[BF-109 F4]

Well it seems my "button" file is messed up. Anyone can send me the UU 1.1 original button file please?

I checked my air.ini, weapon ru, plane ru files and removed all entries pertaining to Hot Rods and these new slots, but system still crashes at 60%
I has made a backup of my button file and restored it, so I really don't understand..I think the button file has been messed up in a way or else I"m getting nuts...

I'm all messed up with buttons too. First i installed the 093 soundmod version and then the UI 1.1. I didn't know if i had 093 or UI 1.1 buttons file and now i have the P-24 buttons file. I won

[Test Pilot]

Backing to performance of 109 expecially speed performance.

Reading most avialable data we should me very carefull expecially if there are not original data.

But even when we have orginal data and test ( i pass propaganda ) we also should be carefull expecially if we dont know condition of test and other details.

Here is example about F-4 perfomance. I get it from "Kurfurst forum":

"It looks to me that Rechlin's figures for the bf 109 f4 in this site are not compressibility corrected.

Rechlin's figures give:

537 kmh @ sealevel
670 kmh @ Full throttle height

For a max power of 1350 bhp

The IV/78/42 data which is compressibility corrected gives:

523 kmh @ sealevel
635 kmh @ Full throttle height

For a max power of 1250 bhp

The IV/43/42 data not corrected for compressibility gives:

526 kmh @ sealevel
660 kmh @ Full throttle height

For a max power of 1250 bhp.

Rechlin's figures are proportional to the IV/43/42 data which is NOT corrected for compressibility. Therefore, it seems clear that rechlin data is not compressibility corrected due to the accelerated increase in speeds at higher and higher alt compare to IV/78/42 data which is corrected for compression.

If corrected, rechlin's figures should give about:

537 kmh @ sealevel
645-650 kmh @ Full throttle height. "

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/1 ... lated.html


And speaking about turning times we have only russian data which was:

Bf 109 F-4 ( left - right turn)
19,6 - 20.5

Bf 109 G-2
20- 21,5

So G-6 should be worse but we dont have detalied info. Probably it coud be:

21-22,5

[Muas]

New version update v2, to cope with all buttons files related issues...

Enjoy!

[crazydog]

Thank you!!
hopes the P-24 can be used... :lol: :lol:

[BF-109 F4]

Works perfectly, thanks m8 :wink:

[Test Pilot]

I made some research mostly at Kurfurst site about 109 performance expecially 109 F-2, F-4, G-2 and G-6.

I found that 109 performance should be like these:


Bf 109 F-2 with Db 601N, take off weight 2728 kg, performance with take off power 1.42 Ata
0km - 515 km/h
5.2km - 615 km/h
initial climb rate 18,5 m/s
turn time ~ 19 sec


Bf 109 F-4 (early) with Db601E, take of weight 2830kg, performance with 1.3 Ata
0km - 523 km/h
6.0km - 635 km/h
initial climb rate 18,5 m/s
turn time ~ 19-20 sec

Bf 109 F-4 with Db601E, take of weight 2890kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 537 km/h
6.2km - 670 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 21 m/s
turn time ~ 20 sec


In game:




Bf 109 G-2 with Db605A, take of weight 3040kg, performance with 1.3Ata (retractable tailwheel)
0km - 535 km/h
7.0km - 670 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 21 m/s
turn time ~ 20-21sec

In game:




Bf 109 G-6 (early) with Db605A, take of weight 3100kg, performance with 1.3Ata
0km - 510 km/h
6.6km - 630 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 17 m/s
turn time ~ 22 sec


Bf 109 G-6 (late) with Db605A, take of weight 3100kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 530 km/h
6.6km - 640 km/h
initial climb rate ~ m/s
turn time ~ 22 sec

In game:




Bf 109 G-6 A/S with Db605 AS, take of weight 3190kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 520 km/h
9.0km - 660 km/h
initial climb rate ~ m/s
turn time ~ 23 sec


It would be good if these new class Fm's would be fairly close to these specifitcation.

We see that genrally all these 109 in game types have very accurate speed perfoarmance according to RL data.

Only Bf 109 G-6 early is little too fast at the deck should be 510 km/h instead 527 km/h - but these is still not big dispersion.

Also 109 G-6 A/S in game is plane which hadn't not RL conterpart - it has rather fantasy performance.

I will check also turn times for these Bf in game and show how it really looks.

