Bf-109Z "Zwilling", The German F-82 Using the BF-109

[ItsCalledSoccer 96]

No, you have all the technical specs too to calculate how it flew.

My bad, I meant the Engineer's estimated performance for the plane.

[Target1331 3,055]

No, you have all the technical specs too to calculate how it flew.

While you can get a good estimate on how the aircraft should perform based on dimensions and some other parameters, you pretty much never get it exactly right and sometimes totally wrong. Sometimes the airflow doesn't stay attached as predicted by calculations and simulations and you have to modfiy parts or add components, that can change the behavior of an aircraft drastically. Other times your control surfaces aren't as efficient as initally calculated making the roll or other maneuvers slower than they should've been.
Why else would they still do flight tests today even on aircraft that were done with some high-tech equipment?

 

That's why blueprints and planes where there's no real flight data available shouldn't really be in WT (A few made it in, because the devs didn't see any other viable aircraft that could've filled a gap in a nation's tech tree *looking at R2Y2s*)

It's also the reason why prototypes which flew and have at least some data available are flyable in WT, as in those cases they can start with the calculations based on the dimensions and then a) verify/compare those calculated results with the data, b) adjust the calculations to fit the data better, and c) get a few parameters from the data that you cannot really get from calculations (I had to do this for my master thesis when researching a winglet mod for a business jet).

Best regards,

Phil

[_Sync 1,028]

While you can get a good estimate on how the aircraft should perform based on dimensions and some other parameters, you pretty much never get it exactly right and sometimes totally wrong. Sometimes the airflow doesn't stay attached as predicted by calculations and simulations and you have to modfiy parts or add components, that can change the behavior of an aircraft drastically. Other times your control surfaces aren't as efficient as initally calculated making the roll or other maneuvers slower than they should've been.
Why else would they still do flight tests today even on aircraft that were done with some high-tech equipment?

 

That's why blueprints and planes where there's no real flight data available shouldn't really be in WT (A few made it in, because the devs didn't see any other viable aircraft that could've filled a gap in a nation's tech tree *looking at R2Y2s*)

It's also the reason why prototypes which flew and have at least some data available are flyable in WT, as in those cases they can start with the calculations based on the dimensions and then a) verify/compare those calculated results with the data, b) adjust the calculations to fit the data better, and c) get a few parameters from the data that you cannot really get from calculations (I had to do this for my master thesis when researching a winglet mod for a business jet).

Best regards,

Phil

yes!

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

While you can get a good estimate on how the aircraft should perform based on dimensions and some other parameters, you pretty much never get it exactly right and sometimes totally wrong. Sometimes the airflow doesn't stay attached as predicted by calculations and simulations and you have to modfiy parts or add components, that can change the behavior of an aircraft drastically. Other times your control surfaces aren't as efficient as initally calculated making the roll or other maneuvers slower than they should've been.
Why else would they still do flight tests today even on aircraft that were done with some high-tech equipment?

 

That's why blueprints and planes where there's no real flight data available shouldn't really be in WT (A few made it in, because the devs didn't see any other viable aircraft that could've filled a gap in a nation's tech tree *looking at R2Y2s*)

It's also the reason why prototypes which flew and have at least some data available are flyable in WT, as in those cases they can start with the calculations based on the dimensions and then a) verify/compare those calculated results with the data, b) adjust the calculations to fit the data better, and c) get a few parameters from the data that you cannot really get from calculations (I had to do this for my master thesis when researching a winglet mod for a business jet).

Best regards,

Phil

yeah well thats all fine and such but devs could sometimes just make a "fantasy" fligh model based on similiar aircraft and well they have data on the bf109 and on other twin aircraft (f82) so why not add it for AB where flight models arent as accurate as in RB/SB

[Target1331 3,055]

yeah well thats all fine and such but devs could sometimes just make a "fantasy" fligh model based on similiar aircraft and well they have data on the bf109 and on other twin aircraft (f82) so why not add it for AB where flight models arent as accurate as in RB/SB

One thing there is that the FM in WT is the SB/RB model and that is just adjusted for AB. So they would still have to model an SB/RB FM first.

