Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[Kurfürst]

I found this interesting report from Automn 1940 describing handling characterisits (roll, yaw and pitch) if the Spitfire and Hurricane at high speed. I wonder how it stacks up with the sim (or rather, how the sim stacks up to real life).

One particular feature that seems to be amiss from the sim is the

a) very sensitive rudder trim
b) very sensitive elevator control
c) Yaw at high speed on the Spitfire (assymetic radiator layout)

I will try to test the roll as well, supposedly it only takes 2 secs on the Hurricane and 8 secs on the Spitfire to roll 90 degrees at 400 mph IAS.

[Kurfürst]

continued 2...

[Kurfürst]

continued 3

[Kurfürst]

Spitfire Mark II Pilot's notes from June 1940, "General Flying", Part 1.

[Kurfürst]

con'd.

[Kurfürst]

I did a quick measurements of roll rates for the Hurricane (Rotol) and the Spitfire Mk IIa. I climbed to sufficient altitude, and then entered a 30-45 degree dive to get the aircraft up to 400 mph IAS, then rolled them to the right 90 degrees and measured the time required with a stopwatch.

The RAE testing noted in the first post gives 2 secs for Hurricane for a 90 degree roll and 8 secs for the Spitfire under maximum effort.

I've got 2.5 secs (instead of 8 secs) for the Spitfire Mk II and around 3 secs for the Hurricane Mk I Rotol (instead of 2 secs)

Conclusion:

The Spitfire Mk. IIa's roll rate is overmodelled by a factor of 3.2 (!!), ie. it rolls 3.2 times faster at 400 mph IAS than it should be.

The Hurricane Mk. I Rotol roll rate is undermodelled by a factor of 1.5 , ie. it rolls 1.5 times slower at 400 mph IAS than it should be.

[Osprey]

OK, that's one speed which is interesting. Did you try it for the 109? Perhaps we should build up this data for multiple speeds post patch at intervals of 50mph.

I'm personally happy to look at this but given your past record you have quite some making up to do in order to prove that you are really interested in history rather than proving how good the 109 is against it's adversaries. Still, I hold no grudges when evidence is properly presented. Could you please advise what your RPM was and the heights from start of the dive? I am not sure how much effect this has but it is at least a standardisation.

Also, do we know if the data is for fabric or metal ailerons? (I haven't looked at the images yet.....)

[6S.Manu]

Since I actually don't play CloD can I ask how much detailed the stick settings are?
You know the response curve could be too low and so the roll rate can be affected because of it... In IL2 1946 any value under 100 made the control response too slow.

[fruitbat]

Also, do we know if the data is for fabric or metal ailerons? (I haven't looked at the images yet.....)

It will be for fabric, metal only started being retro fitted in around jan '41 and didn't go into production on new aircraft until later than that.

[Moggy]

It will be for fabric, metal only started being retro fitted in around jan '41 and didn't go into production on new aircraft until later than that.

The earliest date I can find for the testing of metal ailerons for the Hurricane is 6th May 1941 at Langley...and that was on a Mk.II. I'd like to know if they were even tested on the Mk.I, so I'll keep digging around.

[fruitbat]

The earliest date I can find for the testing of metal ailerons for the Hurricane is 6th May 1941 at Langley...and that was on a Mk.II. I'd like to know if they were even tested on the Mk.I, so I'll keep digging around.

My mistake was having a brain fart. Its may'41 I have as well, although i have it that they were being made and fitted at the Air Service Training factory at Hamble, near Southhampton.

Despite the fact that they were being fitted to Mk V's, 616 Squadron (ie Bader) decided that they wanted to have them on there Spit MkII's and dealt directly with the factory and signed the bits of paper put in front of them.

About a year later, Johnnie Johnson got an official letter, requiring an explanation as to why and who had authorised this, he replied that perhaps Bader might know (he was PoW by now)!

I think these were probably the only spit II's that had them, and suffice to say no spits had them in BoB.

[Osprey]

That's good because it clears up an ambiguity that would most certainly lead to a bloody great argument! ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I did a quick measurements of roll rates for the Hurricane (Rotol) and the Spitfire Mk IIa. I climbed to sufficient altitude, and then entered a 30-45 degree dive to get the aircraft up to 400 mph IAS, then rolled them to the right 90 degrees and measured the time required with a stopwatch.
Got Track? ©®

[Osprey]

And again to Kurfurst, did you test the 109?

[Kurfürst]

I suggest you test it yourself and open a new thread for it, if you find something is wrong with it. Unfortunately I have very little on 109E roll rate.

[von Brühl]

I did a quick measurements of roll rates for the Hurricane (Rotol) and the Spitfire Mk IIa. I climbed to sufficient altitude, and then entered a 30-45 degree dive to get the aircraft up to 400 mph IAS, then rolled them to the right 90 degrees and measured the time required with a stopwatch.

The RAE testing noted in the first post gives 2 secs for Hurricane for a 90 degree roll and 8 secs for the Spitfire under maximum effort.

I've got 2.5 secs (instead of 8 secs) for the Spitfire Mk II and around 3 secs for the Hurricane Mk I Rotol (instead of 2 secs)

Conclusion:

The Spitfire Mk. IIa's roll rate is overmodelled by a factor of 3.2 (!!), ie. it rolls 3.2 times faster at 400 mph IAS than it should be.

The Hurricane Mk. I Rotol roll rate is undermodelled by a factor of 1.5 , ie. it rolls 1.5 times slower at 400 mph IAS than it should be.


That stacks up with the rest of the problems in the FMs for these two planes, as currently the Spit is more manueverable than the Hurri, which is opposite of RL.

[41Sqn_Banks]

That stacks up with the rest of the problems in the FMs for these two planes, as currently the Spit is more manueverable than the Hurri, which is opposite of RL.

Maybe they should simply invert the FM of Hurricane and Spitfire, this would be a closer match to reality ;)

[Osprey]

I suggest you test it yourself and open a new thread for it, if you find something is wrong with it. Unfortunately I have very little on 109E roll rate.

You have the same data as you do for the Spitfire, and you did a test and made the effort to raise a bug. You know the 109 roll rate is also incorrect yet you did nothing, at speed it is actually meant to be slower than the Spitfire, nice work. I suspect too that had the rollrate for the Spitfire or Hurricane been too slow you'd have also done nothing.

