Realistic max speeds WW2 fighters / Speeds of the late 109s

[FLYBOYJ]

why can't some real pilots fly some of these toys? flight principle are the same.. some of the finer scale ones are exact same as their big brothers.

Because it is a uni-dimensional environment where there is no outside physiological stimulus and the inputs into the the controls are nothing like you would experience in the real thing. You're looking at a flat screen and are being "trained" by visual ques and react on those ques without external stimulations such as g forces and stick forces. Once a real pilot has time in these games they quickly figure out how to master these ques and how to apply their visual meanings to what's experienced in the real world, they'll do fine. These sims are "fly by the numbers" or "fly by the picture" simulations but cannot replicate what would exactly be experienced in the real thing.

 

[bobbysocks]

Rastel....keep going up in that cessna as much as you can. its a great hobby and will give you more memories than anything. 150s fly pretty easily so keeping them in the air....yeah, easy as pie. landings are where life tends to get exciting. I also play some IL2....and while it is probably the best gaming sim....it is just a gaming sim. the flight characteristics are so-so. but are void of any of the real life factors you come in contact with. the more you sit in the seat of that cessna...the more you will see what me and the others are saying. not even close to being real...

actually i have to comment further about these games. dont get me wrong i play them and enjoy them....and will probably be blasting the enemy out of the virtual skies later tonight....BUT there are some things you must understand. #1 is that these games only VAGUELY represent what or how to fly. To make the game appeal to the masses it is "dummied down"...made easy...etc. we have read accounts in here how hard certain ac were to land...the 109 for example. i plopped one down nice and easy on my second attempt. I would never even begin to think i could do that in real life....and I really do know how to land a plane! the things that make the game good...are also the things that make it not even close to reality. they call them "sim" games but that is because you have more controls to play with...or are restricted to a certain vantage point or view point..i.e. cockpit view. play one of those games and then watch real gun camera footage...the turning abilities are exaggerated...the speeds you reach are as well. for all their advances they are still an "arcade" game.

 

[Milosh]

Get back to you on this

I./JG 4 - 2 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 4 - 10 Bf 109K-4
IV./JG 4 - 7 Bf 109K-4 (was 2 K-4s)
II./JG 11 - 4 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 26 - 13 Bf 109K-4
I./JG 27 - 14 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 27 - 15 Bf 109K-4
Stab JG 53 - 1 Bf 109K-4
I./JG 77 - 1 Bf 109K-4
III./JG 77 - 18 Bf 109K-4

total 85. They were not brand new deliveries on Jan 1st/45, thats for sure.

You made the statement. It is up to you, not me, of the use of 1.98ata boost on those K-4s during Bodenplatte. This is especially true as an expert says the Lw didn't, and couldn't, make unauthorized changes to a/c.

 

[parsifal]

I remember years ago the RAN spent something like $20m on its Tac Warfare sims at HMAS Watson (our tactical Warfare School). This was where you learnt how to get the best out of your available assets. The entire complex was an 11 storey building dug into the ground. We had cockpits for up to 6 A-4s, plus a whole bunch of other planes and warships. All the weapions and flight characteristics the Navy could get its hands on was programmed into those computers that ran the sims.

It was great for us Tac warfare guys. we could develop our tactics, think about what to do in a given situation and how to react. I assumed, as a young officer that it would provide a similar learning environment for the pilots, the gunners and the like. Until one day i asked a pilot how close to reality it was. I forget the precise words, but it went something like "not even close....you cant understand carrier operations until you get on the end of a catapult, or you are attempting a landing at night in a Force 5 gale." He also said that he doubted the tension of real battle could not be simulated in a computer.

That was twenty years ago, but in a $20m simulator. I am a gamer, I design simulations, I can tell you they can be used to understand command situations, but they can never be used to understand or feel actual combat. being shot at (at least thats happened to me on the ground) is a whole different experience to anything you might think is being experienced in a sim.

 

[barney]

Allow me say a few words in support of the sim pilots.....

