Axis Aircraft Performance

Axis Aircraft Performance Data

Type Listed(kph) Actual(kph) Nerf(%)
109E-1 565 470 -17
109E-4 574 480 -16.4
109F-2 601 500 -17
109F-4 635 520 -18.2
109G-6 630 515 -18.3
190-A4 672 545 -18.1
110C4 518 430 -17
110F-B 560 470/480 -16.1/-14.3
He-111 418 330/345 -21.1/-17.5
Stuka 387 325/335 -16.1/-13.5

I retested all aircraft currently available in campaign and used data from the last campaign for the 109G-6 and 190. I have screen shots to support my data and will post if needed. Joystick throttle keymapper long since adjusted via the sticky posted here in the hangar forums. I've used 3 different joysticks and gotten the same results each time. Aircraft which carry bombs have two data points, first with payload, second without. All tests completed at alt of 500m, clean trim, no gunner canopies opened. The results are pretty clear, un-nerf our gear and let us fly. I've used all the allied aircraft previously and they all achieve the listed maximum air speeds listed in their unit reports.
THIS IS A COPY OF WHAT I POSTED TO THE HANGAR FORUM.

Yea know this makes so much $%@+&* sense! I know I'm NOT a good pilot in a fighter, but I'm pretty impressive with a stuka, but as much as I complain and bitch when I fail, my argument has been more than once is...' ...I worked on the real life accual air planes, and these do NOT act the same at all. I know its a game, but these are mid-loading (g-forces load planes a certain way for handling ALL planes allied except the Air Cobra and its mid-mounted engine, are rear loading. Most German planes are mid loading, putting g forces middle of the plane. THIS is why german planes were in my eyes superior, but hard to handle) planes, and with the addition of leadis wing wing edges, these planes were made for low altittude low and high speed manuverability. My stick feels dead!" Another problem I've had since I've based my real world knowledge of german air is a slap roll. It just WILL NOT happen with german planes, yet, the type s (the original desigination for the Spitfire, and alike of the serries) will slap roll like its going out of style. That was not possible to do in Spits until the Rolls-Griffon engine was available in 1945, Mk XII. LASTLY, THIS DISGUSTS ME. I will hear tbe excuses the rats will say...everyones rates will varry and info back and forth...yea right. I've flown Spits in this game when I was allied, and I had no expirence and shot down three 109 drivers on my first day without much effort. That should say something right there.

Ugh.

With Adjustments for TAS
Type Listed(kph) Actual(kph) TAS Adj Nerf(%)
109E-1 565 470 507 -10.3
109E-4 574 480 518 -9.8
109F-2 601 500 539 -10.4
109F-4 635 520 560 -11.9
109G-6 630 515 555 -11.1
190-A4 672 545 587 -12.7
110C4 518 430 464 -10.4
110F-B 560 470/480 507/518 -9.5/-7.5
He-111 418 330/345 357/373 -14.6/-10.8
Stuka 387 325/335 351/362 -9.3/-6.5

I made adjustments for TAS (True Air Speed) and re-posted to the forum. I'd forgotten to do so yesterday before work. It attracted a horde of trolls from the allied side. But since I already know who they are, I ignored what they'd posted, so their efforts were wasted. I did direct the turds to go outside and lie down on their lawn though. I expect no response from the Rats, but if I get one, I'll chat with him/her. Those air speeds remain constant until you get up around 3.5-4.5K altitude depending upon the aircraft. Remember that even numbered models in the series are air superiority designs made to fight at low to middle altitudes. German fighters with odd number models ex: Me-109G1/3/5 ect. were the high altitude bomber interceptor models that had pressurized cockpits and engines designed to fight at higher altitudes. Our aircraft in game degrade in performance as you climb higher. Only the He-111H has a second speed setting to the supercharger (as the game describes it) which kicks in at about 3.6-3.7K and restores full performance. This fades as you climb over 4.5k though. I am also curious as to why all aircraft on both sides can perform an Immelman or Loop-the-loop at the same speed regardless of weight or payload. 240mph/400kph is the minimum speed. Maybe I'll ask DOC for a Fokker Tri-plane. It'll have half the gun power of an E-1, but it'll out turn all allied fighters. Then I can give them a taste of their own medicine. Chop the throttle roll 90 degrees and turn as hard as I can to bleed speed until my pursuer overshoots or flops out into the dirt. Doesn't take much thought or brain sweat to fly some of their planes. They are good for learning your gunnery skills though. It's easier to get someone in front of your guns for practice.