I'll do the test on the 109 and verify your 'work' on the RAF fighters.

[Robo.]

I suspect too that had the rollrate for the Spitfire or Hurricane been too slow you'd have also done nothing.

The Hurricane's rollrate is in fact too slow - and no mention of it on the bugtracker ;)

This is what I noted in there:

''The test figures posted are well known, I remember reading these on A2A forums. I suppose the devs are aware of the fact and the RAF fighters are already modelled with rather heavy and unresponsive aileron control at higher speeds. (that goes for Spitfire and especially Hurricane). I have not done any testing yet but I would say that 90° bank in the sim would take a bit longer that 2 seconds in a Hurricane at given air speed. The effect is already present in the sim and aileron and rudder control becomes very stiff and heavy as the speed raises.

Reading the document again - it seems that the behaviour was not identical on all liveries and varied quite a bit. In one unit, they mention 'replacing the ailerons until matching pair is found'. This would be extremely difficult to model in the sim. Also, the 8 second roll was only a basic testing, no method is stated, it was only done to compare these 2 types. It is also stated on the very beginning, that the reports and complaints from actual users (pilots that is) are comparable and both types suffered similar control issue, therefore the test with massive difference (that particular Spitfire rolled like a B-17) concerned them to the extent of contacting actual units and waited to hear from them with the report. This is what the Memorandum is. The method and report statements seem to be inconsistent but that does not matter that much as they wanted real life tests and feedback in the first place.

There is no way you can tell from this particular memorandum, that every Spitfire was rolling this slow and that Spitfires in game are rolling 3.2 times faster at 400 mph IAS than they should.

I agree the fabric ailerons were a pest and it should be modelled, I am looking forward for the new FMs in the upcoming patch, perhaps the general flying characteristics have been altered too and the planes will be closer to their RL counterparts.''

[trademe900]

The 109's and Spitfires also turn way too fast. The hurricane can't out turn them.

[robtek]

I've no problem to outturn a co-energy 109 and getting a firing solution with the Rotol-Hurri.

[Catseye]

I did a quick measurements of roll rates for the Hurricane (Rotol) and the Spitfire Mk IIa. I climbed to sufficient altitude, and then entered a 30-45 degree dive to get the aircraft up to 400 mph IAS, then rolled them to the right 90 degrees and measured the time required with a stopwatch.

The RAE testing noted in the first post gives 2 secs for Hurricane for a 90 degree roll and 8 secs for the Spitfire under maximum effort.

I've got 2.5 secs (instead of 8 secs) for the Spitfire Mk II and around 3 secs for the Hurricane Mk I Rotol (instead of 2 secs)

Conclusion:

The Spitfire Mk. IIa's roll rate is overmodelled by a factor of 3.2 (!!), ie. it rolls 3.2 times faster at 400 mph IAS than it should be.

The Hurricane Mk. I Rotol roll rate is undermodelled by a factor of 1.5 , ie. it rolls 1.5 times slower at 400 mph IAS than it should be.


A roll rate of 90 degrees in 8 secs. does not make any sense at all.
I just looked over the document and considering typos and transcription errors, I'm willing to bet that it should read 3 seconds instead of 8 seconds.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Mh. I have some concerns if the report should be taken as a basis for FM development.

It clearly says that the authors of the report have some doubts about their finding as it does not entirely fit with reports from pilots.

The very first page says that both the Hurricane and the Spit were reported to be heavy on ailerons at high speeds while the Hurricane was measured to make the bank of 90° in 2 secs while the Spit's roll rate was measured to 8sec. It is obviously a discrepancy between pilots' complaints about the heaviness of BOTH aircraft and the measurements made on two individual aircraft with one being considerably lighter than the other.

The authors encouraged to contact Fighter Command in order to find out if the Hurricane used for measurement was too light or the used Spit too heavy.

I think this report is not a good base for any FM modelling and more consolidated data is needed.

For me 8sec at very high speeds for fabric cover ailerons is - in the first instance - as good as any other value because I simply do not know what would be a realistic number. My guess is that it is anyhow difficult to tell. And more difficult to extrapolate from other types - even from those who also have fabric covered ailerons. There are too many factors entering into the equation to make a definitive statement on roll rate just by knowing the cover material. I think that the aileron distortions which are the cause for modified aileron sensitivity at high speed not only may worsen with fabric cover but also with sub optimal supporting structure. Rolling also means to modify air streams over the wing assymetrically and wing aerodynamic form may impact how effective ailerons are.

Another matter is how much force the pilot can exercise upon the ailerons. Or vice versa how strong the aileron forces are that the pilot has to counter.

[41Sqn_Banks]

What about this?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

[Kurfürst]

The complete graph showing the stick forces is even better! ;)

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan_files/image040.jpg

and also:

"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters (Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss) at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109. Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and significantly disturb the aiming."

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html

[von Brühl]

A roll rate of 90 degrees in 8 secs. does not make any sense at all.
I just looked over the document and considering typos and transcription errors, I'm willing to bet that it should read 3 seconds instead of 8 seconds.

I dunno, remember these speeds are mph not kph, 400mph is hauling butt in these 1940 models!

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Actually seeing Banks graph shows 4secs for the Spit and about 4.5secs for the 109 in a 45° bank at 400 mph. For 90° you can double the figures. So it would be 8secs for the spit and 9 secs for the 109 at these high speeds.

Where does the graph come from? Is it original test data or someone who wanted to write a book to sell it?

[winny]

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/86de7d05.jpg

[Kurfürst]

The following graph is showing roll rate of the Spitfire Mark V, with fabric covered ailerons, via J. Smith -The Developement of the Spitfire and Seafire, Royal Aeronautical Society.

The Mark I and Mark IIs we have in the simulation had fabric covered ailerons, so roll rate should be identical. It appears our Spitfire I and II have the roll rates of the metal covered Spitfire's, which is incorrect, as none were fitted with metal ailerons until about May 1941.

[bongodriver]

Bearing in mind the figures are for a 50lbs stick force, how is it possible to reproduce these conditions in a simulator when there is no mechanical simulation? how is it possible to tell you are applying the equivalent of 50lbs on your gaming joysick? I would say 50 lbs in nowhwere near equivalent of a full deflection at the higher speeds which means being able to apply full deflection in the sim will give higher roll rates than the calibrated data.