And it's still not like a cooking receipe where you can add two ingredients (Bf 109 + F-82) to get one delicious dish (well/realistic behaving Bf 109Z); E.g., the Bf 109s have a different airfoil than the F-82/P-51 (NACA 2R1 14.2 vs NAA/NACA 45-100) as well how the wing roots look like. Those two components together can have a noticable impact on the drag characteristics of the aircraft, and are usually not found without wind tunnel/flight tests. My aircraft design prof worked for a company that developed a little business jet and said that the wing root was a big challenge and required several CFD and wind tunnel tests to get right after the first few design iterations made the aircraft noticably draggier and therefore ruining their performance goals.

 

Best regards,

 

Phil

[llorisfrance 2]

Complete support to this Bf 109Z! As i read the comments, I can easily see that lots of people dislike it due to the fact that it never flew. The thing was, the factory wouldn't have been bombed, the prototype could have flown...

 

Anyways, I really support it as we are lacking planes of this type, which could compete with the F-82.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Complete support to this Bf 109Z! As i read the comments, I can easily see that lots of people dislike it due to the fact that it never flew. The thing was, the factory wouldn't have been bombed, the prototype could have flown...

 

Anyways, I really support it as we are lacking planes of this type, which could compete with the F-82.

At least it was a fully built prototype. Performance wise it should be similar to the F-82, since it's 2x Bf-109F Fuselage and Engines put together with up to 5x 30mm cannons.

Edited January 10, 2016 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[GF13 191]

At least it was a fully built prototype. Performance wise it should be similar to the F-82, since it's 2x Bf-109F Fuselage and Engines put together with up to 5x 30mm cannons.

estimated.

it doesn't matter if it was fully build or just a wooden modell or a drawing on a paper made by a child. We don't know how it would have performed.

What's about its range? Is it as high as the F-82 (range is the reason the F-82 performs so badly)? 

 

IF you want a flown (but doesn't met the requirements) twin aircraft go with the SM 92 (italian at least).

 

Also, He-111Z has as much use ingame as Ju 52 or Po-2. NONE. So ofc it can be added (it would be nice though); but don't expect a proper heavy bomber.

 

btw, there are ENOUGH light twin-engined fighters which NEEDS to be added anyway because they actually saw service or were at least deployed at the front (Me 210s, Me 110 variants, Ta 154, Do 335, Fw 187).

Fw 187 is also a low production aircraft (9) but saw service just like the low production He 100.

WHY do fanboys always want the most fancy never used aircrafts/tanks  :facepalm:

Edited January 10, 2016 by GF13

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

estimated.

it doesn't matter if it was fully build or just a wooden modell or a drawing on a paper made by a child. We don't know how it would have performed.

What's about its range? Is it as high as the F-82 (range is the reason the F-82 performs so badly)? 

Alot of the estimation about performance can be gathered through sophisticated Computer Hardware, the same Hardware is used today to determine the performance of aircraft like the A380 before they are even built as a Prototype, also it's just 2x F series fuselages and engines, so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out and estimation for it's performance. The prototype was built however the factory it was built in was bombed before it could fly.

 

 

IF you want a flown (but doesn't met the requirements) twin aircraft go with the SM 92 (italian at least).

 

SM 92 was the Italian equivalent to the IL-2, hardly a Intercepter like the Bf-109Z-1

 

Also, He-111Z has as much use ingame as Ju 52 or Po-2. NONE. So ofc it can be added (it would be nice though); but don't expect a proper heavy bomber.

 

He-111Z-3 was the bomber, the Z-1 was a tow plane and Z-2 a high altitude recon plane, so you would still have a paper plane ingame, just one of it's variants flew. Whether it's useful or not is up to debate as it's not ingame yet.

 

btw, there are ENOUGH light twin-engined fighters which NEEDS to be added anyway because they actually saw service or were at least deployed at the front (Me 210s, Me 110 variants, Ta 154, Do 335, Fw 187).

Fw 187 is also a low production aircraft (9) but saw service just like the low production He 100.

 

Would be nice to see, but none of those is really a true competitor to the F-82, even the Do-335 is not a true competitor even though it's the closest thing to the 2.

 

 

WHY do fanboys always want the most fancy never used aircrafts/tanks  :facepalm:

 

Bf-109Z-1 was built but destroyed before it could fly, it's not like we're suggesting the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel.

