Detailed BOP test data for 20 BOP aircraft available here!

[Widar]

The Zipfile in this thread contains a PDF with detailed BOP aircraft test data concerning turns, rolls, climbs, dives and the maximum speed of 20 BOP aircraft and additionally also some comparative historical data on these 20 aircraft as well as remarks and conclusions. This BOP test data sheds some light on the in-game strengths and weaknesses of the 20 BOP aircraft tested which is especially useful for online BOP play.

I have conducted detailed tests with 20 aircraft in IL-2 BOP XBOX 360 single player training and also in mock combat tests in XBOX LIVE BOP online with various virtual pilots on my friends list in order to create the aircraft test data PDF list. Personally I believe that the real life aircraft that are on this test data list were all GREAT combat aircraft in their own right with little to choose between them. The real life aircraft of course were not used in this test and are not the issue, instead the performance of their virtual counterparts in BOP was tested which is something quite different.

I have to say that IL-2 BOP is unique in that it is the only console WWII air combat simulator which in itself is a feat. Next to that it is no overstatement to state that it is overall a good game and basically a good simulator with good graphics at that. Both the online multiplayer and the single player BOP experience are also decent and the main single player extras that one might find wanting for are a single player mission/campaign creator and a single player German/axis campaign.

The BOP aircraft tests have yielded some remarkable results. As with all tests there is room for varied test interpretation and for error in testing as well, therefore all remarks and general conclusions will remain open for personal interpretation. Of course there are also many more altitudes and speeds which have not been included in the tests, this notwithstanding the list supplies interesting data on BOP virtual aircraft performance which is useful when playing BOP online.

The results of the tests concluded so far however SEEM to indicate at best a combination of some unhistorical and/or incorrect aircraft data/performance at work in BOP resulting in selective historically incorrect/unbalanced online BOP aircraft performance, or at worst an unethical selective aircraft performance unbalance by design. However, what SEEMS to be the case based on testing might not be how it actually is, so it is impossible to be certain of the true causes of the selective aircraft performance unbalances either way.

In any event: enjoy the test data!

================================================== ================================================== ==========================================

EDIT: 08.10.2009 LATEST UPDATE <------------------------------------ !!!

NEW DATA AVAILABLE !!!

I downloaded the BOP DLC and was interested to find out how the P47D and Ta 152 H-1 were modeled in BOP, so I performed some tests on them and included them on the list of 20 BOP aircraft that I had already tested. Next to that I have noticed some discussions/questions on BOP aircraft characteristics by new forum members and also the on-going discussions on BOP aileron and elevator sensitivity issues. Some flight performance data in the – now 22 aircraft – table list may be easier for some to interpret when viewed as CHARTS/GRAPHS instead of numbers, so I therefore included a GRAPHS PDF that also has sensitivity and firepower data not included in the tables.

So therefore I now have included three PDF (zip)files:

1. Version 1.1 of the – now 22 aircraft - BOP aircraft test data list PDF (now incl. P47D and Ta 152 H-1).

2. A CHARTS/GRAPHS PDF with graphs on the 22 tested BOP aircraft turn, roll, speed, climb, dive, nominal FIREPOWER data and also SUGGESTED aileron/elevator SENSITIVITY settings.

3. A sensitivity setting (Ta 152 H-1) test report PDF which supplies data on the effects of lower and higher aileron/elevator sensitivity settings on turn, roll, climb, dive etc. in combination with speed and flap settings.

[MorgothNL]

wow, you took some effort in it :P. I'll have a look at it ;). Just a question: what did you do with the sensitivity? This is an important factor, since it will limit the turning etc.
For instance with the spit IX, 5 notches down, will give you a very nice turn without stall when pulling the stick full back. But with 3 or 4 notches, and some rudder and skill, you can make a much quicker turn.

anyways, good job, im gonna take a look now ;)

[Benrizz]

Yeeaaa That's just so great,

Thanks a lot, (even It will brings down some mythology that was starting to appears on that forum about some planes)

But Morghot is right, can you udapte that file to say what sensitivity you used for each plane, or was it the same for each one. ???
Because it changes a lot your results. For example if you use 3 notches down for each one, you lost a lot for the LA5-fn or for BF109s.

EDIT: sorry for the Edit but I just found the info about sensitivity on your file. You say 10 of 20 clicks. With that configuration for all planes,

Even if I agree with yourcomments, the sensitivity that you chose is biasing your datas.
- it brings an over estimation of performance for Spitifires, P51, FWs
over LA5fn and BF109s

Indeed with 8 notches down (with means 10of18 notches) you only lost 3 notches from a full turn without rudder on the Spit while you lost 8 notches for the LA5fn and 7 notches for BF109-F4

[trk29]

Thanks for taking the time to do this. :)

How do you know you were at a exactly 50 degree climb?

[MorgothNL]

How do you know you were at a exactly 50 degree climb?

you can see this in the virtual cockpit. Pretty good skill if you could keep it at 50 degree the whole time though. In real life this is easy with trimming, but in the game it is impossible to keep the plane exactly were you want

[ChankyChank]

Very interesting widar thanks a lot for publishing the results. It's always interesting flying with you and panzergranate-you guys are incredibly knowledgable.

[Widar]

you can see this in the virtual cockpit. Pretty good skill if you could keep it at 50 degree the whole time though. In real life this is easy with trimming, but in the game it is impossible to keep the plane exactly were you want

Thanks for the feedback.

You are right about the view, all testing was done with the virtual cockpit since this gives the degree data I needed.

Of course some aircraft are more stable than others in BOP, so with some it was easier to keep the climb or dive at a 50 degree angle. I probably should have written that down also, but flying and timing was work enough as it is.

All in all it was a lot of work and not the most exiting at that, but the results in my opinion are exiting, or at least useful. I hope that players take advantage of the data, because it gives hints about what tactic works against what aircraft. I also hope that the developers fix the historically incorrect unbalances that the testing has revealed.

I also did a lot of gunnery testing but have not gotten around to putting that test data in an table format yet, since all this takes a lot of time. Some results of the gunnery testing, to an extent, have been incorporated in the remarks in the test data list.

[Robotic Pope]

Nice. Although your results of turn and roll are flawed because of the constant sensitivity setting, The Top speed, Dive and Climb rate stats are all very interesting. Your conclusions are still valid and well made. Damn some of those top speeds are way off. You are right about the gondola cannons on the 109's, They were also said to ruin the planes maneuverability but in BoP the gondola 109's handle just as well as the clean 109's.

[Widar]

Very interesting widar thanks a lot for publishing the results. It's always interesting flying with you and panzergranate-you guys are incredibly knowledgable.

Thanks, I hope that the forum members and developers make use of the testing results.

It is always a learning experience to be on your wing, to this date you are the only virtual pilot that I have seen that owns on an Me 109 G6, even once while being outnumbered three to one by the three Polish Spitfire pilots. Considering how bad the Me 109 G6 BOP test results are, that is quite a feat.

[Widar]

Nice. Although your results of turn and roll are flawed because of the constant sensitivity setting, The Top speed, Dive and Climb rate stats are all very interesting. Your conclusions are still valid and well made. Damn some of those top speeds are way off. You are right about the gondola cannons on the 109's, They were also said to ruin the planes maneuverability but in BoP the gondola 109's handle just as well as the clean 109's.

Thanks for your response.

The gondola's on the Me 109 G-6 do degrade performance in BOP, check the Me 109 G-6 test results regarding BOP maximum sustained level speed, roll and turn rate in seconds etc. as compared to the BOP Me 109 G-2 and Me 109 G-10 test results. These three aircraft in real life were not all that dissimilar to warrant the discrepancies in BOP test results.

Actually I find that to compare the aircraft honestly all must be tested at the same sensitivity setting, the conditions must be the same for the tests results to be comparable. In the end it does not make that much of a difference in many ways. I'll explain this in more detail.

For instance, I spent a lot of time testing the P51 and Fw 190 models, both in single player and online, since they are some of the worst performers in BOP. My Xbox live friends and I found that when we did this test:

Two Fw 190's flying online in formation both making 360 degree rolls at the same altitude and speed, one with sensitivity setting 20 of 20 and one at 10 of 20. The difference in roll rate was not even one second or a second at most. We could not believe this at first and tested it about five times in succession with the Fw 190 A/F-8 and with the P51. The same happened in 360 degree turns. The major difference appears to be that it is easier to enter into a spin or stall at higher sensitivity settings and not that it makes an aircraft way more maneuverable in return.

We also did some testing of this kind with the I-153 with more or less the same results. The same for dive and climb testing with Spitfires and Me 109's.

So the higher sensitivity settings are actually more hurtful than harmful online for the average virtual pilot based on testing.