[6S.Manu]

Bearing in mind the figures are for a 50lbs stick force, how is it possible to reproduce these conditions in a simulator when there is no mechanical simulation? how is it possible to tell you are applying the equivalent of 50lbs on your gaming joysick? I would say 50 lbs in nowhwere near equivalent of a full deflection at the higher speeds which means being able to apply full deflection in the sim will give higher roll rates than the calibrated data.
Pilot's strenght and stamina plus a well modelled Anthropomorphic Controls setting (so that you can use 2 hands on the stick).

[bongodriver]

Pilot's strenght and stamina...


Not really, it's meant to be about the fidelity of an aircrafts FM, the pilot does not form part of that.
what I'm saying is simply to compare the roll rates in sim vs recorded test data when it involves calibrations such as physical force is practically impossible unless you are using a professionally built simulator with calibrated feedback through the controlls, force feedback on a gaming joystick is a gimmick to provide immersion but is in no way a true representation.

[6S.Manu]

Not really, it's meant to be about the fidelity of an aircrafts FM, the pilot does not form part of that.
what I'm saying is simply to compare the roll rates in sim vs recorded test data when it involves calibrations such as physical force is practically impossible unless you are using a professionally built simulator with calibrated feedback through the controlls, force feedback on a gaming joystick is a gimmick to provide immersion but is in no way a true representation.

And I agree that it's not possibile to compare them, as I said in the past. Player's joystick's settings are an issue here.

However I was very disappointed when Oleg porked the 109's elevators and I think that a solution can be found, as a solution for target visibility that don't required ultra expensive hardware like 360° screen.

[Osprey]

I've no problem to outturn a co-energy 109 and getting a firing solution with the Rotol-Hurri.


He must be a crappy pilot because any reasonable one just pulls up the nose and he's gone. Are you sure you're co-e? Doesn't sound like it.

[bongodriver]

And I agree that it's not possibile to compare them, as I said in the past. Player's joystick's settings are an issue here.

However I was very disappointed when Oleg porked the 109's elevators and I think that a solution can be found, as a solution for target visibility that don't required ultra expensive hardware like 360° screen.


I'm not sure I fully get you, a suggestion 109 driver should be able to have 'cockpit off'?....that might be an over compensation.

[Osprey]

And I agree that it's not possibile to compare them, as I said in the past. Player's joystick's settings are an issue here.

However I was very disappointed when Oleg porked the 109's elevators and I think that a solution can be found, as a solution for target visibility that don't required ultra expensive hardware like 360° screen.

You mean he porked them by allowing you to pull out of a screaming dive without using trim? ;) ;)

I just find it amusing that Kurfurst raises this as a bug for the RAF but no mention of the 109, which is in fact even slower, and he uses his own website as a source!! What a joke.
There are more factors on the aeroplane to consider here, such as rudder trim, and when I do my own 109 test because Kurfurst hasn't bothered to then I will also check the slip ball and drag. Eric Brown commented on the enormous legwork he had to put in during a dive in the 109 to avoid slip.

Rather like G, a level playing field would have to be applied, unless we get into the world of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas where the pilot has a lifestyle which affects his fitness and strength! That said I think a standard stamina bar wouldn't be a bad thing for the sim - so if you enter a long fight pulling lots of G then you get tired physically - this could be reflected in the forces you can apply to the aeroplane, ie it's response worsens. It's a feature.

[Kurfürst]

Instead of yapping your mouth here, why don't you just go and testing?

You constantly mouth about agendas, conspiracies and black choppers circling around your troubled head, red vs blue, make big promises about you are going to test this, how you are going to test ut blah blah blah, then absolutely nothing happens.

We do not get anything from you but this petty fanboyism and bias. I suggest you limit that filth to your own threads if you are not going to contribute anything.

[6S.Manu]

I'm not sure I fully get you, a suggestion 109 driver should be able to have 'cockpit off'?....that might be an over compensation.

No.

I mean that Oleg modelled the late 109s' elevators as it was a control effectiveness issue (IIRC the zekes had this problem with ailerons) rather than a stick force / pilot's strengh one. Can we agree that was a bad solution?

So also without using FF sticks or more expensive hardware I think it can be solved using the modelled pilot's strength + fatigue: combined with the anthropomorphic controls function a pilot can pull the stick over the fixed force limit for some time, since when he use his strength also he's decreasing his stamina until he's exhausted. Many fights ended with exhausted pilots, mentally and physically.

Now I was talking about target visibility because I think that even if we are limited by our monitor size and hardware power, we can still simulate many things without the professional army's resources.

Sorry for the OT.

Again I think it's useless comparing these kind of ingame stuff as roll rate and turn rate to the real tests... the pilot is a too important variable.

[bongodriver]

No.

I mean that Oleg modelled the late 109s' elevators as it was a control effectiveness issue (IIRC the zekes had this problem with ailerons) rather than a stick force / pilot's strengh one. Can we agree that was a bad solution?

So also without using FF sticks or more expensive hardware I think it can be solved using the modelled pilot's strength + fatigue: combined with the anthropomorphic controls function a pilot can pull the stick over the fixed force limit for some time, since when he use his strength also he's decreasing his stamina until he's exhausted. Many fights ended with exhausted pilots, mentally and physically.

Now I was talking about target visibility because I think that even if we are limited by our monitor size and hardware power, we can still simulate many things without the professional army's resources.

Sorry for the OT.

Again I think it's useless comparing these kind of ingame stuff as roll rate and turn rate to the real tests... the pilot is a too important variable.


OK yes I get the sentiment and agree, the simulated enviroment will never allow for the real life experience, compromises must be made.

[VO101_Tom]

... he uses his own website as a source!! What a joke.

His source the famous, well knows R.A.E. test reports, made by RAF... Do not be confused, that the drawings is black :rolleyes:

Rather like G, a level playing field would have to be applied, unless we get into the world of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas where the pilot has a lifestyle which affects his fitness and strength! That said I think a standard stamina bar wouldn't be a bad thing for the sim - so if you enter a long fight pulling lots of G then you get tired physically - this could be reflected in the forces you can apply to the aeroplane, ie it's response worsens. It's a feature.

