BF-109 Stats For Ultimate Axis MOD

[Pascal_slith]

For flight test data check this forum and the original documents there.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/

[Shark7]

Well, after looking at some more info, the Ta-152 seems to have been more in line with the Hawker Tempest and P-51H in performance, perhaps a MVR rating of 24-26 at high is more plausible.

[chesmart]

Shark in CV enhanced the Vhigh Rating for tempest is 8 and p-51h is 15

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: che200

Shark in CV enhanced the Vhigh Rating for tempest is 8 and p-51h is 15

Those are unaltered from the normal values.

I've only just noticed the Ta-152 has a very high max speed - generally planes like these have a trend towards lower manuever values, as speed compensates for it. Maybe around 17-18 is fine afterall. This still makes it notably superior to the Bf-109 and Fw-190, being faster and having 2-4 points more manuever.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: che200

Shark in CV enhanced the Vhigh Rating for tempest is 8 and p-51h is 15

At HIGH it is 20 for the P-51, which is why I stated 24 for HIGH, not Very HIGH. [;)] That may still be a little too good though.

We're comparing apples and oranges. [X(]

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: 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?

Basically Speaking the Me-109E was by far best turning fighter of the 109 series, Followed by 109F, 109G2, 109g6, 109g10, 109k4. However far as turn radius goes, its barely larger then a Spitfires turn radius. Also power depends on the model, example most 109s flew quite well from 0-5,000feet up to 24,000 feet. Climb rate was outstanding, as well as speed. However turn radius was on par with the spitfire till the 109g2 model, after that it started getting terrible. Basically 109k4 was an interceptor able to do 450mph, however in a dogfight with a 109e based on turn radius, E model wins hands down.

Ta-152 also was an extreme high alt interceptor, able 450+ at 40,000 feet, where 109s rarely went above 25,000 because the climb rate just dropped off as well as speed.

Ta-152 I believe does 330 on the deck, 400mph at 15,000, 425 at 23,000 and 450 above 45,000. Turn radius was surprisingly small at alt based on its long wings.

if needed I have all the stats on every plane, including turn radius etc, not sure how that breaks down in game.

[Dobey455]

One problem with discussing high altittude performance is that you have to be careful not to confuse "performance" with "manuverability".

The P-47 for example made its name as a high altittude fighter, yet it actually wasn't particularly manouvable up high (indeed it couldn't out-turn an axis fighter at any altitude.)
Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

I haven't researched the Ta-152, but looking at its elongated wings I would think its strengths would probably be rate of climb and power at alt rather than pure turning ability.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

One problem with discussing high altittude performance is that you have to be careful not to confuse "performance" with "manuverability".

The P-47 for example made its name as a high altittude fighter, yet it actually wasn't particularly manouvable up high (indeed it couldn't out-turn an axis fighter at any altitude.)
Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

I haven't researched the Ta-152, but looking at its elongated wings I would think its strengths would probably be rate of climb and power at alt rather than pure turning ability.

Actually quite opposite, the rate of climb was terrible compared to 109 and 190, the engine was made for extreme high alt engagements, so anything below 20,000 feet the Ta-152 couldn't manage to do anything but run on Wep. However its endurance was just amazing, ability to fly over 450mph above 30,000 feet, I believe the cruise speed was over 300mph and it could pretty much out turn anything up there. Now P47 did its job amazingly well, however given the Ta-152 came out years later, you can't compare either plane. I say if the Ta-152 was mass produced it would of been the dogfighter while Me262's do the bomber busting. However with such small engagements in the Ta-152 its tough to say how good it really was. Same with the Do-335, except Do-335 was amazing climber and turn fighter at 30k except like all other designs it wasn't produced.

[chesmart]

So do you think the stats in the FW-190 thread are correct The TA-152 is included

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: che200

So do you think the stats in the FW-190 thread are correct The TA-152 is included

The weapons are incorrect -
Fw190a3 had 2x MG FF's which would be lower damage then the MG 151 - with 60rpg
2x MG 151's 20mm with better damage, and faster firing rate with 250rpg

Fw190d9 has 2x MG 151's 250rpg and 2x 13mm with I believe.. 325rpg? (not sure on the 13mm)
The D9 also carried max a 550kg bomb or 220 liter drop tank.