Edited January 10, 2016 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[GF13 191]

He-111Z-3 was the bomber, the Z-1 was a tow plane and Z-2 a high altitude recon plane, so you would still have a paper plane ingame, just one of it's variants flew. Whether it's useful or not is up to debate as it's not ingame yet.

I  ment the tow plane, it was actually used.

 

 

 

Would be nice to see, but none of those is really a true competitor to the F-82, even the Do-335 is not a true competitor even though it's the closest thing to the 2.

Do 335 is in every way better than F-82 except long range and night fighter capapilities. 

Basically the F-82 is a bad plane, its most important improvement over normal P-51 (range) doesn't matter ingame.

 

 

 

SM 92 was the Italian equivalent to the IL-2, hardly a Intercepter like the Bf-109Z-1

SM 92 is similiar to the P-38.

It was even mistaken for one during test flights. Also, I dont think a ground attack aircraft needs 15m/s climb rate and 600km/h+? It's a fighter, not a ground attacker. The italians had a lot other ground attack aircrafts.

 

 

 

Bf-109Z-1 was built but destroyed before it could fly, it's not like we're suggesting the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel.

I can suggest you 100 of never build or even tested aircrafts.

I fear if we add one of these planes all fanboys will come and suggest more and more of these planes. And during war times A LOT planes were developed, "unfortunately" only the good/cheap/reliable ones were produced.

But I know, normal Me 109s, P-51s, Fw 190s are boring.  :facepalm: 

Just take a look at the suggestion pages. How often do you see actually used planes and variants (which were forgotten by the devs; even when used in great numbers)? And how often do you see fancy prototypes/paper planes.

Do you remember the hype about Ho 229? Ppl believed it would be a final jet to fight Mig-15bis. Even with engines the V3 never used it's still not really the best, at least not much better than Me 262A. 

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

I  ment the tow plane, it was actually used.

And the only variant built, but you would need the Z-3 in game if it were implemented.

 

IDo 335 is in every way better than F-82 except long range and night fighter capapilities. 

Basically the F-82 is a bad plane, its most important improvement over normal P-51 (range) doesn't matter ingame.

Do-335 also had a Night Fighter Variant, so not exactly true. Also the Do-335 is not a competitor due to what you just put, it being better as it's not Twin-fuselage, so it has better turning performance.

 

SM 92 is similiar to the P-38.

It was even mistaken for one during test flights. Also, I dont think a ground attack aircraft needs 15m/s climb rate and 600km/h+? It's a fighter, not a ground attacker. The italians had a lot other ground attack aircrafts.

SM.92 was the equivalent to the IL-2, in fact the nose of the aircraft makes it look like 2 IL-2's strapped together BUT it's not the exact equivalent due to its role as a Heavy Fighter, or to put in a better term, a Fighter-bomber.

 

I can suggest you 100 of never build or even tested aircrafts.

I fear if we add one of these planes all fanboys will come and suggest more and more of these planes. And during war times A LOT planes were developed, "unfortunately" only the good/cheap/reliable ones were produced.

Not necessarily, most planes didn't see the light of day or had been constructed and not flown due to either the factories being captured or turned to rubble, such as the factory that built the Hs.132 Jet Dive Bomber (4 prototypes were built, none flown), or the war ended before they were even considered being built.

 

 

But I know, normal Me 109s, P-51s, Fw 190s are boring.  :facepalm:

Just take a look at the suggestion pages. How often do you see actually used planes and variants (which were forgotten by the devs; even when used in great numbers)? And how often do you see fancy prototypes/paper planes.

Do you remember the hype about Ho 229? Ppl believed it would be a final jet to fight Mig-15bis. Even with engines the V3 never used it's still not really the best, at least not much better than Me 262A. 

Ho-229 would never have been a competitor for the MiG-15 and the game is still in Open Beta, there are more planes to come, production, prototype and paper aircraft/tanks/ships.

Edited January 10, 2016 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

Ho-229 would never have been a competitor for the MiG-15 and the game is still in Open Beta, there are more planes to come, production, prototype and paper aircraft/tanks/ships.

 

"Open Beta" my ***.  The term is nothing more than a hollow excuse - this game's a full release, regardless of what anybody claims.