I think, the reds hate this idea more, than the blues ;) The energy fight isn't stressful. Sometimes you need to pull up at high speed (help with Trim), there is not a lot of difficulty. The constant, high G turning, that is hard :cool:

[Kurfürst]

Maybe he is confused because I have posted an English translation of E-Stelle Rechlin's assessment of the flying qualities of Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss and Bf 109/110. Here it is in original.

I am sure whineboy's German fluent and he will take offense that I had translated it:

"Die Rollwendigkeit der Feindjaeger bei hoher Geschwindigkeit is schlechter als der Bf 109."

"The roll rate of the enemy fighters at high speed is worse than the Bf 109."

[NZtyphoon]

According to test pilot Jeffrey Quill:
"By this time I was bitterly blaming myself for not having thumped the table much harder about the aileron problem...in May 1938....However production problems at the time made any design changes almost impossible to embody.

The aileron problem was further compounded by what could be described as 'non-repeatibility' or variations in manufacturing accuracy. On first take-off a new production Spitfire would usually be found to be flying severely one wing low, sometimes to the extent that it was almost a two-handed job to hold it. The aircraft would immediately be brought in to land and a trimming strip, comprising a piece of cord sewn inside a length of fabric, would be attached to the upper trailing edge of the aileron on the 'wing low side'....Usually, but not always, if the aircraft had been successfully trimmed at cruising speed it remained in trim at very high diving speed. But sometimes it would develop a strong bias one way or the other. In these circumstances an aileron had to be changed and discarded or tried again on another aeroplane. Thus very small production variations in the hinges, the slotted shrouds in the wing, the profile of the aileron nose balances and the aileron profile aft of the hinge could have a spectacular effect on the lateral handling of each production aircraft.

So the ailerons virtually had to be individually 'tuned' by the test pilot (who had to know what he was about) and it usually took several flights to achieve this. Sometimes if an aileron had been discarded as untrimmable on one aeroplane it could be refitted to another....If, however, after delivery to the Service, an aileron was changed, the whole matching process was destroyed and the aeroplane might fly very badly indeed. There were frequent reports from squadrons of so-called 'rogue' aeroplanes and it usually transpired that an aileron had been changed or that someone had monkeyed about with the trimming arrangements.

The reports which floated into the A & AEE and RAE through HQ Fighter Command on these so-called 'rogue' aircraft did much to confuse the issue during our early efforts to deal with the problem. Provided the ailerons were correctly 'tuned' and the aeroplane correctly flown, there was only one central problem - the ailerons were much too heavy at speed." (Jeffrey Quill Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story John Murray, 1983, pp. 180-181)

The reports shown by Kurfurst in his second and third postings are some those reports of 'rogue' aircraft as described by Jeffrey Quill, and are not representative of a properly trimmed Spitfire with fabric ailerons, so they should not be used to change the flight characteristics for the game.

Mh. I have some concerns if the report should be taken as a basis for FM development.

It clearly says that the authors of the report have some doubts about their finding as it does not entirely fit with reports from pilots.

The very first page says that both the Hurricane and the Spit were reported to be heavy on ailerons at high speeds while the Hurricane was measured to make the bank of 90° in 2 secs while the Spit's roll rate was measured to 8sec. It is obviously a discrepancy between pilots' complaints about the heaviness of BOTH aircraft and the measurements made on two individual aircraft with one being considerably lighter than the other.

The authors encouraged to contact Fighter Command in order to find out if the Hurricane used for measurement was too light or the used Spit too heavy.

I think this report is not a good base for any FM modelling and more consolidated data is needed.

Spot on - to take these reports as being typical of the flight characteristics of the Spitfire or Hurricane is drawing a very long bow.

Quill went on to write:
"I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the Battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew a captured ME109E; to my surprise and relief I found the ailerons control of the German fighter every bit as bad, if not worse than, at high speed as the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. It was good at low and medium speed but above 400 mph and above it was almost immovable. I thouught the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading edge slats kept snapping in and out; but it had no rudder trimmer, which gave it a heavy footload at high speed; while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than that in a Spitfire." (183)

[Crumpp]

it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading edge slats kept snapping in and out;

That is a rather unusual statement.

The leading edge slats snapping in and out is what gives the Me-109 its very good stall characteristics and virtual immunity to spinning.

[Osprey]

Instead of yapping your mouth here, why don't you just go and testing?

You constantly mouth about agendas, conspiracies and black choppers circling around your troubled head, red vs blue, make big promises about you are going to test this, how you are going to test ut blah blah blah, then absolutely nothing happens.

We do not get anything from you but this petty fanboyism and bias. I suggest you limit that filth to your own threads if you are not going to contribute anything.

You are the king of 'nothing happens' like your mysterious papers on 87 octane and that pretend Aussie paper you put your life on (shame you didn't).

[fruitbat]

That is a rather unusual statement.

The leading edge slats snapping in and out is what gives the Me-109 its very good stall characteristics and virtual immunity to spinning.

With respect, I'll take Jeffrey Quill's opinion over yours all day long.

Just finished reading 'Spitfire, A Test Pilots Story' by Jeffery Quill, and is is a very good read.

[Osprey]

That is a rather unusual statement.

The leading edge slats snapping in and out is what gives the Me-109 its very good stall characteristics and virtual immunity to spinning.

When they snap in and out they snatch the air on the stalling wing and make the aeroplane harder to handle at those border speeds. This is well documented from test aerobatic flights. This at low speeds and heaviness at high speeds meant that the 109 was not good aerobatically, or rather far worse than the Spitfire.

"Immunity to spinning" - brilliant Biff, I guess you learned that type of engineering quote from your records of early 20th century shipbuilding and will stick with it. "She is unsinkable sir" :rolleyes:

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

...
The reports which floated into the A & AEE and RAE through HQ Fighter Command on these so-called 'rogue' aircraft did much to confuse the issue during our early efforts to deal with the problem. Provided the ailerons were correctly 'tuned' and the aeroplane correctly flown, there was only one central problem - the ailerons were much too heavy at speed." (Jeffrey Quill Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story John Murray, 1983, pp. 180-181)

Quill went on to write:
"I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the Battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew a captured ME109E; to my surprise and relief I found the ailerons control of the German fighter every bit as bad, if not worse than, at high speed as the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. It was good at low and medium speed but above 400 mph and above it was almost immovable. I thouught the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading edge slats kept snapping in and out; but it had no rudder trimmer, which gave it a heavy footload at high speed; while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than that in a Spitfire." (183)

So basically Quill stated himself that the ailerons of a standard spit remained heavy. His concern that he expressed was about the spit dropping a wing with a badly manufactured aileron or being badly trimmed. He never mentioned that the bad roll rate at high speed or high aileron forces were reduced by fitting a good aileron to the plane according to your quotes. So Quill does NOT contradict the graphes that were posted.