So based on testing, I would have to disagree with you on your sensitivity remark.

[Widar]

Yeeaaa That's just so great,

Thanks a lot, (even It will brings down some mythology that was starting to appears on that forum about some planes)

But Morghot is right, can you udapte that file to say what sensitivity you used for each plane, or was it the same for each one. ???
Because it changes a lot your results. For example if you use 3 notches down for each one, you lost a lot for the LA5-fn or for BF109s.

EDIT: sorry for the Edit but I just found the info about sensitivity on your file. You say 10 of 20 clicks. With that configuration for all planes,

Even if I agree with yourcomments, the sensitivity that you chose is biasing your datas.
- it brings an over estimation of performance for Spitifires, P51, FWs
over LA5fn and BF109s

Indeed with 8 notches down (with means 10of18 notches) you only lost 3 notches from a full turn without rudder on the Spit while you lost 8 notches for the LA5fn and 7 notches for BF109-F4

Thanks for your response.

Yes, the sensitivity setting used, along with most other test parameters is registered in the PDF file. The reason for the setting of 10/20 was influenced by two of the worst performers, the Fw 190 and the P51. A setting was needed that allowed for maximum flight stick pressure for rolls, turns, dives and climbs. If a BOP aircraft has a flight advantage, then the testing revealed that that advantage will still be proportionally just as great on 10/20 sensitivity as on 20/20 sensitivity compared to other BOP aircraft. One of the main advantages on 10/20 sensitivity setting is that it allows some aircraft to stay controllable better when applying maximum flight stick pressure, that is to say before a stall and spin sets in. The difference in seconds on 20/20 sensitivity when turning, rolling etc. is not that great based on testing, it is there though to be sure.

But in the end, for test results to be comparable, the same conditions need to be applied and the benchmark for the selected test sensitivity setting were the worst sensitivity performers in BOP, among others the Fw 190 and the P51.

Just to keep the sensitivity definitions comparable to avoid misunderstandings: there are 20 notches on each sensitivity option (aileron and elevator). Sensitivity setting 20/20 is all notches highlighted in white, meaning maximum setting to the right. If you turn the sensitivity setting 3 down from 20 your setting is 17 of 20 or 17/20. So in my (test) terms if you turn it 8 notches down from 20 it would be 12 of 20 or 12/20.

[Widar]

Yeeaaa That's just so great,

Thanks a lot, (even It will brings down some mythology that was starting to appears on that forum about some planes)

But Morghot is right, can you udapte that file to say what sensitivity you used for each plane, or was it the same for each one. ???
Because it changes a lot your results. For example if you use 3 notches down for each one, you lost a lot for the LA5-fn or for BF109s.

EDIT: sorry for the Edit but I just found the info about sensitivity on your file. You say 10 of 20 clicks. With that configuration for all planes,

Even if I agree with yourcomments, the sensitivity that you chose is biasing your datas.
- it brings an over estimation of performance for Spitifires, P51, FWs
over LA5fn and BF109s

Indeed with 8 notches down (with means 10of18 notches) you only lost 3 notches from a full turn without rudder on the Spit while you lost 8 notches for the LA5fn and 7 notches for BF109-F4

To be sure: the testing was done with the average virtual pilot on simulator mode in mind. A great vitual pilot can get great results when flying a brick at 20/20 sensitivity settings, but these kind of pilots are the exception and not the benchmark for testing an aircraft in BOP. I wanted results that the average virtual pilot can get in BOP on simulator mode. When flying at 20/20 you have a flight model advantage, but it is generally slight and in return you have to have a good "pilot's" hand, meaning that you need to be able to just apply the right amount of flight stick pressure to avoid stalling and spinning in turns, rolls etc. That is fine for the great virtual pilot, but not for the average one.

Average virtual pilots flying at 20/20 is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why these players stay away from simulator mode, since they just can't control the plane at that setting and start stalling and spinning 20 seconds into an online match and then quit and run back to Arcade mode.

If BOP's default game sensitivity setting would have been 10/20 instead of the 20/20 it is at now, we would probably have more average virtual pilots staying in simulator mode online matches.

[fuzzychickens]

Thanks for your response.

The gondola's on the Me 109 G-6 do degrade performance in BOP, check the Me 109 G-6 test results regarding BOP maximum sustained level speed, roll and turn rate in seconds etc. as compared to the BOP Me 109 G-2 and Me 109 G-10 test results. These three aircraft in real life were not all that dissimilar to warrant the discrepancies in BOP test results.

Actually I find that to compare the aircraft honestly all must be tested at the same sensitivity setting, the conditions must be the same for the tests results to be comparable. In the end it does not make that much of a difference in many ways. I'll explain this in more detail.

For instance, I spent a lot of time testing the P51 and Fw 190 models, both in single player and online, since they are some of the worst performers in BOP. My Xbox live friends and I found that when we did this test:

Two Fw 190's flying online in formation both making 360 degree rolls at the same altitude and speed, one with sensitivity setting 20 of 20 and one at 10 of 20. The difference in roll rate was not even one second or a second at most. We could not believe this at first and tested it about five times in succession with the Fw 190 A/F-8 and with the P51. The same happened in 360 degree turns. The major difference appears to be that it is easier to enter into a spin or stall at higher sensitivity settings and not that it makes an aircraft way more maneuverable in return.

We also did some testing of this kind with the I-153 with more or less the same results. The same for dive and climb testing with Spitfires and Me 109's.

So the higher sensitivity settings are actually more hurtful than harmful online for the average virtual pilot based on testing.

So based on testing, I would have to disagree with you on your sensitivity remark.

No, he is right. You need to calculated max turn/roll rates with sensitivity at max.

For planes like La-5/7 or Yak, you will get wrong numbers because max deflection is not reached when sensitivity is reduced - a compromise they had to make on the sens slider.

Turn sens to max on La-7/5 or Yak and you should get much better turn times.

This is a huge advantage to the good turning planes when you don't mess with sensitivity.

[Benrizz]

Yes you right default sensitivity should has been set by default on 10/20.

About the turning abilities do you have an idea on how many second you win when putting full sensitivity for exemple on LA5 ??

An finally thanks a lot for you're data, and the time you spent to do that. I ve already printed it out :). That's a lot of valuable info.

We can see that even on BF109 you can't have an Boom and Zoom tactic,
Thanks

[Widar]

No, he is right. You need to calculated max turn/roll rates with sensitivity at max.

For planes like La-5/7 or Yak, you will get wrong numbers because max deflection is not reached when sensitivity is reduced - a compromise they had to make on the sens slider.

Turn sens to max on La-7/5 or Yak and you should get much better turn times.

This is a huge advantage to the good turning planes when you don't mess with sensitivity.

Thanks for your response. But I have to disagree, based on testing. With some online friends we tested - while both flying the same aircraft at the same speed and altitude - on [10/20 vs 20/20] and [12/20 vs 20/20] and [17/20 vs 20/20] settings and the differences in seconds required for turning, rolls etc. were almost negligible, they are there but they are not really that drastic. Then one has to wonder whether a <=1 second horizontal turn advantage at 20/20 is worth the risk of a stall+spin that would not occur at a 10/20 or 17/20 setting.

But don't take my word for it, find a friend on your friends list, set up a 1vs1 online duel on private setting and spend about an hour conducting these tests with identical aircraft at identical speeds and altitude but with your wingman flying at 20/20 sensitivity settings and you at 17/20 and then at 10/20. Execute repeated exact turn, roll etc. maneuvers in synchonization and time them in seconds and write the results down. Then turn it around and let your wingman fly at 17/20 and 10/20 and you at 20/20. Let the one with the highest sensitivity setting fly just behind the one with the lower sensitivity setting and use the sun and your virtual cockpit compass as a point of reference to determine the beginning and end of every maneuver. Then consider if the stall+spin risk at 20/20 is worth a maybe 1 second advantage for an average virtual pilot against a really skilled virtual pilot who will not be lured into a horizontal turning duel anyway.

Then there is one other thing to consider when testing. When Michael Schumacher drives his former F1 Ferrari he is capable of reaching speeds and executing driver maneuvers that others will never duplicate in that same car under the same conditions. People drive cars every day but they never push that car to the limit of its capabilities because either they can't or don't dare to. To an extent this is also the case in BOP. There are great virtual pilots out there that can fly at 20/20 and execute maneuvers at the limit of what a particular aircraft can do in BOP just by applying the right amount of flight stick pressure and rudder. Maybe you are one of them, maybe not. Either way the benchmark for testing in my opinion is not what Michael Schumacher can do in his F1 Ferrari, but what "Joe Average" is capable of pulling off in that same F1 Ferrari. Since at least 80% of the virtual pilots fall in the "Joe Average" category, I based my testing on them. Look at the online BOP duels, about 20% of the pilots will regularly get 80% of the victories. The Michael Schumacher's, or more appropriately the Erich Hartmann's of this world can outperform just about any "Joe Average" no matter what type of car respectively aircraft they use. In my opinion it is the same in BOP, so my tests are therefore not based on the flying qualities of the top 20% of BOP virtual pilots at 20/20.