Back in the early 60's when I was a kid I took a few flying lessons. Now, I was a poor kid and could rarely scratch up the money to pay for an hour's flying time. The result was that I didn't get far.

Fast forward 30 years and I had a copy of Pro Pilot on my computer and was enjoying computer flying the 172. One day, on a spousal planned shopping trip to a nearby city, I noticed the airport across the road from the mall. And there sat a pretty 172. So, I stopped by and asked if that was their training plane. Yes it was. They had just gotten it and did I want to take a flying lesson? We made an appointment.

When I appeared for the lesson and was introduced to the instructor, he was fascinated by my log book, last entry 30 years previous. He said, "The plane is all checked out. Do you want to walk around or fly." I said fly.

We buckled up, I started up and taxied out. He took off, flew a few miles and gave it to me. After level flying he asked for turns and then steep bank turns and then when he had apparently run out of ideas for things for me to do he had me fly back to the airport where I did a bunch of touch and goes. Finally, I taxied in, shut her down and set the parking brake.

It took several minutes to get used to the sight picture over the nose. Other than that everything was automatic, altitude, speed, flaps, carb heat, all that stuff. This I feel was due mostly to all the sim time I had played. The instructor said, "There isn't much I can teach you about handling the plane." As you might guess, I was pleased.

And, I know there is much more to flying than driving the A/C around - like radio work, navigation, and weather. So, maybe not combat but sims can be a good learning experience and you are not paying for hours to obtain basic skills.

 

[Kryten]

they are useful for learning the basics such as stick and rudder coordination and trimming, but my own limited experience of flying in a glider taught me most of the stimulus came through the seat of the pants, I reacted to the "feel" of the aircraft rather than what I was seeing, My first landing under my control was near pefect, because the glider flew itself in as the conditions were stable that day, my next landing was more like a collision as a sudden tail wind increased my sink rate as i crossed the boundary and left me behind the glider, the next one wasn't much better either, and you only get one chance in a glider!

Game simulators provide no "feel" or stimulus, they are fun and a great way to spend an evening with a beer and friends, but to kid yourself they give you an insight into real combat in a high performance fighter aircraft is dreaming!

 

[fastmongrel]

One thing I have noticed when PLAYING on IL2 was that with full flaps on the runway with a cross wind nothing happens yet I know that a real plane with full flaps in a cross wind would be weathervaning and need a fair bit of rudder and muscle to keep it straight. Its FUN and instructional but its stil a GAME.

 

[Siegfried]

Because it is a uni-dimensional environment where there is no outside physiological stimulus and the inputs into the the controls are nothing like you would experience in the real thing. You're looking at a flat screen and are being "trained" by visual ques and react on those ques without external stimulations such as g forces and stick forces. Once a real pilot has time in these games they quickly figure out how to master these ques and how to apply their visual meanings to what's experienced in the real world, they'll do fine. These sims are "fly by the numbers" or "fly by the picture" simulations but cannot replicate what would exactly be experienced in the real thing.

Isn't reacting to to those 'g' forces, to a degree, bad practice from the point of view of instrumentation flying? I admit I am ponderously analytic, even in a sail plane my instruture had to coach me to get my head up.

 

[jim]

1) According to american sources , the terrorist of 11/09/2001 had done training in flight simulators
2) For me, it was always more dificult to land a computer plane exactly because the only feel you have is visual, and vision is restricted. additionaly its harder to read the instruments than in real life.
3)Mr Bobbyscocks, since you are an experienced pilot i see no reason to be unable to land Bf109 (on grass) with the first try. Norbert Hanning describes how its transition in to Me262 lasted 30 minutes . A general description of the cocpit, engine management procerdures , take off and landing and ...a wish for good luck! He did it , got crazy about the aircaft and landed. No problem. Simple tines , simple people.Yes he was an ace, but actually he propably had only a small fraction of your flying hours.
In my opinion , is not impossible for an intensively practised computer fan to fly straight away the real aircraft ( a simple, low power one) in good weather conditions. Surely can take off, surely can slowly try some basic manouvers . Can he land it? If he can control his excitement and be cool propably yes although most propably will be a heavy landing.
Il2,with all its mistakes, in my opinion gives a good general image of the principals of the time both of flying and combat if you play full real. On the other had the modern combat simulators (Falcon etc..) are more far from reality both from combat and flying