The report that I referred to in my post also does not dismiss any measured value as wrong but only basically said that at that time (when they wrote the report - without the wisdom of hindsight) they wanted to have confirmation or infirmation by other sources.

[VO101_Tom]

"Immunity to spinning" - brilliant Biff, I guess you learned that type of engineering quote from your records of early 20th century shipbuilding and will stick with it. "She is unsinkable sir" :rolleyes:

There are aircrafts, which more difficult to take a spin, especially the school planes, for example. It is known, if you can maintained the airflow on the wingtip, the aircraft remains stable even near to stall speed, with high angle of attack. Furthermore, very difficult take a spin. The assets of the air flow maintaining the leading edge flap and the mechanical and aerodynamic wing twist...

[6S.Manu]

This is well documented from test aerobatic flights. This at low speeds and heaviness at high speeds meant that the 109 was not good aerobatically, or rather far worse than the Spitfire.

Of course it was not good aerobatically: anyway in war this skill is the least important aspect of a plane. Speed, climb rate and firepower are some of the important ones.


"Immunity to spinning" - brilliant Biff, I guess you learned that type of engineering quote from your records of early 20th century shipbuilding and will stick with it. "She is unsinkable sir" :rolleyes:
Slats helped the pilot to understand the limit of the plane, above all at high altitude: 109s were more forgiving if mistreated in this aspect, more than Spitfires and Mustangs that were unforgiving (above all the latter).

Probably only a moron could spin in it...

You mean he porked them by allowing you to pull out of a screaming dive without using trim? ;) ;)

Finnish pilots said it was still controllable at more than 700km/h: stick was stiff but you could still pull it... I trust them since they knew their planes.

[Osprey]

There are aircrafts, which more difficult to take a spin, especially the school planes, for example. It is known, if you can maintained the airflow on the wingtip, the aircraft remains stable even near to stall speed, with high angle of attack. Furthermore, very difficult take a spin. The assets of the air flow maintaining the leading edge flap and the mechanical and aerodynamic wing twist...

Oh yes of course. Likewise there are ships that are harder to sink than others, but none are unsinkable nor is the 109 immune from spinning.

@Manu, I know what slats are for but regardless of that when they pop out the wing snatches. In a sustained move I suspect that this is useful for an aircraft with such a high wing loading, but in sudden moves I wouldn't expect it to make things smooth and predictable. Don't ask me though, just read pilot accounts and test flights, there are plenty of them. As for the Spitfire, the wing design stalls at the roots before the tips so it is very controllable. The Spitfire is a far superior aerobatic machine to the 109, you'd have to be a fanboy not to realise that. If I picked my moment everytime I'd rather have the 109 characteristics, but you can't. What then? Would you prefer to move better if you cannot run? Ceteris Paribus the Spit has more important advantages, without diving away and not fighting at all that is.

[von Brühl]

None of them say that when the slat deploys it makes it less manueverable like you suggest, nearly all of them state its the bang that makes it an unsettling experience.

I suggest you guys back off Osprey, clearly he's still in a state of aggravation from the Spit II's FM's being brought back to reality, further degradation of the wonderful properties of the Spitfire are just a bit to handle right now, especially since it seems that the devs backed the Spitnerf with a bit more oompf to the 109.

I can remember flying against Osprey on ATAG, he's an excellent pilot, any time he got shot down, was simply due to undermodelling the Spits and Hurri's, and the continued undermodelling of said craft will force an undue burden of learning upon those who's planes clearly cannot keep up with their skill.

[/sarcasm]

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

This is a bit OT (when talking about the slats): Personally I believe if the slats had posed a big problem without providing sufficient advantage they would have eliminated it from later models.

To my understanding some unexperienced pilots were afraid of going to points were slats would open. The reason I imagine is linked to what was said by a previous poster: It was very likely not smooth. So an unexperienced pilot might have been surprised by the rather sudden change in lift and may have reacted wrongly. Someone with experience would have learned to do the right moves at the moment the slats opened.

Another issue was perhaps that for symmetric opening one would have to avoid side slip and there also experience comes in, an experienced pilot likely being more automatic in maintaining symmetric flight than an unexperienced one.

I think I have read some pilot tales that said that the real manoeuvering for them started when the slats opened as the plane then could provide enough lift for tighter turning.

[Robo.]

None of them say that when the slat deploys it makes it less manueverable like you suggest, nearly all of them state its the bang that makes it an unsettling experience.

I suggest you guys back off Osprey, clearly he's still in a state of aggravation from the Spit II's FM's being brought back to reality, further degradation of the wonderful properties of the Spitfire are just a bit to handle right now, especially since it seems that the devs backed the Spitnerf with a bit more oompf to the 109.

I can remember flying against Osprey on ATAG, he's an excellent pilot, any time he got shot down, was simply due to undermodelling the Spits and Hurri's, and the continued undermodelling of said craft will force an undue burden of learning upon those who's planes clearly cannot keep up with their skill.

[/sarcasm]

Yes you're right, he is an excellent pilot, not so much in Spitfire Mk.II but Mk.I fighters most of the time (just for the record ;)). What you say has nothing to do with anything. The truth is, even now, pre-patch, the Spitfire Mk.I is performing worse than it should be and it seems it will not be fixed, quite the opposite.

The issue has been commented and backed up with data - it seems that Spitfire is rolling too fast at given speed. The problem with fabric ailerons should be modelled in the sim (along with 100 octane fuel and correctly operating wingslats on the 109 etc etc :grin:) if we want to pretend we're fighting in the Battle of Britain era.

What is the point of this argueing anyway?

[Osprey]

None of them say that when the slat deploys it makes it less manueverable like you suggest, nearly all of them state its the bang that makes it an unsettling experience.