[fuzzychickens]

I've already done testing. The difference is huge and it's the difference between getting on the enemy 6 quickly and winning and getting shot down yourself.

Try la7 against 109 - with 109 sens at 10/20 and La7 at 10/20.

Now do the same with La7 and 109 at max sensitivity. The la7 now has a HUGE turn advantage.

This is a fact in this game. You can't compare performance with sensitivity cranked down.

The la7 is a monster turning beast from hell and testing it at reduced sensitivty might as well be testing it at forced reduced performance. Also, at 20/20, the La7 is EASY to fly without stalling in simulator. So it matters big time and certainly worth the risk to turn at max rate in a turn fight.

And yes, A one second turn time difference is HUGE. If you've played IL2 on the PC online and mixed it up in some turn fights - you'd realize that quickly.

[Widar]

Yes you right default sensitivity should has been set by default on 10/20.

About the turning abilities do you have an idea on how many second you win when putting full sensitivity for exemple on LA5 ??

An finally thanks a lot for you're data, and the time you spent to do that. I ve already printed it out :). That's a lot of valuable info.

We can see that even on BF109 you can't have an Boom and Zoom tactic,
Thanks

The only aircraft that were tested at various sensitivity settings, to determine if 20/20 was worth the effort as a benchmark for all tests, were the Fw 190, P51 and Spitfire. The advantage was generally a second at best with rolls, turns etc. and sometimes not even that in repeated tests. Since the various sensitivity results were more or less the same for those three aircraft I suppose it will probably also be so for the La-5. Only tests can determine for sure, but I am done testing for now.

You are generally right about the Me 109's in BOP, based on these tests. Of course the decisive factor is virtual pilot skill. Probably the BOP Me 109 that is best is the BOP Me 109 F-4 when compared to its allied BOP counterparts, but its BOP 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon seems to underperform when compared to historical data. The second best choice is probably the BOP Me 109 K-4, but it also has armament issues.

[gbtstr]

Nice job, Widar. You put a lot of time into this and we appreciate your efforts. However, here's a couple things that came to mind that you could perhaps address. Perhaps some of these you considered, but forgot to mention, or just went about them differently.

First, the time to altitude (125m to Xm) numbers are probably invalid. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many planes, particularly of the WWII and previous eras, that can climb well at +50* pitch. According to your tests, several weren't even able to maintain a climb at that attitude. If you were trying to test best rate of climb, you'd have to fly each aircraft at its best rate of climb airspeed for a good comparison. For example, the BF-109E's best rate airspeed is around 270-280 kph. Also, I'm not sure if this is what you did or not, but the best way I can think of to test best rate of climb is to start each aircraft on the deck and takeoff, accelerate to best climb speed, then pitch up to an attitude that holds the desired airspeed.

Second, the zoom climb (1km - 3km) and dive (6km - 1km) tests don't mention the starting airspeed. If you start a zoom climb at 700kph you'll go up a lot faster and farther than if you start at 400kph; likewise for the dive.

Third, you don't mention airspeeds for the turn rate and roll rate tests. For the turn test, each aircraft has a "cornering speed" at which it will give the best rate of turn for the smallest turn radius. (Also, there's different airspeeds for best instantaneous and best sustained turn rates - best sustained rates are, as far as I know, at a lower airspeed because most aircraft can't hold the same energy as the instantaneous turn rate requires.) For roll rates, generally, starting from zero airspeed, roll rate increases to a maximum as airspeed increases. After that point, as airspeed continues to increase, roll rate decreases. If you were at the optimum speed for a Spit II during the roll test, but too fast or slow for a Fw-190 your numbers might show the Spit having a roll rate advantage.

Fourth, for the turn rate, as well as roll rate, finding the max performance on those should be based on the the "ideal" sensitivity - something that prevents you from flying around stalled (killing your turn performance) and gives you the best rate/radius. To do that for every aircraft in the list would be difficult, but would probably be most beneficial to the most players.

[Widar]

I've already done testing. The difference is huge and it's the difference between getting on the enemy 6 quickly and winning and getting shot down yourself.

Try la7 against 109 - with 109 sens at 10/20 and La7 at 10/20.

Now do the same with La7 and 109 at max sensitivity. The la7 now has a HUGE turn advantage.

This is a fact in this game. You can't compare performance with sensitivity cranked down.

The la7 is a monster turning beast from hell and testing it at reduced sensitivty might as well be testing it at forced reduced performance. Also, at 20/20, the La7 is EASY to fly without stalling in simulator. So it matters big time and certainly worth the risk to turn at max rate in a turn fight.

And yes, A one second turn time difference is HUGE. If you've played IL2 on the PC online and mixed it up in some turn fights - you'd realize that quickly.

I really don't see the point you are trying to make. The La-7 has a 7 second 360 degree turn advantage at 6000 meters over the Me 109 K-4 at 10/20 based on my best test result. I guess you think that this is not huge. In fact, the La-7 seems to the best aircraft overall of the 20 BOP aircraft that I tested.

The best fighter pilots in history avoided turning battles like the devil avoids holy water. The Fw 190 in real life was better maneuverable in all areas but the horizontal turn against the Spitfire and yet it had a 4 to 1 victory ratio against these fighters in the first year that it was introduced even while being outnumbered 10 to 1 on the Channel coast. Like one Spitfire pilot remarked: turning does not win battles.

What was tested is the performance of BOP aircraft under same circumstances with no risk of sudden stall+spin, and like I noted earlier any advantage that is there at 10/20 will also be there at 20/20.

For argument's sake suppose the La-7 is 1.2 seconds faster when "Joe Above Average" makes a 360 degree turn at 20/20 at 6000 m, and the Me 109 K-4 is also 0.9 seconds faster when this same "Joe Above Average" makes the same turn at 20/20. The end result is then still more or less the same as at 10/20 for aircraft test comparison purposes. The big difference however is that "Joe Average" cannot fly at 20/20 in simulator mode and will have to use 10/20 to 17/20 depending on the aircraft flown. In any event, the worst performing aircraft in BOP at 20/20 will not be able to outperform the best performing aircraft in BOP at 10/20 of 17/20. Proportionally the difference is not that great when testing all aircraft at 10/20 or 20/20, if it exists at all.

The really skilled virtual pilots will not get into a horizontal turning fight as it is, and against "Joe Average" it does not matter in any case since you will be able to get on their six in any event, if you are a skilled virtual pilot.

So to sum it up, this discussion is dangerously moving into the direction of a "I want to have the last word" argumentation which is really pointless.

So instead let me say that I look forward to your comparative detailed 20/20 BOP test results, since I disagree with your statement and will leave it at that. If you want to make a 20/20 test report for 20 aircraft: I certainly am not stopping you, more power to you!

[Widar]

Nice job, Widar. You put a lot of time into this and we appreciate your efforts. However, here's a couple things that came to mind that you could perhaps address. Perhaps some of these you considered, but forgot to mention, or just went about them differently.

First, the time to altitude (125m to Xm) numbers are probably invalid. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many planes, particularly of the WWII and previous eras, that can climb well at +50* pitch. According to your tests, several weren't even able to maintain a climb at that attitude. If you were trying to test best rate of climb, you'd have to fly each aircraft at its best rate of climb airspeed for a good comparison. For example, the BF-109E's best rate airspeed is around 270-280 kph. Also, I'm not sure if this is what you did or not, but the best way I can think of to test best rate of climb is to start each aircraft on the deck and takeoff, accelerate to best climb speed, then pitch up to an attitude that holds the desired airspeed.

Second, the zoom climb (1km - 3km) and dive (6km - 1km) tests don't mention the starting airspeed. If you start a zoom climb at 700kph you'll go up a lot faster and farther than if you start at 400kph; likewise for the dive.

Third, you don't mention airspeeds for the turn rate and roll rate tests. For the turn test, each aircraft has a "cornering speed" at which it will give the best rate of turn for the smallest turn radius. (Also, there's different airspeeds for best instantaneous and best sustained turn rates - best sustained rates are, as far as I know, at a lower airspeed because most aircraft can't hold the same energy as the instantaneous turn rate requires.) For roll rates, generally, starting from zero airspeed, roll rate increases to a maximum as airspeed increases. After that point, as airspeed continues to increase, roll rate decreases. If you were at the optimum speed for a Spit II during the roll test, but too fast or slow for a Fw-190 your numbers might show the Spit having a roll rate advantage.