[TT33a 5,404]

also it's just 2x F series fuselages and engines

 

That was for test purposes. Why not implement the projected production variant which used two G series fuselages with Jumo 213 engines?

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

"Open Beta" my ***.  The term is nothing more than a hollow excuse - this game's a full release, regardless of what anybody claims.

Regardless of what even Gaijin claims? Well tough luck to you then

 

 

That was for test purposes. Why not implement the projected production variant which used two G series fuselages with Jumo 213 engines?

 

Could do, certainly doesn't hurt.

[Twan 914]

No equivalent gunpod to the F-82's 14 M3 .50 cals?  :(s

 

Was hoping it would have had something utterly stupid like 30 7.92mms, just for fun.  Definitely not as effective but when you fire you get the BRRR :?s

Edited January 11, 2016 by Twan

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

No equivalent gunpod to the F-82's 14 M3 .50 cals?  :(s

 

Was hoping it would have had something utterly stupid like 20 7.92mms, just for fun

With 5x 30mm Cannons I don't think it needs Gun Pods lol.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

Regardless of what even Gaijin claims? Well tough luck to you then

 

 

 

Could do, certainly doesn't hurt.

 

Look, a few months in "Open Beta" is one thing, but several YEARS?  No, that's just abusing it at this point.

 

Also, notice how the main website doesn't say "Open Beta" like it used to.  Even Gaijin knows that it's not really an Open Beta at all by now.

 

 

Anyways, back on the topic of this thread, I'm curious as to whether there were any other armament options planned besides the ones with MK 108s (let's face it, the MK 108 is one of the worst cannons in the game).

Edited January 11, 2016 by Z3r0_

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Z3r0_ as much as you probably don't want to admit it but the game is still Open Beta, Naval Forces still isn't out either.

There were plans for a Fighter-Bomber variant with only the 2 Edited January 12, 2016 by SqnLdrAhsokaTano

[SmartSkull007 2,990]

If you can get flight data from it (it was built), and it can be pretty much a German equivalent to the F-82 that the Americans have, why not?

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

Z3r0_ as much as you probably don't want to admit it but the game is still Open Beta, Naval Forces still isn't out either.

There were plans for a Fighter-Bomber variant with only the 2

 

Just because there's new content being released with new updates doesn't make the game a "Beta".

 

And that's not what I'm talking about regarding armament options, I meant if there was something with guns OTHER than MK 108s on it.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

Just because there's new content being released with new updates doesn't make the game a "Beta".

And that's not what I'm talking about regarding armament options, I meant if there was something with guns OTHER than MK 108s on it.

I could easily see the underwing gunpods be swappable for MK103s, and the nose guns swapped for MG151/20s. Or just five MG151/20s. Or have one MK103 under the center wing and the rest MG151/20.

I actually did try out the Bf109K4 that's in game, but the short range and sparking of the main gun plus the stupid high module grind is what really killed it for me. MK108s should always be able to be swapped for one, if not two, MG151/20s.

From my experience, if MK108 rounds actually connect the target is blown to bits. Hard to get them to connect, but not 100% impossible.

If this plane would turn out to be more maneuverable than the 410s already in game, I think it will have a good niche use.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

I could easily see the underwing gunpods be swappable for MK103s, and the nose guns swapped for MG151/20s. Or just five MG151/20s. Or have one MK103 under the center wing and the rest MG151/20.

I actually did try out the Bf109K4 that's in game, but the short range and sparking of the main gun plus the stupid high module grind is what really killed it for me. MK108s should always be able to be swapped for one, if not two, MG151/20s.

From my experience, if MK108 rounds actually connect the target is blown to bits. Hard to get them to connect, but not 100% impossible.

If this plane would turn out to be more maneuverable than the 410s already in game, I think it will have a good niche use.

 

I'm asking only about armament loadouts that were actually planned at the time, not wild speculation.

[kornek21 1]

On 25.4.2015 at 11:51 PM, Th3hadyn said:

Well considering how that thing actually DID fly I don't see anything against that one...other than the fact that it'd be too wide for most of the airfields in-game no thanks to the guard towers that are usually rather close to the runway (not to mention the take-off run).

Could get air start like the arado after it repairs

 

it did NOT fly.

[Nell_Lucifer 927]

+1

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

No. It never flew and so will have made up flight characteristics so, No.

-1.