I suggest you guys back off Osprey, clearly he's still in a state of aggravation from the Spit II's FM's being brought back to reality, further degradation of the wonderful properties of the Spitfire are just a bit to handle right now, especially since it seems that the devs backed the Spitnerf with a bit more oompf to the 109.

I can remember flying against Osprey on ATAG, he's an excellent pilot, any time he got shot down, was simply due to undermodelling the Spits and Hurri's, and the continued undermodelling of said craft will force an undue burden of learning upon those who's planes clearly cannot keep up with their skill.

[/sarcasm]


Well I didn't mean to upset you about the slats von Bruhl. My comment was driven by Biff stating that the 109 couldn't be stalled. Had he said it about the "Spitnerf" (thanks for demonstrating your level of parity to us) then I'd have called him up on that too.

Is this a standard post you put up with a parameterised name though? Go check my stats on ATAG, I have no problem with that, you won't find many probably but you will find I that I don't get shot down very often. You're very unlikely to find a single Spitfire II sortie though, a few Spitfire I (2 stage) and Hurricane Rotol but that's it. My main gripe is putting a ton of lead into some 109 driver only for him to run away back home when he should be going in really. I'm not sure why you needed to attempt a character assassination when you could've just provided some examples though.

Do you fly as Von Bruhl? I'll have a look, I'll wager you can't live without mineshells.......;)

[Osprey]

Thanks Robo, and tbh I think you can teach me a lot mate :) Really, please!

[6S.Manu]

This is a bit OT (when talking about the slats): Personally I believe if the slats had posed a big problem without providing sufficient advantage they would have eliminated it from later models.

To my understanding some unexperienced pilots were afraid of going to points were slats would open. The reason I imagine is linked to what was said by a previous poster: It was very likely not smooth. So an unexperienced pilot might have been surprised by the rather sudden change in lift and may have reacted wrongly. Someone with experience would have learned to do the right moves at the moment the slats opened.

Another issue was perhaps that for symmetric opening one would have to avoid side slip and there also experience comes in, an experienced pilot likely being more automatic in maintaining symmetric flight than an unexperienced one.

I think I have read some pilot tales that said that the real manoeuvering for them started when the slats opened as the plane then could provide enough lift for tighter turning.
I think during training the 109's pilot could get used to that attitude... it could be scary but it saved their life because that was the final warning to not turn tighter.

Without that attitude I suppose there could be many more pilots afraid to not tighten the turn at plane's limit because there was not a real defined final warning and the stall would be a lot more violent and probably they never tested it.

Maybe it can be also one of the reasons of many accounts on which bad turners are actually outturning the better one.

@Osprey: I own many books regarding british, french, japanese and german pilots (but nothing on italians :-) )... most of them are in english: I know I'm not able to write well in english but still I can read them correctly.


If I picked my moment everytime I'd rather have the 109 characteristics, but you can't. What then? Would you prefer to move better if you cannot run? Ceteris Paribus the Spit has more important advantages, without diving away and not fighting at all that is.

IMO the aerobatic skill was not important at all. It's a placebo who's works only against undisciplined pilots.

I think many players here are too much influenced by ingame dogfight: in reality aerobatic skill of the plane and flying ability of the pilot weren't the most important things as, sadly, they are ingame because of its many limits.

I quote Lt. Colonel "Billy" Bishop: "The most important thing in fighting was shooting, next the various tactics in coming into a fight and last of all flying ability itself."

And Air Vice-Marshal J. E. "Johnnie" Johnson: "Tight turns were more a defensive than an offensive tactic and did not win air battles."

Those are things I learned long time before I read the Shaw's book by personal experience (that's a lot of ingame KIAs) and today I still teach to my cadets (the ones who actually want to learn... :-( ) that the only good defensive manouvre is diving away since you already lost the battle giving the energy or positional advantage to the enemy.

Now you can stay in the fight in a defensive position, turning circles, but good pilots will not give away the advantage they gained.
And in reality manouvering hard the pilot will get tired long before the BnZers.

I take speed and service ceiling far ahead of turning rating. Of course if your plane has no speed it's better that it has good aerobatic performances.. but still..

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

My point that I'd tried to pass over was that for experienced pilots the sudden slat opening did not make them jump or feel unsave and some good ones learned to just drive the 109 at the point when the slats were open in order to increase turn performance at will.

I do think that pilots coming from the flight school might have experienced and taught slat opening a little bit but not enough to feel comfortable with slats springing open. Compared to experienced pilots or veterans they are a bit like new owners of a driving licence compared to Michael Schumacher.

[Robo.]

I agree with what you said in your previous 2 posts, Stormcrow. ;)

Also Manu - that is very true regarding tactics, there are many experienced virtual pilots on this forum and none of them would disagree with you - I would add my signature at the bottom of what you wrote anytime ;). No matter if it's MiG-15 vs. Sabre or Spitfire Mk.I vs. Emil, principle is the same and the slower aircraft and worse climber has to rely on it's agility, simple as that. You say ''good pilots will not give away the advantage they gained'' - now the point is that the way they decided to model the RAF performance, you are not very likely to gain the advantage, that's why there are so many complaints. I personaly don't have a problem with any FM (it's still just a game afterall) but I am a bit disapointed with the fact that the sim is not reflecting the (well researched) reality and also, I am disapointed with some people taking this discussions into personal level - we're all just blokes who like aircraft and who like shoot pixels on each other in the evenings, are we not?. It takes equal skill to fly any fighter well - I mean really well, doesn't matter if it's your Spitfire, Hurricane or a 109.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Actually I do think that the new FM will be closer to reality for high alt but on low altitude it is equally bad or worse for all aircraft.

On low altitude, to my understanding, ALL planes except the Spit 2 were TOO SLOW (the Spit 1, the Hurricanes, the G50 and the 109 talking about fighter alone. Bombers I do not know about). What I see is that apparantly the WEP of the 109 will eventually provide a minor speed increase but that's it. It seems also that WEP altitude range is too large.

So actually they should increase high alt speed for all planes and low and medium alt speed for all planes except the Spit 2 wrt to current FM.

I agree that the performance should be as close to historic values available and when I speak about historic values I speak about reasonable historic values that allow to assume that this value corresponds to an averaged historic value. That is to say that they should not just take the flight test of the best or worst performer of a type but try to find the value that represents the average. I admit it may be difficult to get enough historic data but there are clues.