Fourth, for the turn rate, as well as roll rate, finding the max performance on those should be based on the the "ideal" sensitivity - something that prevents you from flying around stalled (killing your turn performance) and gives you the best rate/radius. To do that for every aircraft in the list would be difficult, but would probably be most beneficial to the most players.

You bring up good and valid points. Every test can be improved and nothing is not open to criticism, when better tests are carried out, even better ones can of course be thought of.

I had thought of the things you put forward, all good points and related to real life as well. The thing is that I tested with the average BOP pilot in mind under combat conditions in BOP. The diehard (test) pilots will take the time to find out what the best speed, altitude and angle are for each aircraft in BOP (which is not necessarily the same thing as in real life) to carry out their test maneuvers at etc.. The pilots that take the time to ascertain this in BOP usually don't need these test results to begin with. If I had done the tests under the conditions that you describe for 20 aircraft it would have taken even more time to carry out than this did. Maybe something for a future project.

Generally most tests, with the exception of the sustained maximum level speed tests, were started after reaching maximum level speed first and then first carrying out a tight 360 degree turn to bleed off airspeed and then letting the speed pick up again for about 10-20 seconds, what one might call combat maneuver speed in BOP terms. I wanted to create a situation where a virtual pilot starts a maneuver directly after a combat maneuver, not one under ideal conditions for each aircraft. Not one test was carried out at sustained maximum level speed, except of course for the sustained maximim level speed test.

Hope this answers your questions.

[MorgothNL]

The big difference however is that "Joe Average" cannot fly at 20/20 in simulator mode and will have to use 10/20 to 17/20 depending on the aircraft flown. In any event, the worst performing aircraft in BOP at 20/20 will not be able to outperform the best performing aircraft in BOP at 10/20 of 17/20. Proportionally the difference is not that great when testing all aircraft at 10/20 or 20/20, if it exists at all.

The really skilled virtual pilots will not get into a horizontal turning fight as it is, and against "Joe Average" it does not matter in any case since you will be able to get on their six in any event, if you are a skilled virtual pilot.

So to sum it up, this discussion is dangerously moving into the direction of a "I want to have the last word" argumentation which is really pointless.

So instead let me say that I look forward to your comparative detailed 20/20 BOP test results, since I disagree with your statement and will leave it at that. If you want to make a 20/20 test report for 20 aircraft: I certainly am not stopping you, more power to you!

The point is not to put the sensitivity at 20/20 per se.
You say the 10/20 for all, makes it equal. But it is not, you give the more instable planes an advantage, wich you WILL notice in game, meaning life or death.

What I would suggest, is to take a plane, make 4 or 5 360 degree turns, and put the sensitivity there, where the plane will just not stall.
This means 12/20 for a hurricane, and 17/20 for a la-7. Now, you HAVE 'equal' situations, and because both planes will handle just as stable, because you tuned the sensitivity for those planes, and no others, 'joe average' will be able to fly the la with 17/20, just as well as with 10/20. But now he makes the turn way faster.

Do you get my/our point?
in short: it is not about MAX sensitivity, it is about the best sensitivity for every plane seperate. 10/20 will be good for a hurricane, but will limit the la

EDIT: plz dont read this as a bitching post, im just trying to make you realise, the sensitivity does really matter, and 10/20 for each test, is not fair for many planes.
earlier this day, I was flying my spit, and got shot down 3 times in a row by a la-7. I could just not outfly him, were i normally can. Then I realised my sensitivity was not set for the spit, I put it just 1 notch up, and it made all the difference. like I said, sensitivity can mean life of death

PS.you are dutch, arent you?

[fuzzychickens]

"What was tested is the performance of BOP aircraft under same circumstances with no risk of sudden stall+spin, and like I noted earlier any advantage that is there at 10/20 will also be there at 20/20."

Any advantage there at 10/20 may be not as great, the same, or more at 20/20. This is all I'm saying. It's basically the same reason the other poster suggested sensitivity settings adjusted for each plane to the point before it stalls so the best corner speed for all planes can be reached - I doubt best corner speed is reached for a lot of planes at 10/20 (La7 certainly not).

But you are not interested in max turn rates based on how you set up the tests, so for your purposes it may not matter anyway.

Really it's a difference in the data that we find important. It's your test, so I'm not complaining - just offering a different point of view.

[imnotgeoff]

wow that must of taken quite a while to do

[Widar]

The point is not to put the sensitivity at 20/20 per se.
You say the 10/20 for all, makes it equal. But it is not, you give the more instable planes an advantage, wich you WILL notice in game, meaning life or death.

First of all, thanks for the reply. It seems however that my previous remarks have not all hit home. I will expand on them.

The least stable BOP aircraft of the 20 that were tested, meaning the ones that were most prone to sudden violent stalls+spins, were the Fw 190´s and the P51´s. These BOP aircraft are also the worst overall performers in the test. So there is no advantage at all there at 10/20 for the Fw 190´s and P51´s, as you are suggesting in your post, based on my test results, quite the contrary. The BOP La-7, La-5FN and the Spitfires were the best overall BOP performers in the test and in that order at 10/20 and will also be so at 20/20. The BOP Fw 190´s and P51´s are very difficult - if not impossible - to control for an average virtual pilot at 20/20 or even 15/20. The BOP La-7, La-5FN and Spitfires however can probably be flown by just about every average virtual pilot at 15/20. So I have to disagree with the point you want to make based on the test results.

What I would suggest, is to take a plane, make 4 or 5 360 degree turns, and put the sensitivity there, where the plane will just not stall.
This means 12/20 for a hurricane, and 17/20 for a la-7. Now, you HAVE 'equal' situations, and because both planes will handle just as stable, because you tuned the sensitivity for those planes, and no others, 'joe average' will be able to fly the la with 17/20, just as well as with 10/20. But now he makes the turn way faster.

Do you get my/our point?
in short: it is not about MAX sensitivity, it is about the best sensitivity for every plane seperate. 10/20 will be good for a hurricane, but will limit the la


This again is the Michael Schumacher or more appropriately the Erich Hartmann principle that you bring forward like fuzzychickens did earlier.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is like I explained earlier - in my opinion - an invalid one for TESTING in BOP since it is based on something subjective and personal. To make test results comparable you must have objective equal conditions for the BOP aircraft. The objective hard technical aspects of a BOP aircraft are hard data, meaning they are registered by the programmers in the data files for each BOP aircraft.

The objective hard technical aspects are the ones that I wanted to test because these cannot be influenced by virtual pilot skill. The soft subjective aspects - if you will - are virtual pilot skill and this is subjective, vague and personal, there is no clear way to measure it. So therefore I needed to eliminate that from the tests and for this 10/20 was found to be the best setting.

For example, during the online part of the testing a friend of mine started flying the BOP Fw 190 A/F-8 at 20/20 and started stalling+spinning at every manoeuvre. For the tests it was required that he kept flying at 20/20 so he soldiered on dutifully. After a while his good subjective `pilot´s hand´ got the hang of the BOP Fw 190 A/F-8 and he was to turn, roll, climb and dive at 20/20 quite successfully. I was still able to stay on his tail at 17/20 in the same Fw 190 A/F-8 in all test manoeuvres and at various altitudes mind you. For him however 20/20 had become the best setting in the BOP Fw 190 A/F-8, for me it was 17/20. Another friend that was later involved in the testing could just not control the BOP Fw 190 A/F-8 at 20/20 or 17/20 no matter how long that pilot flew the aircraft. This is the Erich Hartmann principle at work if you will.

The `best` sensitivity setting for you will not necessarily be the best sensitivity setting for `Joe Average`. The `best` sensitivity setting for a BOP aircraft is a subjective and personal factor. A friend of mine always flies at 20/20 in every aircraft in simulator mode, but this can hardly be a benchmark for `Joe Average`. You can of course test to find your own personal ´best´ sensitivity setting for each BOP aircraft, the results will be very interesting indeed but they also will be very personal and subjective since they depend greatly on your particular virtual pilot skill level and the controller used. The object of my test however, are the BOP hard data technical aircraft aspects and not the subjective virtual pilot skill. And since testing has revealed that any BOP flight advantage that is there at 10/20 will also be there at 20/20, and generally proportionally about the same at that, the end result of the subjective test that you describe will never alter the fact that the worst performing aircraft in BOP will proportionally do just as bad at 20/20 as at 10/20.

