BF 109 G2 has too few LMG amo

[vanapo]

it has 600 rounds of LMG, It should have 1000.

[vanapo]

*bump*

[vanapo]

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MttDblatt42may/109_May42dblatt.html

G2 should have the same armament as the G1 (which is basically the same as on the F4). The heavier and bulkier refitting to the front were introduced with the G3. So the G2 should carry 2x500 rounds for its MGs. And it should be less nose heavy than the G6.

As the ammo count for the in game model was just carried over from the G6 and the G2 seems not to be more maneuverable around its pitch axis (it's the same, much heavier engine, but overall it should be a few hundred kgs lighter), I get the impression you just took a 109G6, reduced the weapon damage and called it G2. But the G2 should offer some minor advantages in performance over the G6 even with the bomb gear installed (which btw should hold a 500kg bomb and I found no performance values for a smaller and lighter 250kg bomb yet). At least that's how I understand the data.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Leistungzusammenstellung/Leistungzusammenstellung109G.html#dragitems_table

[madrebel]

It really isn't 'much heavier'. Db601A (not the E of the F4) is listed at 600KG/1323lb dry weight vs the Db605AM's listed dry weight of 756kg/1667lb. Note, these are from wikipedia i've seen other listed weights showing only 56kg difference.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_flown.html

2890kg for the fully loaded weight of the F4.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html

From the allied tests of a captured G2/trop 3167kb/6983lbs for the G2.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MttDblatt42may/109_May42dblatt.html

3042kg for the G1

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable_EN.html

shows the G2 as low at 3260kg clean and 3310 WITH the 250KG bomb compared to the clean G6 at 3350

While the G2 is slightly heavier the difference shouldn't be noticeable. The G2 also has an improved prop over the F4 giving it more thrust.

[fidd]

As with any aircraft, but especially with aircraft designed to be manoeuvrable - ie unstable - it's not the weight, but where the weight is positioned, which affects handling. The overall weight only affects wing-loading, and therefore stall-speeds. Extra weight in the nose will generally make the aircraft less manoeuvrable. (same reason the centre of mass on an arrow is close to the arrow-head)

[madrebel]

a nominal increase in nose weight combined with an increase in thrust won't change handling between marks. further, ALL 109s were tail heavy, the game doesn't do a good job in this regard. read eric brown's note son taxiing and takeoff for 109s along with other 109 pilots. they all mention having to use forward stick pressure to get the tail off the ground. its also known that 109s had ballast weights in the tail, something that is trivial to increase/decrease to maintain CoG. I don't have sources detailing changes in ballast weight between marks. the only source i've seen detailing ballast was in relation to the G6 specifically.

[vanapo]

17 hours ago, madrebel said:

a nominal increase in nose weight combined with an increase in thrust won't change handling between marks.

before we dive into the details of how the flight model should be tweaked on a G2 in comparison to a G6 - let's just agree the ammo count has to be increased to its actual value of 1000 instead of 600.

That should be as obvious as easy to implement.

[DOC]

21 minutes ago, vanapo said:

before we dive into the details of how the flight model should be tweaked on a G2 in comparison to a G6 - let's just agree the ammo count has to be increased to its actual value of 1000 instead of 600.

That should be as obvious as easy to implement.

well when I was doing it (and I don't think this portion of modeling has changed) changing ammo capacity was indeed, a very simple process

[vanapo]

bump

[fidd]

On 11/18/2020 at 7:58 PM, madrebel said:

a nominal increase in nose weight combined with an increase in thrust won't change handling between marks. further, ALL 109s were tail heavy, the game doesn't do a good job in this regard. read eric brown's note son taxiing and takeoff for 109s along with other 109 pilots. they all mention having to use forward stick pressure to get the tail off the ground. its also known that 109s had ballast weights in the tail, something that is trivial to increase/decrease to maintain CoG. I don't have sources detailing changes in ballast weight between marks. the only source i've seen detailing ballast was in relation to the G6 specifically.

You'd be surprised. I once had a passenger put a set of golf-clubs in the cargo "hold" of a Pa28 without my knowledge. Fortunately I spotted it before we got going, but as he was a pilot himself, (and had done the walk-round) I got him to do 2 circuits with, and without, the clubs in the back, with me as the instructor beside him. We both agreed the handling was significantly changed (on the same airframe, let alone between different marques of the same basic airframe). Power doesn't have much effect on stability if the thrust-line is unchanged, weight, however, does, with a C of G either too far forward (lack of pitch and yaw control authority) or aft (too unstable in pitch/yaw), typically.