[6S.Manu]

I agree with what you said in your previous 2 posts, Stormcrow. ;)

Also Manu - that is very true regarding tactics, there are many experienced virtual pilots on this forum and none of them would disagree with you - I would add my signature at the bottom of what you wrote anytime ;). No matter if it's MiG-15 vs. Sabre or Spitfire Mk.I vs. Emil, principle is the same and the slower aircraft and worse climber has to rely on it's agility, simple as that. You say ''good pilots will not give away the advantage they gained'' - now the point is that the way they decided to model the RAF performance, you are not very likely to gain the advantage, that's why there are so many complaints. I personaly don't have a problem with any FM (it's still just a game afterall) but I am a bit disapointed with the fact that the sim is not reflecting the (well researched) reality and also, I am disapointed with some people taking this discussions into personal level - we're all just blokes who like aircraft and who like shoot pixels on each other in the evenings, are we not?. It takes equal skill to fly any fighter well - I mean really well, doesn't matter if it's your Spitfire, Hurricane or a 109.

I understand you disappointment: I'm Fw190 lover and regarding the old IL2 you probably remember all the discussions about his FM model and the famous gunsight...

I have to admit that I didn't followed the entire discussion about the RAF fighters' issue in this game, as I still don't care to make test or fly those Red and Blue abortions.

So I have not experience on those planes.

Just for my curiosity: is the RAF fighters' service ceiling limited to 2km? because in the few times I flew in ATAG server I've seen Blue pilots at that altitude and I think any Red pilot can start the fight with a good amount of advantage.

[6S.Manu]

Storm, IIRC they still cannot model correctly the aircraft's performance over 7km. They said it in a "update" thread I think.

On BoM it will be corrected, they said.

[bongodriver]

No they said they'd correct it in the sequel.

[Robo.]

I understand you disappointment: I'm Fw190 lover and regarding the old IL2 you probably remember all the discussions about his FM model and the famous gunsight...

Yes, I love the 190, too. Especially in 4.11 ;) But yes, these discussions never end, been there many times before with Il-2, now same stuff with CloD. People are people. :eek:

Just for my curiosity: is the RAF fighters' service ceiling limited to 2km? because in the few times I flew in ATAG server I've seen Blue pilots at that altitude and I think any Red pilot can start the fight with a good amount of advantage.

I agree, many RAF pilots fly too low, but there are quite a few who you meet up high only.

[Kurfürst]

As for the Spitfire, the wing design stalls at the roots before the tips so it is very controllable.

In fact that is the trait of just about any well designed aircraft (inc. 109 etc.). All designers design wing stall characteristics so that to roots stall before the tips, and to maintain aileron control.

The Spitfire is a far superior aerobatic machine to the 109, you'd have to be a fanboy not to realise that.

Oh, I don't think anybody has trouble acknowledging the superior aerobatic qualities of the Spitfire for making loops and other aerobatics pleasing to the eye, and as such its a superior aerobatics plane but all of that is completely useless feature for air combat, which is the very reason why the 109 is generally superior as a fighter.

[bongodriver]

So were the Luftwaffe just mesmerized by the showmanship of the RAF allowing them to get shot down?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Lol. I just see them freeze to ice and falling like stones to earth.

The Luftwaffe was basically outproduced, not necessarily outgunned. In fact, comparing fighter losses the numbers lost are pretty even to my knowledge.

[bongodriver]

Lol. I just see them freeze to ice and falling like stones to earth.

The Luftwaffe was basically outproduced, not necessarily outgunned. In fact, comparing fighter losses the numbers lost are pretty even to my knowledge.

Even if the fighter losses are comparable the RAF fighters had to shoot down huge numbers of bombers too, the LW only had to deal with fighters, so the RAF chaps had to do all that in the middle of their aerobatic routines.

[6S.Manu]

Oh, I don't think anybody has trouble acknowledging the superior aerobatic qualities of the Spitfire for making loops and other aerobatics pleasing to the eye, and as such its a superior aerobatics plane but all of that is completely useless feature for air combat, which is the very reason why the 109 is generally superior as a fighter.

I remember the interview of an italian veteran about the planes he had flown.
Talking about the italian planes he said that they were well looking, with good aerobatic characteristics (italian pilots were famous for their flying skill)... he was smiling as he thought those things where useless in a war...

When he talked about the 109 he changed his expression: "that was a real war machine..." he said.

In the same interview another italian veteran who flew the 109 said that the Mustang was their dangerous enemy, since he could outturn them very easily (!!! :-) )

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Even if the fighter losses are comparable the RAF fighters had to shoot down huge numbers of bombers too, the LW only had to deal with fighters, so the RAF chaps had to do all that in the middle of their aerobatic routines.

But so had the Luftwaffe to fight off the parallel campaign by the Bomber command.

BTW the RAF destroyed just about 20% more aircraft than the LW with the advantage to fight over own territory. It is not to dismiss the capability of the RAF pilots who did an outstanding job nor the performance of the RAF planes. I personally think from the performance sides (planes and pilots) both sides were quite equal.

Other aspects however came into the game:

LW used better fighter tactics.
RAF fought over own territory.

LW set out to conquer air supremacy.
RAF defended their home country.

LW had - at least initially - the higher numbers.
RAF had radar and a very clever defence system.

LW had experience.
RAF had better fighter production output.

To my opinion having read a couple of books I think that this battle, which was overall a battle of attrition was won by the RAF by shooting down not more aircraft than the LW but by shooting down aircraft quicker than the LW could replace before the LW could achieve its objectives (also due to highly flawed German strategy). That's why Britain won.

[Osprey]

I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.

I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.

@Von Bruhl
Couldn't find your stats but mine are

37 missions, 16 kills, (0.43), shot down or hit and forced RTB twice.

So, who are you online?

[bongodriver]

ultimately I agree it came down to strategy but Britain was as much a prison as it was an island fortress, so the home advantage is slightly less significant, Britains production rate was subject to succesfully getting supplied from the US and were fighting a separate battle in the Atlantic for it.

And most of all I agree the sides were even in terms of performance of pilots and aircraft with each side having strenghts and weaknesses.

[Al Schlageter]

But so had the Luftwaffe to fight off the parallel campaign by the Bomber command.