At 10/20 `Joe Average` can roll and turn the BOP Fw 190 and P51 - the worst piston engine performers tested in BOP - with maximum flight stick pressure applied during manoeuvres without the danger of suddenly stalling+spinning and that at least is an objective benchmark for testing the hard technical aspects of BOP aircraft performance and at the same time eliminates the subjective virtual pilot skill factor in testing. It is not the final word in testing though nor is it meant to be, to be sure.

I hope that this will put the Erich Hartmann principle discussion to rest.

EDIT: plz dont read this as a bitching post, im just trying to make you realise, the sensitivity does really matter, and 10/20 for each test, is not fair for many planes.
earlier this day, I was flying my spit, and got shot down 3 times in a row by a la-7. I could just not outfly him, were i normally can. Then I realised my sensitivity was not set for the spit, I put it just 1 notch up, and it made all the difference. like I said, sensitivity can mean life of death

No offense taken. As I said in my previous posts, different sensitivity settings can make a difference of give-or-take a second with some of the BOP aircraft that I tested online with friends. But based on this same testing the best performing BOP aircraft do both better at 10/20 and at 20/20, and generally proportionally the same at that. The example you give actually underlines this when combined with the Erich Hartmann principle.

In my tests the BOP La-7 best 360 degree turn at 6000 meters was done in 21.64 seconds (that was best of three by the way and the worst turn was about 1 second slower) and the BOP Spitfire Mk. XVI made the same turn (best of three) at 20.65 seconds. That is a difference of just 1 second.

In your example you were flying against – at an unknown altitude and speed - a BOP La-7 virtual pilot at unknown La-7 sensitivity settings and you then turned your Spitfire (I presume the Mk. XVI) sensitivity settings to maybe 17+/20 and were able to turn with the La-7. This hardly qualifies as a test example since the exact test circumstances are not known and subjective virtual pilot skill (the Erich Hartmann principle) is hard at work also in your case.

The BOP La-7 at 20/20 will however outturn all BOP Spitfires at 20/20 at low/medium altitudes. So in all probability the La-7 virtual pilot you faced had his sensitivity at a lower setting (i.e. 15/20) giving you maybe <= second less in a turn with your Spitfire which - combined with the probability that you also are a better virtual pilot (better ´pilot´s hand´) than the La-7 pilot - levels the playing field for you and gives you the ´edge´ you needed to be victorious. I presume you are an ´above average pilot´, since I remember a thread where you are complimented for outfighting your adversaries at three to one odds for something like 8 minutes, which is something that `Joe Average´ is not capable of to be sure.

I have observed a very good virtual pilot in BOP online who is able to outfight just about anybody in a Me 109 G-6, even pilots on my friends list that I know to be really good and hard to beat in a Spitfire Mk. XVI. Look at the test results of the Me 109 G-6 and based on them the Me 109 G-6 pilot´s success cannot be attributed to the BOP Me 109 G-6 flying qualities which are really quite inferior to the BOP Spitfire Mk. XVI´s that the virtual Me 109 G-6 pilot I refer to outfought. Incidentally, I also did online tests with friends at 17/20 with various BOP Spitfires and BOP Me 109´s and the advantages that you will see at 10/20 in the test table are also there proportionally at 17/20.

If you would like to see more tests to find the overall most superior aircraft in BOP of the 20 that I tested, there is really no need for that anymore. Take the La-7 and learn to fly it at 20/20, it is the best mount of the 20 BOP aircraft on the test list. The really good virtual pilots however will pick the worst BOP aircraft on the list, i.e. the Fw 190´s and P51´s, and will be victorious in them online against La-7´s just to show their opponents how good they are.

PS.you are dutch, arent you?

Guilty as charged.

[Widar]

Any advantage there at 10/20 may be not as great, the same, or more at 20/20. This is all I'm saying.

Thanks for the response. I still look forward to your 20/20 test results! Like I said earlier, according to the tests I conducted, proportionally the difference at 10/20 will be about the same - more or less - at 20/20. In some cases more, in some cases less, and also dependant on virtual pilot skill at 20/20. But the worst performers at 10/20 will remain the worst performers at any setting.

There are many more things I can think of that can be tested, like turn, roll, climb and dive rate at different altitudes for instance and at different asynchronous elevator/aileron sensitivity settings, angles, rudder applied, flap settings etc. For instance a Spitfire pilot in real life was told to generally avoid fighting a Fw 190 below 3000 ft., since the Fw 190 has a really great manoeuvrability advantage at that altitude according to WWII RAF RAE tests with captured Fw 190´s. When I tested this I found that this is not evident in BOP. That is also one of the reasons that the overall turn and roll manoeuvrability for the 20 BOP aircraft on the test list was only tested at just one certain altitude. Draw your own conclusions from the Fw 190 example and think of the time required to also do all those other type of tests I described and then registering the test results, and think if it is going to tell you anything substantially more or different than the test results that are there now.

If you want to know which BOP aircraft of the 20 that I tested has the tightest horizontal turning circle in seconds in BOP at 20/20 at low/medium altitude that is easy, it is the La-7. There is really no reason for more tests to confirm this and to know how many seconds or tens of seconds precisely you can win by flying at 20/20 as compared to 10/20 or 17/20. But you are free to carry out your own tests and I look forward to the results. Also include the I-153 and the I-16 in your tests if turning circle in seconds is your main interest.

I respect your comments and opinion, and as far as my test results go, they are there and available for free for all forum members to either use them or don´t use them.

Interesting questions that remain are: where are the flight characteristic test results of all BOP aircraft that were registered by the professional testers that were employed by the developer/publisher? Where are the official Gaijin BOP in-game simulator mode aircraft statistics?

[Reknad]

Spit Mildly overrated? i think not....

[Ancient Seraph]

I'll just rely on my experience in saying the Spit and La-7 own most of the other aircraft.

[Reknad]

I'll just rely on my experience in saying the Spit and La-7 own most of the other aircraft.

Yak 3 is actually better in a turn compared to the LA 7 IMO, or atleast i didnt really pay attention to it.

[fuzzychickens]

I agree, Yak 3 for sure is best. It just takes a fine touch compared to La7. The yak is more prone to stall despite its better turn.

[Widar]

Spit Mildly overrated? i think not....

In `Fighter` by Len Deighton the following data is supplied on the early Hurricane, Spitfire and Me 109 models during the Battle of Britain:

`An altitude of 3048 m. (10,000 feet) and a speed of 428 km/h (300 mph) allowed the Me 109 E-3 a minimum horizontal turn radius of 228 m. (750 feet) at 8.1 gravity with a half fuel wing loading of 25 lbs. per square foot, the Hurricane Mk. I/II a minimum horizontal turn radius of 243 m. (800 feet) at 7.5 gravity with a half fuel wing loading of 22 pounds per square foot, the Spitfire Mk. I/II a minimum horizontal turn radius of 268 m. (880 feet) at 7.0 gravity with a half fuel wing loading of 24 pounds per square foot.`

`Some of the Spitfires were lost in spins, so RAF pilots were told to avoid this maneuver. The Messerschmitt Me 109 suffered no such vice, there was no problem getting out of a spin and it never went into a flat spin.´

‘The (Hurricane and Spitfire) Merlin engine carburettor system seldom delivered exactly the same amount of fuel simultaneously to each cylinder. Worst of all, the (British Hurricane and Spitfire 1940 Merlin engine) carburettor was subject to centrifugal effect, so that it starved, and missed a beat or two, as it went into a dive. The RAF pilots (therefore) learned how to half-roll before diving, so that the fuel from the carburettor was thrown into the Merlin engine instead of out of it, but in battle this could be a very dangerous time-wasting necessity.’

‘The RAF fighter pilots were learning about their German adversaries. The Bf 109, with its fuel-injection engine, not only dived without missing a beat or two (unlike the carburettor-fed British Merlin engines) but could also outdive the (1940) RAF Hurricane and Spitfire fighters.’

‘(The German invented) fuel injection (in the Bf 109), which puts a measured amount of fuel into each cylinder according to temperature and engine speed etc., was demonstrably superior to the carburettors that the (Hurricane and Spitfire) Merlin engines used.’

‘The 32-foot wing span of the Bf 109 gave it an advantage over its rivals. In spite of its high wing loading, it had a horizontal turn radius of only 750 feet (Spitfire 880 feet and Hurricane 800 feet), and this could be a vital factor in air fighting.’

‘Both the (1940) RAF fighters (Hurricane and Spitfire) had eight Browning 7.7 mm machine guns. The German Bf 109 E was equipped with two 7.92-mm machine guns and two 20-mm cannon. Although exact comparisons are difficult (because in combat the German 20-mm cannon were firing thin-shelled ‘mine type’ 20-mm missiles that exploded on impact), it is reasonable to say that a three-seconds’ burst of gunfire from the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E weighed 18 lbs. The RAF fighter fired at most 13 lbs. in the same duration of shooting.’

