am still working on the ranges

[chesmart]

I will be starting 2 new threads with FW-190 and JU-87 with screen shots.

Anybody with more info is welcome !

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

I understand, the Ta-152H should be far superior at high altitude and probably only 'as good as' a 109 at low. I don't have sources at the moment, but IIRC the Ta-152H was more than capable of outmanuevering most Allied fighters at high altitudes. The 109 should not be anywhere near the high altitude performer of the Ta-152H.

I'd say 109 would manage a manuevre rate of 16-20 at High, but that is just my opinion. Ta-152H would probably rate a 30-36 at high...again my opinion, especially since I have to use the SWAG method not knowing the formula the dev's used.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

I understand, the Ta-152H should be far superior at high altitude and probably only 'as good as' a 109 at low. I don't have sources at the moment, but IIRC the Ta-152H was more than capable of outmanuevering most Allied fighters at high altitudes. The 109 should not be anywhere near the high altitude performer of the Ta-152H.

I'd say 109 would manage a manuevre rate of 16-20 at High, but that is just my opinion. Ta-152H would probably rate a 30-36 at high...again my opinion, especially since I have to use the SWAG method not knowing the formula the dev's used.

While I admit I am not familiar with German aircraft, 30-36 at High sounds completely ridiculous. I could see maybe 20-25 like some of the jets, but 3 times higher than most allied high alt fighters? I doubt it.

[Nemo121]

JuanG, Well don't forget that it will be facing the utterly unreasonable performance of the P80 Shooting Star- Mvr of 28 at EVERY altitude band? Don't make me laugh.


If we use the P47N as a basis which has Mvr ratings of 17 at every altitude then think the Ta-152 could pretty reasonable be a 24 or 25 alright... It was after all designed as a high altitude fighter with excellent climb and dive characteristics. It was probably the best boom and zoom fighter of the war really.

Out of interest.... Can anyone defend the P80s 28/28/28/28/28/28 etc MVR rating at all altitude bands? This seems weird to me especially compared to the Ki-201

[chesmart]

It was designed by Kelly Johnston and his skunk works easy.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JuanG, Well don't forget that it will be facing the utterly unreasonable performance of the P80 Shooting Star- Mvr of 28 at EVERY altitude band? Don't make me laugh.


If we use the P47N as a basis which has Mvr ratings of 17 at every altitude then think the Ta-152 could pretty reasonable be a 24 or 25 alright... It was after all designed as a high altitude fighter with excellent climb and dive characteristics. It was probably the best boom and zoom fighter of the war really.

Out of interest.... Can anyone defend the P80s 28/28/28/28/28/28 etc MVR rating at all altitude bands? This seems weird to me especially compared to the Ki-201

I changed the P80's ratings in all my scenarios to 24 at all bands, and likewise increased the Japanese jets to comparable levels.

Thus, as I understand this is based on my CV Variant, you wont need a rating of 36 to compete with the P-80s.

[chesmart]

As juan said this is based on his mod and the stats are what he said for P-80

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

I understand, the Ta-152H should be far superior at high altitude and probably only 'as good as' a 109 at low. I don't have sources at the moment, but IIRC the Ta-152H was more than capable of outmanuevering most Allied fighters at high altitudes. The 109 should not be anywhere near the high altitude performer of the Ta-152H.

I'd say 109 would manage a manuevre rate of 16-20 at High, but that is just my opinion. Ta-152H would probably rate a 30-36 at high...again my opinion, especially since I have to use the SWAG method not knowing the formula the dev's used.

While I admit I am not familiar with German aircraft, 30-36 at High sounds completely ridiculous. I could see maybe 20-25 like some of the jets, but 3 times higher than most allied high alt fighters? I doubt it.

Remember though, the faster you go, the less you turn. It actually makes sense for the Jets to be less manueverable than the propellor driven a/c. Trouble is, the MVR rating in this game seems to be more of a catch all number, not just the turning ability. It's hard to balance it (or make sense of it for that matter).

Jets are actually less manueverable than piston engined aircraft. Also, monoplanes are actually less manueverable than biplanes, etc. Of course, the fact that you can turn a 360 in half the radius of a jet isn't going to change the fact that you can't keep up. There is one instance of a pair of AD-1 Skyraiders taking down a MiG-17, but the MiG made the mistake of engaging at low altitude and low speed, the perfect conditions for the Skyraiders. In other words, it seems to be the exception, not the rule. [:)]

Like I said, SWAG based on the stats of other aircraft in the official DB. I really have no clue about the formula for the MVR numbers. [:)]

[Nemo121]

I'm not trying to pick on Juan or anyone, just a bit staggered that the game shipped with a P80 having 28 in all MVR bands... It just seems excessively high and standardised to me.