 

[pbfoot]

I have a few hundred hours of flight time (a couple of decades ago) and have played with real simulators albeit also several decades ago and even a link trainer and game platforms and there is IMHO very little common with the games and real flying . The games are a very upscale toy but not close to real flying , unless I'm out of date there is no stick pressure the air is smooth etc . Yes it is designed to let you think you are flying but has none of the hazrads of flying when was the last time you flew through clouds and had to remind yourself to trust the instruments or scanned the terrain for place to put down if you had an engine failure. we are talking apples and oranges here guys. Now real simulators made by CAE or the like are very realistic and used in lieu of using hours in an aircraft but they are light years different then IL2

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Isn't reacting to to those 'g' forces, to a degree, bad practice from the point of view of instrumentation flying? I admit I am ponderously analytic, even in a sail plane my instruture had to coach me to get my head up.

Instrument flying - yes. But then again you shouldn't be doing abrupt maneuvers or inputting more than 10 - 20 degrees of bank angles in turns

 

[FLYBOYJ]

1) According to american sources , the terrorist of 11/09/2001 had done training in flight simulators
2) For me, it was always more dificult to land a computer plane exactly because the only feel you have is visual, and vision is restricted. additionaly its harder to read the instruments than in real life.
3)Mr Bobbyscocks, since you are an experienced pilot i see no reason to be unable to land Bf109 (on grass) with the first try. Norbert Hanning describes how its transition in to Me262 lasted 30 minutes . A general description of the cocpit, engine management procerdures , take off and landing and ...a wish for good luck! He did it , got crazy about the aircaft and landed. No problem. Simple tines , simple people.Yes he was an ace, but actually he propably had only a small fraction of your flying hours.
In my opinion , is not impossible for an intensively practised computer fan to fly straight away the real aircraft ( a simple, low power one) in good weather conditions. Surely can take off, surely can slowly try some basic manouvers . Can he land it? If he can control his excitement and be cool propably yes although most propably will be a heavy landing.
Il2,with all its mistakes, in my opinion gives a good general image of the principals of the time both of flying and combat if you play full real. On the other had the modern combat simulators (Falcon etc..) are more far from reality both from combat and flying

The 911 terrorists flew sims AFTER they received initial flight training in real aircraft. When I had about 350 hours I had the opportunity to fly a full motion 737-500 simulator at United's training facility. After a 30 minute check out I was able to take off and land - not to the proficiency of an airline pilot, but I was not making the sim "crash."

As far as flying a Bf-109 or transitioning into a Me-262, two things to keep in mind; Aside from the undesirable characteristics the -109 may have, there are certain things one must know about flying a "tail dragger" in general that you're not going to pick up on a simulator. Keeping the stick at your belly at all times, using s turns during taxi if you can't see over the cockpit and continually positioning flight controls for changes in wind direction are all happening, and I'm excluding being cautious for ruts and pot holes you may find on a dirt or grass field. Aside from getting adjusted for the engine spool up time of a turbine engine, the Me-262 should be an EASIER aircraft to fly (take off and land) than a -109 because of the nose landing gear.

 

[jim]

The 911 terrorists flew sims AFTER they received initial flight training in real aircraft. When I had about 350 hours I had the opportunity to fly a full motion 737-500 simulator at United's training facility. After a 30 minute check out I was able to take off and land - not to the proficiency of an airline pilot, but I was not making the sim "crash."