‘During (the Battle of Britain in) 1940 the Hurricanes and Spitfires carried eight Browning 7.7 mm machine guns. The Bf 109 E usually had two 7.92-mm machine guns on top of the engine cowling and a 20-mm cannon in each wing. Most German 20-mm cannon shells were thin-walled and contained explosive, but incendiary and armour-piercing rounds were also used.’

‘One of the problems of the Browning 7.7-mm machine gun, in RAF use, was the fact that it had to fire the British Army’s rifle bullets’.

‘On 11 July 1940 Peter Townsend a peacetime RAF pilot, a flyer of great skill and experience, raked a German bomber with his eight Browning 7.7-mm machine guns.. … Townsend had put 220 bullets into the German bomber but it got home to Arras.’

‘In an incident in the Battle of Britain six Spitfires of 74 Squadron expended 7,000 bullets in attacks on a single (!) German bomber but did not bring it down.’

‘On Sunday 28 July 1940 … (RAF fighter ace) ‘Sailor’ Malan was leading twelve Spitfires of 74 Squadron from Manston. (Luftwaffe fighter ace) Mölders was leading a (Me 109) formation, he turned and shot down a Spitfire. ... Both Mölders and Malan were fast, but Mölders was a split second faster …, Mölders was already on his tail, Malan turned into the attack … his (7.7-mm) machine gun bullets raked the Me 109. Had Spitfires been armed with (reliable) cannon, Mölders would not have been able to nurse his badly damaged machine back to his base at Wissant.’

‘Although the rival merits of machine gun and cannon were much argued at the time, the RAF had secretly concluded that the cannon was far better. In 1940 (at the Royal Aircraft Establishment), a series of tests was carried out against an old Blenheim airframe (incorporating armour). The eight machine gun configuration was fourth in a list in which two cannon were top.’

‘As an experiment the RAF used a few Spitfires equipped with (Hispano 20-mm) cannon during the 1940 battles. However the RAF had trouble with its unreliable 20-mm cannon guns, and the few RAF pilots that were given them during the Battle of Britain for the most part cursed their luck and were then re-equipped with 7.7-mm machine-gun fighters.’

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Werner "Vati" Mölders, Kommodore of JG 51 during the Battle of Britain, participated in the comparative trials at E-Stelle Rechlin, the German equivalent of the RAF RAE, during which he flew both the Spitfire and the Hurricane, on which he recalled, in agreement with the report below.

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.

The Spitfire (Mk. I/II) is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either over speeding or else is not being used to the full."

Mölders proved very successful during the Battle, despite a poor start on 28 July, when he lead his Bf 109 unit the first time into combat, and was wounded in combat with Spitfires but also shooting one down one in the confusion. During the Battle of Britain he was victorious in 29 air combats against RAF fighters (14-14 aerial victories against Hurricanes and Spitfires, and another against a FAF Curtiss), culminating on 31 August, when he downed 3 Hurricanes in quick succession, repeating the same feat on 12 and on 22 October once again; ultimately finishing the Battle with 54 victories to his name.

Up to May 1941, when he was transferred to the Eastern Front, he downed a further 13 Spitfires and Hurricanes - the friendly rivalry between him and Galland in scoring victories was legendary. His final number of victories was raised to 115 victories in his later career as fighter pilot.

Mölders was also one of the first to test the new Bf 109 F-1 against the RAF during the last phase of the battle, his first flight on the Bf 109 F-1 being on 6 October 1940.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In " Duels in the Sky", by Captain Eric Brown ret. a WWII British combat fighter pilot and the WWII Royal Aircraft Establishment Chief test pilot at Farnborough, Brown discusses many major aircraft of the 1940-45 period, and explains how different types would have fared in dogfights. As the Chief RAE test pilot, he flew almost all Allied and Axis WWII planes, including all Spitfire Marks, and his evaluation is therefore probably unique.

For what it's worth, his own hardest trial may have been while flying an RAF Spitfire Mk. IX against a Fw 190 over France. After 10 minutes, the German and he realized that their pilot skills were so evenly matched that they broke off combat. The German fighter had an edge "in the vertical", while the Spitfire had an edge "in the horizontal". Neither could get his sights on the other, and they finally gave up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In `Wings of the Luftwaffe`, by Captain Eric Brown ret. a WWII British combat fighter pilot and the WWII Royal Aircraft Establishment Chief test pilot at Farnborough, Brown discusses in technical detail the flying characteristics of 16 German aircraft types, not counting the various mark variants, that he tested as WWII RAE Chief test pilot. He remarks on his RAE tests of a Fw 190 A-8 (he flew and tested various Fw 190 marks from the A-3, A-4, A-8 and F-8 right up to the Fw 190 D-9 and the Ta 152 H-1 which are all discussed in his book):

`Several fighters were to display the hallmark of the thoroughbred during World War II – aircraft that were outstanding to varying degrees of excellence in their combat performance, their amenability to a variety of operational scenarios, their ease of pilot handling and their field maintenance tractability – but none more so than designer Kurt Tank´s remarkable creation sporting the prosaic designation of Focke-Wulf Fw 190.`

`Within six or seven months of its operation debut, the Fw 190 was causing widespread consternation among RAF fighter squadrons based in the south of England. The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the horizontal turning circle – one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing, `Turning does not win battles!`. By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels primarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary – more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on offensive operations over Europe during the course of the month – and the Merlin 61-engine Spitfire Mk. IX was still two or three months away. But while going a long way towards redressing the balance and even offering an edge in climb above 26,000 feet (7 925 m) the Spitfire Mk. IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf´s half-roll and dive!`

`Indeed, as the months passed and the Focke-Wulf consolidated the ascendancy that it had established over its RAF contemporaries from the time of its operational debut, morale of pilots of the Spitfire squadrons inevitably being affected, Air Ministry concern over the situation began to border on desperation.`

`I was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the somewhat narrow Fw 190 cockpit, that the forward view was still rather better than offered by the Me 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang. The semi-reclining seat – ideal for high-g maneuvers - proved comfortable and the controls fell easily in the hand.´

`Incredible aileron turns were possible in the Fw 190 that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow.`

´From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk. IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as maneuverability was concerned the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight horizontal turn – the Spitfire Mk. IX could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for a Spitfire pilot to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5 485 and 6 705 meters), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915 meters).´

´At low speeds Fw 190 rudder control proved positive and effective and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal maneuver. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw 190´s magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8,000 ft (2 440 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally and neutral longitudinally.´

Brown, as noted earlier, was both a WWII British combat fighter pilot and the Chief RAE test pilot in WWII and as such he flew almost all Allied and Axis WWII planes, including all Spitfire Marks, and his evaluation is therefore probably unique.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some data from Osprey´s Aircraft of the Aces No. 9 `Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front´ written by John Weal:

´In the spring of 1941 … in the west there remained just two complete Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwader (JG´s 2 and 26, between them fielding exactly 140 serviceable fighters).´

´The winter months of 1941-42 provided a welcome hiatus for Douglas´100 RAF fighter squadrons (that is well over 1200 RAF fighters, mainly Spitfires, against 140 Luftwaffe fighters). … Figures of the time for the latter half of 1941 quote the RAF as admitting the loss of 411 of their own fighters over the Channel and northern Europe, while claiming the destruction of 731 German fighters. In fact, the true cost to the Luftwaffe´s western based Jagdgeschwader (JG 2 and JG 26) was just 103 fighters. This victory-to-loss ratio of some four to one in favour of the heavily outnumbered German defenders prompted the British Air Staff to warn Air Marshall Sholto Douglas, the man who had initiated the policy of ´leaning forward into France´ upon succeeding Sir Hugh Dowding as AOC Fighter Command in November 1940, that a more defensive stance had now become ´a disagreeable necessity´.´

` ... the pilots of JG 26 had been enjoying three months of near total mastery of the skies (in July 1942). There were even reported instances of German pilots cheekily performing ´upward Charlies´ (climbing rolls) alongside formations of Spitfires, which did little to improve RAF morale! In many fighter messes along the south coast of England the Fw 190 became the main topic of conversation, and debate. If not exactly ´twitchy´, many RAF pilots conceded among themselves that ´they´ (i.e. the Jagdwaffe) have definitely got the upper hand at the moment´. Official figures tend to support this view. By the end of March RAF Fighter Command had lost 32 Spitfires and their pilots at a cost to JG 26 of just five pilots killed.´

´Throughout May 1942 the Fw 190´s of JG 26 continued to inflict heavy losses on the RAF. On 1 June Circus No 178 saw eight bomb-carrying Hurricanes over northern Belgium escorted by no less than 168 Spitfires! Two Gruppen were scrambled (paper strength at best 72 servicable Fw 190 fighters, with about 60% operational, meaning 40 Fw 190 aircraft operational at best) to intercept them – Hauptmann Seifert´s I./JG 26 from St. Omer-Arques and Hauptmann Priller´s III./JG 26 from Wevelghem. The two Gruppen caught the four Spitfire squadrons of the Debden Wing over the coast east of Ostende. A classic ´feint-and-bounce´out of the sun resulted in the loss of the Wing´s commander and eight of his Spitfires, with another five suffering damage. … Not a single machine of JG 26 suffered any reportable damage.´

´July 1942 witnessed … the introduction of the Spitfire Mk. IX into RAF squadron service – a move which reduced, while not eliminating, the Fw 190´s margin of superiority …´

´On 19 August 1942 (in) Operation Jubilee, the costly raid by the Canadians on Dieppe … (the) RAF had paid a high price for maintaining aerial superiority over the strict confines of the Dieppe beaches and offshore waters – with 106 aircraft lost, including 88 Spitfires. Against this JG 2 lost 14 fighters (with eight pilots killed) and JG 26 six fighters and their pilots.´

[Robotic Pope]

I think you get the prize for longest post ever.