By the way Judge, I talked to deadly about the 109 having had leading edge slats for extra maneuverability, they aren't on the planes in game. That has him rather irked, like many other things. I don't know if it is because the game engine can't handle the extra coding or if the Rats haven't figured out how to make it work. Just another game upgrade to ask for. The main reason I bothered to do this is because I keep seeing Allied fighters catching our fastest fighters in a stern chase. All things being equal, same beginning E and altitude, the F4-series 109s can out run every fighter the allied have until the Spit-9 arrives. That beast tools along at 717kph. Our fastest is the 190 at 672. The Spit-5 tops out at 605, so it will eventually run down an F2 (601kph). But I've seen a Spit-2 chase down an undamaged F4 and kill it. How? They only do about 575 or so. Eh, whatever. I said my piece and expected nothing to be done about it. Let the allies pat themselves on the back for a job done for them by the admins. The will earn my respect once they win a fair fight. We had a good one going until the Tier 3 changes, then it was the zombie zerg with untouchable supply. Maybe the next campaign will see enough folks return to at least stand a fighting chance, maybe we'll be punch-me clowns again. Who knows. I'll help train anyone that asks when I get on. This map is still good for that at least.

Firstly, thanks for the data, Striker.

Oh god here I go again..

1) I ran the calculations as I'm waiting to get loaded here near White Sox stadium.

The percentage of nerf you figured out can be also related to the planes loading of g foearce tollerance, and where its at. In the oringal desighns of Willey Messerchmit, the g load is located behind the cocpit canopy, then strait down to the underbelly. Reason for this was to use the structure around the landing gear and aft connection points of the wings to dispearse top loading of the wing. In english: it took stress off the front leading edge of the wings and engine compartment, though due to this, the planes were HARD to take off or land with. Messershmit didn't intend for the first models to fly high at all. As a matter of fact, anything above 5km was loss of power, and at 9k the plane was uncontrolable. So the planes were seen as flying artillery, but their excessive drop speed and unstable short wing span made them hard to control on the stick, since at dive speeds it would slacken and get sluggish. To counteract the sluggish feel, leading edges were installed on the wings leading edge. What this did was stablize the sluggish heavy feel and made the plane much more manuverable. Combat flaps were not needed, since they could out turn in a lower rate of speed, SELDOM did BF109 drivers EVER run their planes at 100% but a modest 75% to 80%.

2) the difference between the 109 and 190 was quite different. 190's are a rear g force loading plane, near front of the horizontal sabilizer like all other allied air at the time. However what made the 190 different was how the load got to the area. A few stress beams did it, taking again the load from the wings and spreading it out, unlike early versions of mustang/spitfires/hawks. Later on they would in the newer planes. 190's outmanuvered a lot except for a YAK-3, and probably a M4A6 ZERO, for that matter, too.

3) 109's were intended to be retired in 1941, to be replaced by the much more capabile 190. By 1944 , the 109 was to slowly be replaced by ME 262, 272, and rough plans of a 300 model were concieved. Due to american entry, you know the rest. The 272, I've seen a replica. It looks like a Dassult Mirage mkI, in a way. The 300 model was bulit by the americans, it was called the F-81 Saber.

4) the calculations and numbers I crunched, knowing the accual planes listed above to nerf configurations, here's a broad but easily understood situation:

% climb rate loss from real to nerf- 18%
% dive rate loss- 21%
% of lateral movement loss(no leading edges)- 12%
% of horizontal movement (no leading edges)-15.5%
% of handeling loss 19.5%
Stall speed increased 18%
G force load moves on plane to between the landing gear, making handeling suffer and easy to 'flip out' of control.
Lack of sufficent forces on the horizonal stabilizer (loss of balence in the air frame)