As far as flying a Bf-109 or transitioning into a Me-262, two things to keep in mind; Aside from the undesirable characteristics the -109 may have, there are certain things one must know about flying a "tail dragger" in general that you're not going to pick up on a simulator. Keeping the stick at your belly at all times, using s turns during taxi if you can't see over the cockpit and continually positioning flight controls for changes in wind direction are all happening, and I'm excluding being cautious for ruts and pot holes you may find on a dirt or grass field. Aside from getting adjusted for the engine spool up time of a turbine engine, the Me-262 should be an EASIER aircraft to fly (take off and land) than a -109 because of the nose landing gear.

Correct, Hanning was thrilled not only by the performance of Me262 (obviously) but also by its excellent visibility on air and especially on ground, vastly superior to both 109 and 190. He also liked its handling. Did not liked the slow throttle movement( nessecary to avoid flame out) and the long landing pattern and the weal breaks.

 

[stona]

Can we conclude Ratsel that since you didn't come back with any proofs that that all those units with K-4s participating in Bodenplatte used 1.98ata boost, that all those units with K-4s didn't use 1.98ata boost?

I've been looking into this over the last few days. Ther is no evidence proving operational use of 1.98 ata by any combat units. The one unit that we know experimented with the higher boost pressure, II./JG 11, was disbanded during the first few days of April,probably at the same time as several units of Luftflotte 6 (to create a reserve!) and some from Luftflotte Reich and Luftwaffe Command West.

'Interner Aktenvermerk Nr. 6642' from Daimler-Benz dated 17 Jan 1945 reports on a meeting held 10 January 1945 at OKL, Berlin. All 4 DB 605 DC engines supplied to Rechlin from DB-Genshagen failed (pistons, piston rods, supercharger). It states that 1.98 ata boost pressure is not to be allowed for combat units.

'Die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben.'

It is inconceivable that combat units would have been using it earlier.
Niederschrift Nr 6717 from Damiler-Benz, dated 19 January 1945, states that DB 605 D engines from Kassel are delivered at 1.80 ata boost
None of the units flying K-4s for 'Bodenplatte' were operating 1.98 ata boost.

Ratsel you can fly your simulations with what ever engine configurations you choose but in the real world they didn't exist.

Cheers
Steve

 

[davparlr]

The 911 terrorists flew sims AFTER they received initial flight training in real aircraft. When I had about 350 hours I had the opportunity to fly a full motion 737-500 simulator at United's training facility. After a 30 minute check out I was able to take off and land - not to the proficiency of an airline pilot, but I was not making the sim "crash."

As far as flying a Bf-109 or transitioning into a Me-262, two things to keep in mind; Aside from the undesirable characteristics the -109 may have, there are certain things one must know about flying a "tail dragger" in general that you're not going to pick up on a simulator. Keeping the stick at your belly at all times, using s turns during taxi if you can't see over the cockpit and continually positioning flight controls for changes in wind direction are all happening, and I'm excluding being cautious for ruts and pot holes you may find on a dirt or grass field. Aside from getting adjusted for the engine spool up time of a turbine engine, the Me-262 should be an EASIER aircraft to fly (take off and land) than a -109 because of the nose landing gear.

Not to mention torque on takeoff. The only new thing the transition to the Me-262 from the Bf-109 would be asymmetric thrust and single engine ops.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not to mention torque on takeoff. The only new thing the transition to the Me-262 from the Bf-109 would be asymmetric thrust and single engine ops.

Yep!!!! I've flown Cubs where you're inputting right rudder and left aileron to keep things straight. Asymmetric thrust would be a given and if a pilot had multi engine time it shouldn't have been a big factor except for the spool upi times of the engines. Twin time would have been a benifit to a 262 pilot.