[SgtPappy]

First off I'd like to extend my thanks to Wildar for taking the time to make this data compilation. Very helpful.

A couple suggestions: I think you'd get better climb results if you tested the aircraft climbs at certain speeds rather than angles, since not all of those planes can reach those angles. I think all the planes can reach at least 200km/h though.

Also, I noticed that the Spitfire XVI rolls worse than the IX? Is that a mistake? The clipped wings should help it roll better, not worse...

[Widar]

First off I'd like to extend my thanks to Wildar for taking the time to make this data compilation. Very helpful.

A couple suggestions: I think you'd get better climb results if you tested the aircraft climbs at certain speeds rather than angles, since not all of those planes can reach those angles. I think all the planes can reach at least 200km/h though.

Also, I noticed that the Spitfire XVI rolls worse than the IX? Is that a mistake? The clipped wings should help it roll better, not worse...

The roll rate of the Spitfire Mk. XVI in the test list was the fastest of one of three rolls. The others were even worse, meaning slower. The Spitfire Mk. IX was at least best of two. When the results were bad, I generally conducted three roll tests.

When I have some more time on my hands I plan on doing new BOP tests with stricter test parameters (i.e. manoever speed), higher sensitivity settings etc. but only for a few of the aircraft on the list and not for all 20 that are on the current test list. I want to duplicate some real life tests with various aicraft in BOP to be able to compare it further to real life data. In many ways this is a waste of time, since BOP has not paid that much respect to the real life performance and characteristics of various of the aircraft simulated. Especially the US and German ones are treatly badly. But I still want to further test the difference between reality and BOP to identify the BOP design philosophy.

There is one test result about which little can be argued: maximum sustained WEP level speed in BOP as compared to the real life historical aircraft test data. Just one look at the max. level speeds reveals that BOP is not equal to real life. The max. speeds are way off in BOP. That says something about simulator accuracy. A lot of the aircraft I tested have great difficulty settling even at one certain speed in the max. level speed tests, so I took the result that was there most often during about a 2 to 3 minute level flight at about 0+ degrees AoA. Those max. speed test results in BOP, the first thing I tested actually, are one of the reasons why I gave up on duplicating real life tests in BOP when testing all the 20 aircraft on the current test list.

[SgtPappy]

Roger that. Thanks for taking the time to look and analyze all these planes though.

Despite being an amazing and hugely entertaining game, like a few of the players said, there are some glaring flaws.

This is why I don't like sim mode because all the planes are modelled very differently when compared to my research, which includes mostly data from published books about the Spitfire. "Spitfire: An Operational History" and Mike Williams' performance charts which he gained from both Germany's Luftwaffe records and Britain's RAF records.

The performance differences are quite massive. The fact that a Spitfire XVI rolls badly compared to a Spitfire IX is something to be looked at.

I can say though that IL-2: 1946 was far more accurate than BoP. I can't hope to play on sim mode in this game when comparing the performance differences because it feels so wrong.

[jaywinner]

thanks for the post, it will be a help for a noob like me. but i have to ask. are you guys like RL pilots?! your knowledge of this stuff is insane. im actually overwelmed.

[Ancient Seraph]

thanks for the post, it will be a help for a noob like me. but i have to ask. are you guys like RL pilots?! your knowledge of this stuff is insane. im actually overwelmed.

Some are, but that doesn't necessarily mean they know a lot about this. The real knowledgeable people mostly read a lot about WWII planes and dogfights (I'm not one of them :P, I just picked up info on this forum and speak from experience in-game).

[SgtPappy]

Some of us (like me) are just a little too obsessed with planes.

I wish I knew everything but some guys here know WAY more than myself. I'm really just here to hear them speak and learn a couple things myself.

I know enough to figure out though, that something seems wrong in BoP's representation of aircraft. To me, this game will be really a really, really fun arcade game with a hint of physics so that its not just another dumb shooter of a game that other games seem to be. It is NOT however, a flight SIM.

Like Wildar said, there's a huge discrepancy between RL data and BoP data.

If you download his charts, you can compare the RL data to BoP data. The climb rates are actually appalling. The best a piston-engine fighter could achieve in the climb was not very high. Spitfire LF. IX's for example could hit around 4,600 - 4,700 ft/min. The IX in-game can achieve 6,000 m in little under 1.5 mins... that's about 13,000 ft/min!

Which reminds me... where'd you find your data, Wildar? It is consistent with what I have at home, but I'd just like to know.

[Widar]

Roger that. Thanks for taking the time to look and analyze all these planes though.

Despite being an amazing and hugely entertaining game, like a few of the players said, there are some glaring flaws.

This is why I don't like sim mode because all the planes are modelled very differently when compared to my research, which includes mostly data from published books about the Spitfire. "Spitfire: An Operational History" and Mike Williams' performance charts which he gained from both Germany's Luftwaffe records and Britain's RAF records.

The performance differences are quite massive. The fact that a Spitfire XVI rolls badly compared to a Spitfire IX is something to be looked at.

I can say though that IL-2: 1946 was far more accurate than BoP. I can't hope to play on sim mode in this game when comparing the performance differences because it feels so wrong.

I have not read the book of Mike Williams. Is there a great difference between the RAF (test) records on the Spitfire on the Luftwaffe (test) records on the Spitfire? I know that the Luftwaffe had a so-called flying circus unit that flew all captured models from air base to air base to let the commanders fly captured aircraft to find out their characteristics. Did the RAF tests and the Luftwaffe tests on the Spitfire arrive at the same conclusions?

[Widar]

thanks for the post, it will be a help for a noob like me. but i have to ask. are you guys like RL pilots?! your knowledge of this stuff is insane. im actually overwelmed.

I've piloted an aircraft a few times, but I am no regular pilot. To read up on aircraft you don't have to be a pilot. When confronted by a lot of silly little details, it might seem overwhelming, but it isn't really. It is still all fairly basic superficial data in the those tables, just a lot of it that's all. There are some great aircraft forums on the internet where aircraft fans and buffs debate on all sorts of minute details. But this here on the forum is all just basic stuff, no worries.

[Widar]

New data available!

I downloaded the BOP DLC and was interested to find out how the P47D and Ta 152 H-1 were modeled in BOP, so I performed some tests on them and included them on the list of 20 BOP aircraft that I had already tested. Next to that I have noticed some discussions/questions on BOP aircraft characteristics by new forum members and also the on-going discussions on BOP aileron and elevator sensitivity issues. The data in the – now 22 aircraft list – may be easier for some to interpret when viewed as charts/graphs instead of numbers.

So therefore, on page no. 1 of this thread I now have included three PDF (zip)files:

1. Version 1.1 of the – now 22 aircraft - BOP aircraft test data list PDF (now incl. P47D and Ta 152 H-1).

2. A charts/graphs PDF with graphs on the 22 tested BOP aircraft turn, roll, speed, climb, dive, nominal firepower data and also suggested aileron/elevator sensitivity settings.

3. A sensitivity setting (Ta 152 H-1) test report PDF which supplies data on the effects of lower and higher aileron/elevator sensitivity settings on turn, roll, climb, dive etc. in combination with speed and flap settings.

[SgtPappy]

I have to say that the tests on the Spitfires are fairly consistent, though the tests on the Bf 109's are not; mainly the G's.

It seems as though the RAF pilots and tests state that the 109's turning is very inferior to even that of a P-51B or even D mustang. The Germans state otherwise.

