All-Aircraft-Simulations
New Me-109 slots? - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=267)
+--- Forum: IL-2 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=348)
+---- Forum: IL2 MODS Discussion Section 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=292)
+---- Thread: New Me-109 slots? (/showthread.php?tid=54144)

Pages: 1 2

- Karaya - 07.06.2008

FANATIC MODDER Wrote:The problem arouses because in IL-2 as we read in IL compare, Bf 109G-2 weights just 2838kg when Bf 109G-6 (Early and Late) weights 3171kg and Bf 109F-4 ....2920kg!!!In reality the weight of G-2s was a bit more than that of F-4s.I don't know why they made it like this.

This unrealistically low takeoff weight of the Bf109G2 is just to let the aircraft achieve realistic performances ingame (weird isnt it!?). Seems like the only way to achieve realistic performance for the G2 is to tinker a little bit with its weight, and thats what Oleg did!

The problem doesnt so much lie with the G2 than with the Fs and G6s. The G2 achieves and matches real life data almost exactly! Someone ranted that the 667km/h are over the top, but hell this was achieved by the Russians flying a captured aircraft as already pointed out. Now we know the Russians and Germans at that time werent exactly best friends... so why should the Russian aeronautical testing institute publish overrated and exagerated values for the aircraft of its enemy!? If anything it would publish lower values in order to boast how great their own aircraft are and how much of a piece of junk the enemy are.

Now besides the topspeed test carried out by the Russians I have also a scan of a turntime test made by them as well and the worst the G2 achieves is 20.5 seconds, which is again modelled spot on ingame!

Now when keeping in mind that the G6s both have the same engine and ONLY around 60kg more (+2%) weight on takeoff compared to the G2 their best turntime in IL2 of no less than 23seconds seems way out of balance. If I'd have to guess then I would say it shouldnt be worse than 21seconds. Also their topseeds compare poorly, coming in at 630km/h for the early and 635km/h for the late model.

Calculating in the true speed loss of the MG bulges, tail wheel and kidney buldges plus the 1,42 clearance for the late model, this SHOULD be 640 and 650km/h respectively!

For the 109Fs the only thing thats modelled incorrectly is their turntimes which should be in the lower 19seconds region yet their are 19,9 and 20,5 (F2 and F4)

If we correct this the whole image is restored to a logic result!

- jcalonso - 07.06.2008

Not really very practical for WW2 air battles. Only if someone wishes to recreate the IFNI (Western Sahara) confrontation of Spain against irregular moroccan troops during the 50

- vanir - 07.06.2008

For the 1946 campaign scenario models like the Buchon and Avia derivatives are an excellent idea I think. There are custom postwar skins for Mark VIII Spits and Mustangs for a few countries like Israel or Belgium floating about, you've got the major players using the new jets, so why not complete the picture? I always thought a JuMo 211 engine Me-109G-14 would make an interesting second echelon warplane at least. Plus these 109 models were in service through to the Korean War, a time period which is being developed by some modders.

But admitedly I think the priorities for whingeing and pleading are those things the sim has really been crying out for as is, like RAF heavies, the Meteor F.1 and F.3, the Avia B.534, Fiat CR.32, the Hudson, Dorniers, revamped and accurate pits and yes, especially variants of existing models, which would seem easier to punch out. Like the Me-109C/D and E-1/3, the Griffon Spits, P-47N and P-51H. Most of these look like relatively minor, though I'm sure very time consuming cosmetic changes, with new WM/FM's and new slots, also time consuming in terms of credible research.

Myself I'd like to see a few engine variations in the Emils to put it plainly. I don't know what we've supposed to have modelled, a DB-601N is likely according to Kurfurst, but the E-7/Z just appears fictional in its (non-boosted) modelling to me. I mean the logical course should have been the 601Aa motor in the E-4 series and the 601N in both E-7 models, plus those last two (non-boosted) performance should be identical. There's a good 100hp difference or more between the Aa and N through most of the flight envelope and the rated altitudes are very different, there should be some significant change in performance between the E-4 and E-7 modelled and this is a problem.

On top I'd like to see the plain old 900-1050PS 601A-1 engine E-1/3 in il2. A four machine gun variant, perhaps an E-1/B and a hub firing MG FF fitment or option for an E-3 (early builds were sometimes fitted with this layout and two or four machine guns, as exampled by recovered BoB airframes). According to one article by a wartime Messerschmitt engineer the armament layouts on those early 109 models really had a significant impact on overall fighter performance, which I think is interesting.

I think it'd be fun to take a spin in a non-injected Me-109D. Apparently this engine was terribly unreliable and was far less popular among pilots than the 109C even if it virtually revolutionised Me-109 fighter performance. The B and C of course would be a joy to buzz around in, especially during some flight training or early nachtj

- Brophmeister - 10.06.2008

Howlin, are you an admin? :wink:

Yes, I agree that the poor performance of the G6 in game is an issue that has long needed adressing. +1