 

[bobbysocks]

I am sure he would have loved the 262! tricycle gear give you better overall visability especially when you are trying to taxi. All of my time ( and I havent flown in a long time ) has been in ac with tricycle gear. the only plane my father had that was a tail dragger was an old stinson voyager...and after only flying ac with a nose gear after the war..he didnt like taxiing it. him and his partner didnt have that plane very long. everything he bought after that had a nose gear.

pittsburgh used to be big training facility for usairways. they had a 737 ( guessing a 300 or 400 ) sim and IIRC an old DC 8 or 9 sim. I knew the pilot who was in charge of giving the check rides for the company. THOSE sims were so realistic that time in them could be logged as "pilot in command". according to him when you taxied you could feel the tar strips in the run way..they handled and reacted just like the 73 or dc...so much so that one of the pilots blew his approach and decided to let the plane crash. when it did the yoke flew back and broke his arm! he invited me several time but i always thought there would be enough time for me to do that in the future...yep..outsmarted myself again! all that stuff is going out of PIT and taken to ??? that is the only kind of sim i would trust if i was to learn to fly other ac.
the games arent completely useless and void of any realism. they will show you flight basics...what stalls are like...what flight controls you use for simple maneuvers. I will say DONT try to recover from a spin like they have you do in some versions...they have that ALL jacked up! 100% wrong! there is actually an indie game on xbox you can buy for like $5 called flight adventure. and i screw around with that....but only for specific things. you can trim the plane any time...climb, cruise, decent, you have a realistic view and speed model. what i use that for is just to practice...or get back in the habit of scanning the guages to mind my airspeed, heading and alt....getting to specific alts in the traffic pattern...dropping 10 degrees more flaps at a specific leg....things like that....practice some of the basic mechanics...not relying on them to build flying skill or time. before i jump behind the stick of anything..i will do a couple hours of dual with a buddy of mine who flies for the airlines. so, they do have a use but it is limited...but as i said too...i still enjoy playing them.

just as a side note...i had recently been looking at some light sport and ultralight ac for sale. several of them were advertised as "needing a little repair"...upon further investigation they had landed a bit hard or something very similar had befell them at the hands of their owners. more than one had confessed that their sole flight instruction had been....a sim.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Microsoft Flight Sim is a great tool for flying instrument approach procedures and learning how to do intercepts and VOR arcs. I used one when I was working on my instrument rating and I was able to fly local instrument procedures almost by memory. Because of the sensitivity of the sim, you tend to get "jerky" on the controls when you're flying the procedure in a real aircraft. Again this is a "fly by numbers" environment that is a great learning aid but cannot really substitute for the real thing.

 

[Milosh]

I've been looking into this over the last few days. Ther is no evidence proving operational use of 1.98 ata by any combat units. The one unit that we know experimented with the higher boost pressure, II./JG 11, was disbanded during the first few days of April,probably at the same time as several units of Luftflotte 6 (to create a reserve!) and some from Luftflotte Reich and Luftwaffe Command West.

'Interner Aktenvermerk Nr. 6642' from Daimler-Benz dated 17 Jan 1945 reports on a meeting held 10 January 1945 at OKL, Berlin. All 4 DB 605 DC engines supplied to Rechlin from DB-Genshagen failed (pistons, piston rods, supercharger). It states that 1.98 ata boost pressure is not to be allowed for combat units.

'Die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben.'

It is inconceivable that combat units would have been using it earlier.
Niederschrift Nr 6717 from Damiler-Benz, dated 19 January 1945, states that DB 605 D engines from Kassel are delivered at 1.80 ata boost
None of the units flying K-4s for 'Bodenplatte' were operating 1.98 ata boost.

Ratsel you can fly your simulations with what ever engine configurations you choose but in the real world they didn't exist.

Cheers
Steve

This thread seems to have taken a sharp turn away from the thread title.

Yes, be sure Steve.

I even question the II./JG11 since only a staffel size unit of 1.98ata a/c. One can see 11./JG11 (11th staffel of JG11).

 

[stona]

Well it is not entirely clear which aircraft actually attempted the higher boost. If the results coming from Rechlin are anything to go by they were simply destroying the engines anyway!
There is an oft quoted order from late March 1945 ( sorry I haven't checked the exact date) asking that several units should adopt the higher boost but as you will know by this time there was a large disparity between the wishful thinking going on at higher levels and what was possible at the front. Whether these units actually adopted and flew with these higher settings in the remaining few weeks of the war is a moot point.
Cheers
Steve