[Karaya]

Bf 109 F-4 with Db601E, take of weight 2890kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 537 km/h
6.2km - 670 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 21 m/s
turn time ~ 20 sec

As far as I know the 670km/h topspeed given for the 1.42 ata DB601E is without compressibility correction. Actual topspeed is more in the range of 650km/h!

Bf 109 G-6 (early) with Db605A, take of weight 3100kg, performance with 1.3Ata
0km - 510 km/h
6.6km - 630 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 17 m/s
turn time ~ 22 sec


Bf 109 G-6 (late) with Db605A, take of weight 3100kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 530 km/h
6.6km - 640 km/h
initial climb rate ~ m/s
turn time ~ 22 sec

Notice how topspeed for the G-2 is given at 7km but for the G-6 at 6.6km? Actual topspeeds for the two G-6s at 7km is 640 and 650km/h respectively when extrapolating to the higher altitude!

22secs for turntime is also rather high. The Soviets have tested a G-4 to turn between 20.5 - 21.0 secs which is just 0.5sec higher than what they got for the G-2 (20.0 - 20.5).
Keeping in mind that the G-6 is just something like 30kg heavier than the G-4 I cant imagine it turning worse by as much as a whole second!

[Test Pilot]

Bf 109 F-4 with Db601E, take of weight 2890kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 537 km/h
6.2km - 670 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 21 m/s
turn time ~ 20 sec

As far as I know the 670km/h topspeed given for the 1.42 ata DB601E is without compressibility correction. Actual topspeed is more in the range of 650km/h!

Bf 109 G-6 (early) with Db605A, take of weight 3100kg, performance with 1.3Ata
0km - 510 km/h
6.6km - 630 km/h
initial climb rate ~ 17 m/s
turn time ~ 22 sec


Bf 109 G-6 (late) with Db605A, take of weight 3100kg, performance with 1.42 Ata
0km - 530 km/h
6.6km - 640 km/h
initial climb rate ~ m/s
turn time ~ 22 sec

Notice how topspeed for the G-2 is given at 7km but for the G-6 at 6.6km? Actual topspeeds for the two G-6s at 7km is 640 and 650km/h respectively when extrapolating to the higher altitude!

22secs for turntime is also rather high. The Soviets have tested a G-4 to turn between 20.5 - 21.0 secs which is just 0.5sec higher than what they got for the G-2 (20.0 - 20.5).
Keeping in mind that the G-6 is just something like 30kg heavier than the G-4 I cant imagine it turning worse by as much as a whole second!

Ad. Bf 109 F-4

Yes i also suspect that these test was without compresibility correction and 650km/h look more reliable. Kurfurst in his site accept 670 km/h even if he accept that other raports was without copresibiity.

Ad. G-2 and G-6

Notice also that other raports ( also in Kurfurs site) claim lower high alt for G-2 also:

"...Appearantly the calculated dataset proved rather accurate - the avarage of the ERLA values obtained on production airframes was 652 km/h (the accepted airfames results ranged from 632 to 664 km/h, the three rejected airframes below the minimum tolerance not included), and three production airframes exceeding the reference specification; however the avarage the rated altitudes measured (ranging 6450m to 6950m) was lower, 6700m, probably as a result of the greater variance in thermal effiency than expected originally.

Trials at E-Stelle Rechlin on a Bf 109G-1 - the results were later becoming the official specifications for the type in a Kennblatt issued on 8 March 1943 - resulted in 650 kph at 6400m; the tested aircraft appearantly had a fixed tailwheel resulting 12 km/h speed loss, which needs to be taken account."

So probalby ( as i think) retractable taiwhell could make such difference also. With it max speed was reached at higher altitudes ( confirm these russian test with G-2 with retractable tailwheel )

G-6 had not retractable tailwheel so the speed and hegith were less then in G-2.

Rember that G-4 was more similar to G-2 then to G-6 beacuse dont have Mg131 and was lighter.

Ad. Turnig times.

Russian test reported:

Bf 109 F-4 ( left - right turn )
19,6 - 20.5 sec

Bf 109 G-2
20- 21,5 sec

So G-6 should be worse but we dont have detalied info.

Probably it coud be:

21-22,5 sec

I suppose 22 sec is quite accurate turnig time for G-6.