I believe the speed figures seem accurate though.

There's a LOT of good data considering Allied aircraft though, here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

It really does look like the best resource I've ever found online concerning the performance of mainly British and US aircraft types.

Let me tell you, the figures are very very different from BoP values. But I think I'll be happy if at least the Spitfire XVI's roll rate was fixed.

EDIT: Btw, Wildar, did you show these figures and charts to the devs, or at least post it in the 'Suggestion to Devs' thread? I think if you got a nice, wide JPEG displayed in there, it would catch their attention. :P

[Widar]

I have to say that the tests on the Spitfires are fairly consistent, though the tests on the Bf 109's are not; mainly the G's.

It seems as though the RAF pilots and tests state that the 109's turning is very inferior to even that of a P-51B or even D mustang. The Germans state otherwise.

I believe the speed figures seem accurate though.

There's a LOT of good data considering Allied aircraft though, here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

It really does look like the best resource I've ever found online concerning the performance of mainly British and US aircraft types.

Let me tell you, the figures are very very different from BoP values. But I think I'll be happy if at least the Spitfire XVI's roll rate was fixed.

EDIT: Btw, Wildar, did you show these figures and charts to the devs, or at least post it in the 'Suggestion to Devs' thread? I think if you got a nice, wide JPEG displayed in there, it would catch their attention. :P

Yes I know about that site, a lot of interesting info there. The 1940 Spits engine dive problem and its tactical disadvantage was not that emphasised in some of those tests, which kind of reminds me of the testing done on the Bradley IFV. Ever heard of the book "Pentagon Wars", about testing and test report altering on account of political/financial reasons? Very interesting read that is.

On the Me 109 the thin light wings reportedly presented an issue in tight horizontal turning, as you probably know. German pilots were reportedly told in training to avoid putting too much pressure on them, meaning really tight horizontal turns, because they might be ripped off as a result. In 1940 there generally was no way a pilot of any aircraft could judge for sure if he was overstressing the airframe. This in a way is reflected by many of the German aces that avoided horizontal turning battles. But if you were really brave, or just very experienced and capable, you could of course ignore this and then you would have a tighter turning circle in a Me 109 E than in a Spitfire Mk. I/II. Therefore to horizontally turn a Me 109 to the limit of what its wings would stand, depends on the willingness of the (test) pilot to take a risk and on his piloting ability. A pilot who has flown 500 combat missions in a Me 109 has a better feel for its tolerances than a test pilot that has flown it maybe 10 times at most, if even that. And who would not - in combat - make use of his performance advantages (i.e. Me 109 E diving) and avoid unpleasant performance aspect areas (i.e. Me 109 E wings ripped off when overstressed in a tight horizontal turn)? If horizontal turning always won the day, the airforces of the world would still be flying biplanes. Now that would be a sight!

I generally agree with your conclusion on performance differences between the real life aircraft and the BOP aircraft. If you think the BOP Spitfire can be improved, here a another interesting item: the BOP Ar-234 bomber actually outperforms the BOP Me 262 A1a fighter. One friend of mine tested the BOP B-17 vs. the BOP Me 262 A1a and he could also outmanoeuver the BOP Me 262 A1a in it. The world beating Me 262 A1a is the worst aircraft in BOP in every area - except top speed and climb rate - of all that I tested. The BOP Spitfire Mk. XVI can even outdive the BOP Me 262 A1a.

So the BOP Spitfire’s roll rate is one thing, but the performance in BOP of the German and US aircraft vis-a-vis the RAFx2 is another. In many ways BOP online turns into RAF vs RAF, or Royal Air Force versus Red Air Force, since the other nationality aircraft perform that badly in BOP when compared to those of the RAFx2. I have also done some "BOP firepower impact" and "BOP hit probability" tests and the results again are kind of disappointing in the same areas, but I will not publish these until all tests are finished and when I come round to putting them in a nice format.

So yes, there is a gap between historical aircraft performance and BOP aircraft performance, with the German and US aircraft getting the short end of the stick generally. I might take your advice on that other thread, but it is safe to say that some of the developers probably already have taken a peek at these three new PDF's and they choose not to respond, which is their privilege of course. In the end, it is their game and they can make it exactly the way they want it.

[DoraNine]

So yes, there is a gap between historical aircraft performance and BOP aircraft performance, with the German and US aircraft getting the short end of the stick generally. I might take your advice on that other thread, but it is safe to say that some of the developers probably already have taken a peek at these three new PDF's and they choose not to respond, which is their privilege of course. In the end, it is their game and they can make it exactly the way they want it.

I could not agree more with your analysis. All the true BNZ planes have been neutered, so no one wants to fly them anymore. Its gotten to the point where they could've just named the game "Hurricane II: BOP", or "La-5: BOP". Like I've said in other posts -- I like all warplanes, irregardless of nationality, but the discrepancies in performance lead to British and Russian plane overpopulation online. Lets just say I get a little frustrated when I can't outclimb a Hurricane II in my 109G6 -- or even in an F series.

The other thing is weapons convergence. There isn't any in this game -- period. I can hit and receive hits from 2000ft away -- and I'm fairly certain that a setting of 700 yards was not an option -- unless you're equipped with sidewinders, like this one guy I fought the other night who was flying a I-153:rolleyes:. This game teaches good "video game" gunnery -- and the popular tactic seems to be plinking a guy from 2000 ft away just enough to slow him down so that you can get in closer for a kill. There's obviously no factor for munitions weight either. I can lob a 30mm shell and it will go on a straight trajectory until it leaves the confines of the play area. If your convergence is set to the standard setting (200 - 300 yards for most) -- then there is no way you are going to hit anything beyond 1000 ft. -- ESPECIALLY, if your weapons are wing mounted -- like the Hurricane and the Spit. In these planes, your rounds will cross paths long, long, before reaching anything out to 700 yards. Atleast all the planes are treated the same with this.

Other than these discrepancies -- I really like the game alot. I know it will never be perfect -- and I'm just glad someone took on the challenge of putting it on a console.

[Widar]

I could not agree more with your analysis. All the true BNZ planes have been neutered, so no one wants to fly them anymore. Its gotten to the point where they could've just named the game "Hurricane II: BOP", or "La-5: BOP". Like I've said in other posts -- I like all warplanes, irregardless of nationality, but the discrepancies in performance lead to British and Russian plane overpopulation online. Lets just say I get a little frustrated when I can't outclimb a Hurricane II in my 109G6 -- or even in an F series.

The other thing is weapons convergence. There isn't any in this game -- period. I can hit and receive hits from 2000ft away -- and I'm fairly certain that a setting of 700 yards was not an option -- unless you're equipped with sidewinders, like this one guy I fought the other night who was flying a I-153:rolleyes:. This game teaches good "video game" gunnery -- and the popular tactic seems to be plinking a guy from 2000 ft away just enough to slow him down so that you can get in closer for a kill. There's obviously no factor for munitions weight either. I can lob a 30mm shell and it will go on a straight trajectory until it leaves the confines of the play area. If your convergence is set to the standard setting (200 - 300 yards for most) -- then there is no way you are going to hit anything beyond 1000 ft. -- ESPECIALLY, if your weapons are wing mounted -- like the Hurricane and the Spit. In these planes, your rounds will cross paths long, long, before reaching anything out to 700 yards. Atleast all the planes are treated the same with this.

Other than these discrepancies -- I really like the game alot. I know it will never be perfect -- and I'm just glad someone took on the challenge of putting it on a console.

Completely agree with your post. To be sure: I also like BOP for what it offers now and more importantly the potential it still has, to actually being a simulator on console. I had hopes when I bought BOP that I, as a simulator fan, would have found in BOP a flight simulator game that I could have been playing for years on "Simulator mode", that is until the sequel came out.

It seems that: "Arcade mode" was probably intended for the Hawx/COD audience, "Realistic mode" for a little bit more serious and demanding audience and "Simulator mode" for the serious PC flight simulator fan. If this is all so, than BOP "Simulator mode" does not live up to what it COULD be. There are so many clearly and glaringly historically incorrect things which simply cannot be overlooked by a sim fan. The aircraft performance should at least "feel" authentic in "Simulator mode' and the armament load out, impact and hit probability, top speeds and especially manoeuvrability should also conform within reasonable bounds to real life. But this it does not. For example: all 1940 Spitfires being historically incorrect equipped with 20 mm cannon and all 1940 Hurricanes historically incorrect equipped with twelve 12.7 mm (.50) machine guns? And if this is all on account of error or time shortage there might still be a way to correct it. If it is all a result of intentional design, it will stay the way it is and that means that simulator fans will move on. In a way it all seems to depend on the audience the developer and publisher are targetting for.