The 110 needs a makeover. The G2 will do a half loop on take off. It out accelerates and is more agile up to and just after rotation than the spitfire XIV. It loops at a an absurdley low speed amd recpvers E very quickly. It also retains too much elevator authority at high speed and is far too quick to respond on the rudder at high speed. No wonder it's so popular.
Go here to see a quick test and comparison to the Spitfire XIV- a plane with more power per pound, and a wingloading 30 percent lighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMyf6kdJfnA

Oh, and It also didn’t carry 800 37mm rounds.
Ridiculous!
This has been wrong for way too long. Fix the bloody weapons file at least.

Nice work Finn. It is the ultimate flying chainsaw in the game. Would be good to fix.

<S>
Been quite busy with life for half a year but started flying again and looking to tweaking some planes again.

I've started to check up on the Bf 110's of what needs fixing.

From my tests so far, it seems the Bf 110's definitely need a nerf to their roll rate with the next update. They are currently way to agile in this department. When it comes to other aspects like turn rate, acceleration, speed, climb rate etc, they seem to be quite on par with estimated real world performance based on dimensions, data, structure, engine data, WW2 test reports etc. Below are the tests and conlusions I've made this week. All input is welcome.

---== BF 110'S ==---

--= TURN PERFORMANCE =--
At full fuel and ammuntion, the wingloadings for the Spitfire XIV and Bf 110G are 35.1 and 41.9 respectively. As such one could assume the Spitfire XIV should outturn the Bf 110G. Wingloading however does not account for wing thickness. The Spitfire has razor thin wings at an average thickness ratio of around 9.5%, while the Bf 110 has a wing thickness ratio at a whooping 14.3%, almost like a Hurricane. (This is why the Hawker Hurricane and Hawker Typhoon can turn so damn well). This means that the Bf 110 should stall at around 5-7 mph less than the Spitfire XIV at the same wingloading, and at full load and 75% fuel, the Spitfire XIV should stall at around 89 mph (Power ON stall speed), and the Bf 110 should stall at around 90 mph (Power ON). As such they should have fairly the same turning performance when at the same power/weight ratio.

This is however only when looking at a clean wing and discounting the fact that the Bf 110 has leading edge slats, which allows it to turn even tighter than without slats. These should lower the stall speed of the Bf 110 by around 7-10 mph, from the data I've been able to find. At an equal power/weight ratio, the Bf 110G should easily outturn the Spitfire XIV, when using it's LE slats. In real life though the Spitfire XIV has a much better power to weight ratio, which should result in it having a larger turning radius, but a better turn rate performance. As such the Bf 110G can turn inside the Spitfire XIV in a dogfight for a while, but in a sustained rate fight the Spitfire XIV will eventually get behind the Bf 110G if both are turning at full power. This can also be seen below from the turning tests I made.





Something that also makes me think the Bf 110's have the correct turn performance is a British WW2 test that stated these results:
"It takes four turns for the Spitfire and Hurricane to get on the Bf 110's tail at 20000 ft when starting with the Bf 110 on their six."
I made turning tests at this altitude with the Spitfire I and the Bf 110C-4, and the resulting turn rates showed that the Spit I was able to turn almost exactly four laps in the time the Bf 110C-4 could turn three laps. This means the Spitfire I, in Warbirds, needs four laps to get back behind the Bf 110C-4, just like the real life WW2 tests showed.

One also has to remember the Bf 110G is a mid-war figher while the Spitfire XIV is a late war fighter. Usually late war fighters are faster but turn worse than earlier war fighters. Just compare a Spit XIV to a Spit Vc, a Ki-84 to a Ki-61, or a P-51D to a P-40E. If you are flying any late war plane and start turn fighting the Bf 110G, then you have usually messed up tactically. You should use your superior speed and climb rate patiently to boom n zoom the Bf 110G from above. Doing this the Bf 110G will be clearly disadvantaged and has to constantly dodge as you attack him from a higher altitude.


--= CONTROL AUTHORITY AT HIGH SPEEDS =--
According to a British WW2 flight test report:
"The aircraft controls are still quite maneuverable above 340 mph"
"Elevators are not to heavy in dive"
"The Bf 110 is maneuverable like a single engine fighter"

The Bf 110 should not lose control authority as fast as the Bf 109. It is currently set somewhere between a Bf 109 and most other fighters.






--= ROLL RATE =--
I made some tests and found that the roll rate is way to good for this twin engine fighter. I've now reduced it to ~60% of the current roll rate, so the Bf 110's should have a realistic roll performance with the next update. This will definitely affect their agility in close dogfights, making them more cumbersome to maneuver.






--= LOOP PERFORMANCE =--
I ran a test against the Spit XIV. The Spit XIV could do a full loop without stalling at a starting speed of 10-15 mph lower than that of the Bf 110G, so seems the Spit XIV loops better. Tbh not sure if all the fighters in Warbirds loop at the minimum speed required in real life, but that's hard to say without access to a report from a real world pilot making actual test of the lowest speed he can loop at in various ww2 fighters.


--= ACCELERATION TEST =--
From my tests today, the statement that the Bf 110G out-accelerates the Spitfire XIV is not true. Below are the results from going 100 mph to 300 mph at full WEP. As can be seen the Spitfire XIV accelerated from 100 mph to 200 mph in 12.6 seconds, and to 300 mph in 37.7 seconds. The Bf 110G needed 21.4 and 87.1 seconds respectively to reach those speeds.






