BF-109 Stats For Ultimate Axis MOD

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: 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.

The Spit 14 had a Griffon engine with a vast jump in installed power over the Mk. IX, which should make it rather superior to any 109. The Mk. XVI was essentially a Mk. IX.

If you rate the Spit Vb with 32, where do you rate the Fw190 A-2/A-3, which ran rings around the Spit Vb (a kill ratio of 12:1 IIRC)? BTW, the correct armament for the A-2/3/4 would be 2x MG 17 in the cowling (centerline), 2x20mm MG 151/20E in the wing roots, and 2x20mm MG FF/M in the outer wings.

[Erkki]

You guys forget something - the radius of turn is not important at all in combat(you use it to avoid obstacles), the rate of turn is. 109 and 190 have poor radius of turn, granted, but their rate of turn at all but slow speeds is better than Spitfire's - usually. Especially the FW190 could turn very quickly at high speeds, before the maneuvering would slow it down.

That is also the reason why Hellcat was so good against Zekes - at higher speeds it could fly rings around Zekes with its excellent rate of roll and rate of turn where Zeke had almost no aeleron response and little elevator. The fight would be and in many vs. many fights often was over before the planes slowed down - and Hellcats had no reason to slow down. Same goes with 190s and Spitfires, 190s only had to turn to pull the lead, if they missed, high-yo-yo for another shot and bug out if that too failed. In many vs. many faster planes can keep "dragging and bagging" - shooting bandits out of each others tails, never letting the enemy to get into a firing position at least within effective guns range. Should the E/A just keep turning, some other friendly than the original chaser(perhaps the chased one) will get a firing position cutting the bandits turn. Faster planes always dominate. Better climb might, on some rare occasions, give ability to get out of trouble climbing but if awake the side with faster aircraft dominates. Even if the slower ones get to bounce, unless they also manage to surprise the lower enemies, its easy to dive and give some angles to either force the bouncer pull up or overshoot; and in dive the Zeke is not exactly the best choice, and not least because it looses elevator authority after 400kmph IAS(220mph?).

So yep, because climb is only used to calculate who gets to bounce whom, maneuverability definately should increase with speed.

[Dili]

So yep, because climb is only used to calculate who gets to bounce whom, maneuverability definately should increase with speed.

No one knows the formulas, only the devs so that is impossible to answer, making things too different might destroy the model. Also i think you are making a confusion, it is not rate of turn vs radius, when you say this:

FW190 could turn very quickly at high speeds, before the maneuvering would slow it down.

it is clear that fw190 have a poor comparatively sustained rate of turn. The difference is between sustained and instantaneous. In Modern air combat for example the traditional delta wing Mirages are know for very good instantaneous turn rate and poor sustained turn rate, drag makes them loose energy fast.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: Dili

So yep, because climb is only used to calculate who gets to bounce whom, maneuverability definately should increase with speed.

No one knows the formulas, only the devs so that is impossible to answer, making things too different might destroy the model. Also i think you are making a confusion, it is not rate of turn vs radius, when you say this:

FW190 could turn very quickly at high speeds, before the maneuvering would slow it down.

it is clear that fw190 have a poor comparatively sustained rate of turn. The difference is between sustained and instantaneous. In Modern air combat for example the traditional delta wing Mirages are know for very good instantaneous turn rate and poor sustained turn rate, drag makes them loose energy fast.

Thats exactly what I meant - sustained rate of turn is less important than instantaneous if the fight is not 1 vs 1 and especially if the plane happens to be faster than its opposition. There is no need to turn multiple 360s with the bandit to gain firing position - one quick turn to pull the lead, fire, and break. If you miss, someone else gets to fire it, sooner or later, engaging in a sustained maneuvering fight where energy retention and sustainable rate of turn matter more is the last resort, and real pilots without a doubt liked their lives. This is why I think, if the game uses mainly the maneuverability value in calculating who gets to shoot whom, should increase with top speed. Faster planes in typical situations also have more energy to burn.

But yeah without knowing exactly how the system, its hard to tell.

[Dili]

Not getting in sustained maneuvers means less time to hit which means less chances, also unless you can predict the enemy trajectories in advance, instantaneous turn is not enough.
Maneuverability in this game is very important because it is the only place where you can define performance per altitude and instantaneous turn rate is a part of maneuverability. Besides ask yourself this: if speed doesn't matter in air combat in this game why is it there? There is also a climb value too.

[RRStewart]

So this ultimate Axis mod is going forward? [&:]
I ask as I'm debating whether to stop my own efforts to that end, and await the final product of minds far more productive. [&o]
Or should I continue my own efforts for a War in the Atlantic, Jan 41 - 46 Scenario? [:D]
And the Germans do get the bomb in mid 45. [X(]

[Dali]

Standart drop fuel tanks LW (for 109 line) is 1x300 litre...

[chesmart]

The concept behind the Mod has changed, What I am doing now is VS AI Mod with changes to the Japanese OOB to make it a lot stronger and the adding of Axis forces (germany and Italy). The last things I need to finish are Allied OOB and the AI scripts which I am Editing at present. If you want I can send you the Mod as is as at present The AI script is proving to be difficult. WARNING it is not a finished product i.e. The AI it present is still the IronMan version which is good for Naval engagements but the new Land and Air units will not work.

[traskott]

Could u send me a copy at traskott@gmail.com? Thanks!!!

[oldman45]

Just my 2 cents, I am a big fan of the 109, but it did a a weakness in it landing gear with should lead to some high op loses when using rudimentary air strips.

[chesmart]

I increased the service rating by 2 points to reflect the fragility.

[Erkki]

Doesnt service rating 2 come from liquid cooled inline(as opposed to air cooled radial)?

With equally experienced or inexperienced pilots I doubt Bf 109 suffered any more landing or takeoff accidents as monoplanes with similar-ish landing gear such as Spitfire. Afaik Bf 109 was fairly easy to take off and land on grass or sand/gravel(or at least no or little more difficult than other WW2 warbirds), but would be a little "bouncy" on tarmac...

AFAIK for some reason the Luftwaffe's doctrine used in training was to tell the pilots to fully open the gas right away, which of course induced lots of torque and yaw... Many if not all of those training fields had multi-kilometer runways, so that was not needed at all and just resulted in needlessly many dead pilots... [:(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Just my 2 cents, I am a big fan of the 109, but it did a a weakness in it landing gear with should lead to some high op loses when using rudimentary air strips.

Recent studies have suggested this is a myth. The 109 did not suffer op losses greatly different from other types. A recent book on the Battle of Britian had some good commentary on it.

[chesmart]

It is interesting nick but I think that the bf-109 will still have problems on cvs as it is a little bit fragile compared to the hellcat. Same applies to spitfire.

[RRStewart]

Hey Che200, you can shoot it to me at RonaldR.Stewart@GMail.Com. I'll create a new folder in my already overcrowded WitP development folder!

[Commander Stormwolf]

WITP:war in russia .. ah yes quite an excellent one

a few points

1) WIR mod had some "bonuses" for the axis to account for the better tactics and radios in axis aircraft,
none of which are true in the pacific (USAAF flew as 4 plane element and has radios)

most of these are in the realm of MVR values

remember the Spitfire I has a wing loading of 120kg/m2 Bf-109E is 170kg/m2..
spitfire was not "a little better" than the Me-109 (present day warped history) it was MUCH better as a dogfighter


some small details:

also speed is a few % too big for some axis designs

BF-109E is supposed to have 350mph instead of 357