As part of the research I did on my model FN5 turrets, I came across reports of issues with uncommanded roll on some aircraft types with the turrets fitted, caused by asymmetric drag (therefore yaw) as the turret was traversed fully left or right, causing secondary-effect roll, at certain speeds, more than could be readily corrected with aileron at low speeds in some cases. This was only drag caused by a pair of Brownings, most of which was inside the turrets Aircraft can be surprisingly sensitive to such changes in weight distribution or drag, and the effects tend to be worse, the more the airframe has been up-engined and has become heavier, from the original configuration. Hence Spitfire pilots extolling the handling of the Mk IX or earlier marques, but very few saying kind things about the Mk XIV!

I don't know of the specific handling of the G2, but I'd bet a pint the general trend of handling on the 109 became poorer as it progressed from E to K. Most long-service WW2 fighters did become poorer in handling as the war progressed, if major changes were made to airframe, or engine, weapons load-out or weight in general. 

[vanapo]

Thx for the fix!

[madrebel]

On 12/2/2020 at 1:35 PM, fidd said:

I don't know of the specific handling of the G2, but I'd bet a pint the general trend of handling on the 109 became poorer as it progressed from E to K. Most long-service WW2 fighters did become poorer in handling as the war progressed, if major changes were made to airframe, or engine, weapons load-out or weight in general. 

This isn’t documented anywhere that im aware of. Not like say the spitfire going from the merlin to griffon engine which is widely documented. 
 

the 109 was tail heavy from the start to the end. At various stages the gear ratios were adjusted in the control boxes to retain the same stick feel as average fighting speeds increased. As I recall late in the G6 timeline and again with the G10 and K4. Rates or roll were similar from start to finish. Elevator feel again, remains similar. I have read that the roller slats changed feel a bit so this would be F4 onwards. As weight increases of course turn radius also increased. 
 

CoG was easy to correct for with tail ballast weights. 

[fidd]

As you say, in the case of the 109 they may have successfully offset the worst of handling problems as engine power and weight increased. I was really driving at the point that long-service aircraft types which went through a lot of changes in weight/engine power, as rule of thumb, became progressively less, rather than more, "forgiving". Some of these may not be strictly relevant to the game, for example the loss rate of 109's in landing accidents went up more or less steadily as the war progressed, due to the geometry of the under-cart, limited petrol for training etc. It was never an easy aircraft on landing, especially, and the more energy it had on landing, from higher landing speeds, the more dangerous it was. Like I say, not strictly relevant to the game, but it does follow the general principle that aircraft that get ever more powerful engines/props and heavier - there's usually a price to be paid for that.......

[madrebel]

Incorrect. The loss rates for non combat incidents was always static and consistent with most fighters of the period to include wide track fighters. All fighters of the period were in the 11% +/- 2% range. 

this stat is massively overblown in relation to the 109 and stems from bias ‘historians’ that have failed to cross reference loss rates between contemporaries. 
 

you reference the landing gear but fail to mention that as of the G4 and later the camber of the wheels was changed such that when down the wheels were almost vertical. 
 

this video covers it well. If you want to skip the history go about 60% into the video for loss comparisons. 
 

 

[rfh556]

2 hours ago, fidd said:

As you say, in the case of the 109 they may have successfully offset the worst of handling problems as engine power and weight increased. I was really driving at the point that long-service aircraft types which went through a lot of changes in weight/engine power, as rule of thumb, became progressively less, rather than more, "forgiving". Some of these may not be strictly relevant to the game, for example the loss rate of 109's in landing accidents went up more or less steadily as the war progressed, due to the geometry of the under-cart, limited petrol for training etc. It was never an easy aircraft on landing, especially, and the more energy it had on landing, from higher landing speeds, the more dangerous it was. Like I say, not strictly relevant to the game, but it does follow the general principle that aircraft that get ever more powerful engines/props and heavier - there's usually a price to be paid for that.......

It seems that using a statistic like landing accident rates to compare aircraft development when you know there is a large and ever increasing disparity in training and hours in the air over the war is a flawed method. There is no way to show that the increased accident rate is associated with aircraft development vs pilot standards.

[fidd]

I think there is, because similar handling problems nonetheless affected many aircraft types where training time was not abbreviated. The only thing you can't easily do is to quantify how much of the the increase in landing accidents was caused by inexperience, and how much by the diminishment good handling qualities. The general trend of more powerful engines and increased weight in airframes similar to, or the same as, the original design, is 'as plain as a pikestaff'. (very obvious).