Ta-152 looks fine, However normal range is pretty off by a lot, Ta-152 had excellent endurance and fuel capacity, I know the fuel was double what the 109/190 carried internal. I would honestly say Fw190a3 has Normal Range of 7, and Fw190d9 has normal range of 6 or 5. Also I believe the Rate of climb should be around 2200 or 3200 with WEP on. So not sure how that factors in game.


Also slight suggestion changing Fw190a3 to Fw190a5 - which was used pretty extensively over the A3/a4 model

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

One problem with discussing high altittude performance is that you have to be careful not to confuse "performance" with "manuverability".

The P-47 for example made its name as a high altittude fighter, yet it actually wasn't particularly manouvable up high (indeed it couldn't out-turn an axis fighter at any altitude.)
Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

I haven't researched the Ta-152, but looking at its elongated wings I would think its strengths would probably be rate of climb and power at alt rather than pure turning ability.

The P-47 was a flying tank. You are right about it having pure power, but it also had a lot of armor that let it survive head on attacks with Axis fighters as well.

[Misconduct]

If you need any stats for any german aeroplane, feel free to contact me via pm I have just about every aircraft with what I believe is the correct actual stats for the luftwaffe planes. Just keep in mind anything beyond 1945 in terms of aircraft like Ta-152 etc are pretty sketchy with no real hard proof.

[Dili]

Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

If that so means that P-47 version had a big advantage in energy/speed at that altitude. That should be shown in maneuverability since the game doesn't have other altitude variable fields.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

If that so means that P-47 version had a big advantage in energy/speed at that altitude. That should be shown in maneuverability since the game doesn't have other altitude variable fields.

Pretty much so, the P-47 would basically gain maneuverability the higher it goes, up to 35,000k far as I know as well as speed. So roughly where some aircraft like the P-51 and bf109 clock out at 25,000 feet, the P-47 still gains in performance which would be exchanged for manueverability and speed.

I think only key area that would drop off for the P-47 is in fact climb rate, I know 90% of aircraft didn't have a climb rate past 25,000ft. However performance was still there for example the Ta-152 which was designed for that alt.

[Big B]

Just curious here - how did you figure the maneuver ratings?

[chesmart]

I am using Bubi Hartman data from War in Russia mod he is making and then will be adding Drop tanks. Then I will post them here and we will discuss them.

[bklooste]

Spitfire Vb has 32 manuever and Me109 24 thats not right...I thought they would be pretty close with a small advantage to the spit at lower altitudes.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Spitfire Vb has 32 manuever and Me109 24 thats not right...I thought they would be pretty close with a small advantage to the spit at lower altitudes.

It would most likely be Spitfire Vb 32 and Me109F 30 - because all the spits/109s turn radius were almost spot on, just the spitfire was slightly better. That goes from the 109e up to 109k4 and Spitfire mark 1 to Spitfire 14. However spitfire 16 was a complete change aerodynamically and actually improved on the spit14, where all 109s gradually lost Maneuverability. Only the 109f and 109G2 actually stayed the same turn radius with improved engines, where 109g6 actually had a larger turn radius, but improved engine and weapons enabled it higher alt engagements.

[Misconduct]

Here's my Spitfire Vb vs Bf 109g-2 comparison
top speed military power:
Bf109g-2 402 at 23,000ft
SpitVB 360 at 18500 ft
top speed WEP Power
Bf109g-2 412 at 23,000ft
Acceration:
Bf109g-2 22.9 seconds to 300 mph
Spit VB: 61.0s to 300mph
Turn Radius:
Bf109g-2 636 feet no flaps full circle
SpitVB 503 feet no flaps
Bf109g-2 467 feet full flaps
SpitVB 386 feet full flaps
Max Speed low alt:
Bf109g-2 342 with wep
SpitVB 306

So with the data compiled you can see the 109 actually was well improved over the Spit VB in all terms except turn radius.

[Misconduct]

Hey Che, im going to email you some of my books to use for aircraft information, im having trouble right now because basically I know the Max distance Luftwaffe planes can fly with a drop tank, however Im not sure about the other values of them.

Also some of the top speeds are off a little bit, do you want me to change them or leave them be?