--= WEAPONS =--
Not sure how it's possible that your version of the Bf 110G has 800 rounds for the 37 mm cannon. In my game it only has 66 rounds. Can you send a screenshot of this, sir?
The loadouts for the Bf 110's were based on the data as follows:

Bf 110C-4
4x 7.7 mm: 1000 rounds/gun (Total: 4000 rounds)
2x 20 mm: 180 rounds/gun (Total: 360 rounds)

Bf 110G-2
2x 30 mm: Left gun 120 rounds, Right gun 135 rounds (Total: 255 rounds)
2x 20 mm: Left gun 400 rounds, Right gun 350 rounds (Total: 750 rounds)
Cannon pod: 2x 20 mm: 200 rounds per gun (Total: 400 rounds, 1150 rounds total with main 20 mm guns accounted for)
1x 37 mm: 66 rounds



<S> and all responses and arguments are welcome
/Robert

Nice to see you are still alive and kicking, Sir, back in business. My shy wish for next update is to upgrade Ju87 to the D-5. It was based on D-3 and was unique in the Ju 87 series as it had wingspan 0.6 metres (2 ft) more than previous variants and 7.92 mm MG 17s at wings were replaced with 20 mm MG 151/20s. If not wings, at least cannons would be nice to have.

If there are some day new planes coming, Me410 could be interesting one.

_________________
I swear it wasn't my mistake...

Welcome back Robert. You have been missed! I dont know if you deal with this but next time you are online try and select a field ack position, 20,40 or 88 and see where it spawns you. It appears on most maps instead of the selected gun placement at the field you will spawn in a gun emplacement out in the boonies where the GV/s spawn making it impossible to defend against attackers..
I'm sure its got to be a Mac thing as we would prolly be hearing about it more but if you get a chance have a look and see what you get..
Thanks for all you do matey..
Cheers
Pak..

_________________
2020 Retina 5k iMac 27"
3.8GHz Intel 8 Core i7
16 GB 2667 MHz DDR4
AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT 16 GB
OSX 11.5.2

IF you go into the cockpit of the 110G2, having selected the 37mm cannon, you will find that if you hit the backspace key to select it, you will be rewarded with some 812 rounds of 37mm ammo. Some kind of bug.
I took a screenshot, but I can't find the darn thing in the WB directory and windows/printscreen didn't seem to work.
Nice to have you back Robert! More later- it's bedtime here.
Did you look at the video I made on youtube? A half loop on take off in a 110G2. Eeek.
finn

<S>s
The D-5 is an interesting idea and would also give the Ju 87 a better chance of defending itself. The problem is that the Ju 87D-3 currently is standing in for both the Ju 87B's and D's in the game, and it would be wrong to have a 20 mm cannon armed Ju 87 in the early war. I've been thinking about adding the Ju 87B-1 to the sim. One would however first need to check with Ient if we can add it. If so then we could have both a Ju 87B-1 and a Ju 87D-5.

The Bf 410 would be really cool to have, but there is currently no 3d model for it. Otherwise I'd happily build a flightmodel for it.

Dunno about the ack/gv spawning issues, I have no access to the arena codings. Would have to ask Spindz or Wildbill about the issue.


I found the issue with the 37 mm cannon. Good spotting, sir. Thank God it's not 816 rounds of 37 mm ammo, but the 2x 20 mm and 1x 37 mm cannons are mistakenly all acting on the same trigger, so all are fired at once and thus the combined ammo is shown in the HUD (750 + 66 = 816 rounds). I've now separated them so that players can switch between the 20 mm cannons and the BK 3.7 cm cannon with the next update.

Regarding looping in the video the Bf 110 was looped at ~160 mph and using 30 degree flaps at the top. After that it was falling towards the ground at -5000 ft/min until stall was recovered. The Spit XIV was looped at ~140 mph. I tried looping the Spit XIV at 160 mph and it could also perform the maneuver, and looping the Bf 110 at 140 mph it will also fail like the Spitfire did. I wish one could find a report from a real pilot who has tried the actual minimum speed required for looping a WW2 plane in real life.


I also ran tests on the Typhoon 1942 and 1944 versions in the Legacy arena yesterday. The 1942 version does not turn better than the 1944 version. At same power they are near identical, and using Bst2 the 1944 version turns better than the 1942 version. Comparing to other planes and data, they should have the correct turn performance with regards to their super thick wing structure (16% average wing thickness ratio) and wingloading. I've also tested their top speed and they are both hitting the correct numbers according to WW2 data. The Hawker Typhoon was a really good fighter in WW2.

P.S. If wanted by the players, I could program the flightmodel and implement the Hawker Tempest Mk.V in Warbirds by using the Typhoon's 3d model until the Tempest can get a 3d model of it's own. They look fairly alike.






<S>
/Robert

Robert,

Thanks for all you have done. But what doesn't make any sense is that the 110G can out climb and turn most things it encounters which is in direct conflict with the actual performance of the 110G. Remember there were such horrific loses of the plane during the war that Germany eventually pulled them out. I saw a documentary where the units received 210 110G in the field and after 3 months, more than 150 were lost due to combat operations.

That is not what we are seeing now. A 110G should not be able to turn with a SPIT at any time. Just my two cents.

<S>
Fixing the flightmodels definitely makes a difference. The B-25's ingame are currently the old arcade versions. The next update will actually have the whole B-25 series fully remodeled to hit real world performance as closely as possible. The B-25H will not be as effective in a turn fight as it currently has been. I just ran two turn tests with the old B-25H vs the soon updated version. The results show a significant decrease in turn performance, with the B-25H having a more realistic flightmodel.





P.S. The update will also have a brand new Ju 87B-2 Stuka for early war scenarios. Also the Ju-87D will be upgraded to the Ju 87D-5, with larger wings and 20 mm cannons. The Ju-87G will be upgraded to the Ju 87G-2 that also uses larger wings.

P.P.S. The Hawker Tempest Mk V has also been fully modeled and will be added to the sim.


Cheers!
/Robert