[madrebel]

24 minutes ago, rfh556 said:

It seems that using a statistic like landing accident rates to compare aircraft development when you know there is a large and ever increasing disparity in training and hours in the air over the war is a flawed method. There is no way to show that the increased accident rate is associated with aircraft development vs pilot standards.

further, as Bismark posits in the video, it is extremely likely that the German accident rate for all fighter types went down significantly later in the war as more pilots were being shot down with many of those being killed.

fidd states without any reference that

2 hours ago, fidd said:

for example the loss rate of 109's in landing accidents went up more or less steadily as the war progressed

yet this only tracks logically if 109 losses and pilot losses due to combat remain static. we know neither of those hold true as by mid 43 your chances of making it home in one piece were on a downward trend. it is one thing to make a claim, it is another to back it up with evidence.

while the video's argument isn't perfect, it does attempt to compare loss rates using source data. Fidd, we're waiting for you source data.

[fidd]

I think the stats you quote are potentially misleading. The Luftwaffe were, at some periods of the war, extremely experienced relative to their opposition, as Luftwaffe pilots basically operated continuously, without the "tours" of duty the allies had. So direct comparison of stats will at times show very low accident rates for LW pilots. However, once the experienced aircrew were dead, and new pilots with limited training took their places, the accident/incident rate shot up. As these periodic changes in experience occurred, it either magnified - or reduced - the general accident rate. Comparison with other side's accident rates is therefore not straight-forwards.

[fidd]

14 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Yet this only tracks logically if 109 losses and pilot losses due to combat remain static. we know neither of those hold true as by mid 43 your chances of making it home in one piece were on a downward trend. it is one thing to make a claim, it is another to back it up with evidence.

while the video's argument isn't perfect, it does attempt to compare loss rates using source data. Fidd, we're waiting for you source data.

I agree with your point here, reasons above. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here, I'm discussing a general trend across numerous aircraft types, where weight and power have increased, you're discussing the 109 only as far as I can tell. The change in geometry of the 109 with the G4 suggests to me that they Jerry designers recognised this, and attempted to reduce the landing incidents accordingly. It's hard to imagine they'd go to this effort if the rate of landing incidents wasn't increasing as less experienced men were flying the type???

If the geometry issue with the 109 is "overblown", I suspect a more likely reason for it is allied test-pilots operating the type for the 1st time, found it's ground-handling something of a shock relative to other types they'd flown?

Edited January 23, 2021 by fidd

[madrebel]

2 minutes ago, fidd said:

I agree with your point here, reasons above. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here, I'm discussing a general trend across numerous aircraft types, where weight and power have increased, you're discussing the 109 only as far as I can tell. The change in geometry of the 109 with the G4 suggests to me that they Jerry designers recognised this, and attempted to reduce the landing incidents accordingly. It's hard to imagine they'd go to this effort if the rate of landing incidents wasn't increasing as less experienced men were flying the type???

I haven't seen any evidence of accident rates increasing. Changing the camber angle to decrease incidents doesn't suggest high incident rates to being with, it is just a change to attempt to remedy existing behavior traits where feasible. The data from the video covers the time prior to and around when the changes were made to the G4. Meaning, the existing accident rates which are not classified as specific to the gear (just all accident rates on take of/landing or 'other than combat') were around 13-15% for the 109. These rates are within the same ballpark as US 'other than combat' losses. US planes were all wide track tail draggers yet had similar accident rates .. explain. 

[fidd]

Simple. At that time, the LW still had mostly experienced pilots operating the type who were well acquainted with it's eccentricities, whereas the relatively in-experienced US aircrew has a better geometry to the aircraft. Speaking in generally of course. Similarly, the US aircraft were mostly operating from good concrete runways, the LW on Lord knows what condition fields in the middle of Russia. 

Like I said upthread, the various factors at play here in training, experience, operational conditions, attrition of aircrew and the allied use of "tours" - all these factors make direct comparisons of accident rates highly suspect in my view.

[rfh556]

Seems like there are a lot of variables that would be effecting all nations and using accident landing rates as proof of decreased handling characteristics as the war went on might not be the best methodology?

[madrebel]

6 minutes ago, rfh556 said:

Seems like there are a lot of variables that would be effecting all nations and using accident landing rates as proof of decreased handling characteristics as the war went on might not be the best methodology?

especially without any source data backing up the claim.

[fidd]

1 minute ago, madrebel said:

especially without any source data backing up the claim.

You're presuming the changes to the G4 were as a consequence of handling on the G. It's entirely possible it was the accident rates of the E and F which led to the eventual change. Or the change to rough fields in Russia where being at the end of long supply lines made landing incidents more costly in terms of keeping aircraft operational than would have been the case if they were based at concrete airfields in Western Germany. 

There's so many variables here, I'd take the "stats" of landing accidents with a bucket of salt, frankly. I'd be much more inclined to go on the observations of experienced LW pilots memoires, where the "lively" landing characteristics of 109's, especially on poor airfields, and with inexperienced pilots features very heavily indeed.

[madrebel]

doesn't surprise me you'd take anecdote over statistical analysis. supports your unfounded claim of ever increasing accident rates.