See that G-6 had noticable worse performance then G-2 both in speed and climb due to its gross weight and worse aerodynamical shape. We dont know how much worse it was but German pilots reports that G-6 has noticable worse in handling and turns and describe it as a "heavy"

Also here are some info about testing 109 G-2 by Finish pilots:

"Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60

[mavyalex]

What's so special about the WfrGr21 Mortars. ? I tried them they just fire like regular rockets...Are they supposed to explode in a special way? And why call them "Mortars"? Mortars are ground-based only,no?

[Mane]

[Karaya]

What's so special about the WfrGr21 Mortars. ? I tried them they just fire like regular rockets...Are they supposed to explode in a special way? And why call them "Mortars"? Mortars are ground-based only,no?

They are called "Werfergranaten 21cm" = "Launchergrenades 21cm" but are often referred to as mortars because thats more or less what they are, a grenade thats tube launched by a propelling charge!

Furthermore they are time delayed so they will explode after whatever time you have set in your "rocket delay". Used for breaking up bomber formations as they had a tremendous effect in the tight US bomber boxes, spraying white hot splinters everywhere.

Have you never flown a FW190 ingame? They have had those WfrGr21s for ages! That the 109s from the G model onwards didnt have them was an omission on Oleg Maddox's side...

[Muas]

[quote="Mane"]

[mavyalex]

Hi,


I'm off-topic here ,but anyway:

Will we have this one day?



This is my 3ds Max set up. I haven't started working on it... I'm still looking for a complete guide on how to create new planbes for Il-2 1946. I understand that apart from just making the 3d model there are plenty of other stuff to do, and information is cattered all other the place.
So i'm looking for the course "New Plane Creation in IL-2 1946 101" (and Advanced too) in one file or location on the Web...Any idea?

[vanir]

See that G-6 had noticable worse performance then G-2 both in speed and climb due to its gross weight and worse aerodynamical shape. We dont know how much worse it was but German pilots reports that G-6 has noticable worse in handling and turns and describe it as a "heavy"

This is only an opinion I have.

I believe if you source these pilot reports you'll find they're for the G-6 fitted out as an interceptor, with MG-151 gondolas and a drop tank. I've got one such detailed report handy, made by a new recruit in Reich Defence Jan 44 describing the "heavy handling of our G-6s" because they were fitted with too many external stores for an already high wing loading to begin with, an airframe he says was too light, and a motor which was too powerful for it. He said many recruits killed themselves on the runway simply by opening the throttle too early, and pancaked onto the roof crushing the cockpit. It was apparently a very common type of accident at the time among recruits, no wonder the type got a bad reputation!

Many experienced pilots seemed to quite like the G-6 (flying clean) by comparison. A large number of JG54 pilots converted back from the 190A to the G-6 during 1943 and didn't return to the FW until 1944. The reasons for this is however unclear (I guess it could've been production deliveries but generally field commanders and their pilots seemed to equip what they wanted). Many Jagdgeschwader exclusively flew the 109 and made this decision right when the G-6 was current, which would seem a little odd for any disadvantaged handling capabilities. Several aces swore by the G-6 and didn't differentiate between this and any other 109 model.

If you recall there was a time when pilots were reluctant to give up their Emils for the 109F. This was similarly most likely due to a spate of fatal and near fatal accidents early in F production for which the F-1 was grounded until the rear fuselage structure was improved. Then just when they got the F right in the F-4 which was a beautiful aircraft, the G came out and started killing pilots (this was due to flaming issues with the 605A engine at high boost). Then performance was capped until October 43. And in early 44 it started killing the poorly trained recruits that the Luftwaffe was forced to send up.

I agree with pilot commentary that it was too heavy for external stores, and had always been designed more like a racing plane that a heavy fighter, so needed to be kept as clean and light as reasonably possible.
Plus the poor low speed handling characteristics of any 109 couldn't have been helped with the extra weight of even a clean G-6 (or G-5 or K-4 for that matter, being even heavier). Marsielle used to say his secret was learning expertise in the low speed handling of the 109 (the first rule of successful aces is surviving take off and landing).

So I do not think the G-6 should be very heavily penalised for handling over the G-2, flying clean.

[Guest]

Besides the extra weight, really the only thing altering the performance of the G-6 is the extra drag created by the bulges and the fixed tailwheel. It's not like they threw a parachute behind it and duct-taped the control surfaces down!

I would say the job Muas and Karaya have done is great, it fixes the gap in performance between the G-2 and late model Gustavs. Plus the new loadout is fun!!