Was the BC campaign as huge as the Luftwaffe bomber campaign? Anyone have numbers for the bomber sorties?

[Kurfürst]

I remember the interview of an italian veteran about the planes he had flown.
Talking about the italian planes he said that they were well looking, with good aerobatic characteristics (italian pilots were famous for their flying skill)... he was smiling as he thought those things where useless in a war...

When he talked about the 109 he changed his expression: "that was a real war machine..." he said.

In the same interview another italian veteran who flew the 109 said that the Mustang was their dangerous enemy, since he could outturn them very easily (!!! :-) )

That's my impression as well. The 109 was simplicity itself, like the T-34. There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

[Glider]

Jeffrey Quills comments on this might be of some interest being a highly qualified test pilot and one also flew in combat.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat.

[fruitbat]

Jeffrey Quills comments on this might be of some interest being a highly qualified test pilot and one also flew in combat.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat.


Its the bit in red that i found amusing the first time i read this;)

[Glider]

The 109 was simplicity itself, like the T-34. There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper of III/JG 52 wrote of the difficulties new pilots found operating the Me 109's propeller:

We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail. Eventually, about half way across the Channel at 4,000 metres Kühle told him to leave the formation and return to base. 119

Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September combat which demonstrated that the Me 109's propeller could be troublesome:

I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier, I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it. That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a pregnant duck.

It should be noted that this view is supported by the Jugoslav airforce who had both Hurricanes and Me109E fighters. They had problems with the propeller and found the Me109 a difficult plane to get the best out of. In the end pilots due to fly the Me109 first spent time on a Hurricane squadron as it was an easier aircraft to fly before moving to the Me109.

The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive." 106

[6S.Manu]

I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.

I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.

I don't think I've missed the point: I understand that Spitfires had some advantages, mainly energy retention... if we take for example the Goring's order to close escort the bombers, in that case the Spitfire would be the better plane since it can defend itself better staying in the same airspace (defending the bombers). Instead the 109s can only dive away.

But here we are talking of close escort (that 109s clearly can't do... neither any US fighter) that's the only environment in where I can think a more manouvrable plane has a real advantage.

And Spitfire keeps that advantage if you switch the 109 with the 262, a flying brick with no aerobatic skill at all.

The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.

Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#stickforce

[Ernst]

If we would go on quotes for proving anything i would like to present:

"109s kill ratio."
- According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.
- From April 1941 to November 1942, the Luftwaffe scored 1294 confirmed victories for about 200 Me 109 lost in combat. During this period, the Luftwaffe almost exclusively used the Me 109F. They identified their victims as 709 Tomahawks, 304 Hurricanes and 119 Spitfires, plus others/unidentified.

In time, before some answer que post with more quotes i would like to explain my point. I do not believe we ll arrive in the truth based in this kind of quotes. I am sure that there a plenty margin for disagreement when we go on quotes of both sides.

[Robo.]

here was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

Interesting option, but you're describing a Hawker Hurricane in here :grin:

Of course I am joking, but that's how FC has seen it in 1938. 109 was definitely not simple flying, it was very sophisticated and deadly machine if used right. The problem was that to excell in it, lots of experience was needed. And with its pilots, the Luftwaffe was losing this experience. One of the reasons why Britain won the Battle and worn out Luftwaffe.

[Robo.]

"109s kill ratio."

And the link to Battle of Britain and 'Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics' is? ;)

[Robo.]

The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.

I believe Osprey's point was that the aerobatic ability of my aircraft becomes extremely important when I encounter enemy whose speed, climb and rollrate is superior to mine.

[Bewolf]

I believe Osprey's point was that the aerobatic ability of my aircraft becomes extremely important when I encounter enemy whose speed, climb and rollrate is superior to mine.

In a defensive way, yes, but there also only to a certain point.

Case in point is the war in the Pacific, where two philosophies regarding air war clashed. The japanese, with a focus on individual skill in very aerobatic planes vs. the US, standing for team tactics and planes more greared for speed.

The outcome was pretty clear.

The problem with maneuvering is that it costs energy. That is something no fighter pilot wants to give up just so, especially in a sky swarming with enemy fighters.
Now we all know you often find yourself in a situation where you have no chance but to give up energy to get a mission done, and in those cases good maneuverability has its merits.
But in general something already went terrible wrong when you have to employ tight turns in airwar, and good aerobatics won't offset the advantage of a faster plane to engage and disengage at will. It will maintain the initiative, while the aerobatic plane cannot act, just react.

That, btw, is one major and very obvious reason why both the Spitfire and the 109 in their later marks went for more speed, not more maneuverability.

[Osprey]

I don't think I've missed the point: I understand that Spitfires had some advantages, mainly energy retention... if we take for example the Goring's order to close escort the bombers, in that case the Spitfire would be the better plane since it can defend itself better staying in the same airspace (defending the bombers). Instead the 109s can only dive away.

But here we are talking of close escort (that 109s clearly can't do... neither any US fighter) that's the only environment in where I can think a more manouvrable plane has a real advantage.

And Spitfire keeps that advantage if you switch the 109 with the 262, a flying brick with no aerobatic skill at all.

The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.

Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#stickforce


Interesting, you got the point but didn't see it all the same. We call that "failing to see the woods for all the trees".

[Glider]

Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#stickforce

Thanks for this but the point I was making is that when Kurfurst says the following:-

There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

The Yugoslav air force who already had experience of the Hurricane which in 1938 was a high performance machine, plus some German pilots, didn't find it simple.

The rest of his statement I basically agree with

[Osprey]

I believe Osprey's point was that the aerobatic ability of my aircraft becomes extremely important when I encounter enemy whose speed, climb and rollrate is superior to mine.

Not quite, but those attributes. Let us discount speed though because the 109 is not faster than the Spitfire, they exchange that through altitude.
The point is that many people on here quote off their experience and lecture about tactics to others as if that person knows nothing at all and that they have never been shot down themselves. And this is it, THEY HAVE been shot down, therefore they would have been in the wrong position at that time regardless of their experience. This is the randomness of war, you can't always pick that advantage. When in the position of equality or disadvantage the Spitfire is ahead of the 109 - this is a great strength. For either type they are both deadly when they have surprise.

"Ceteris Paribus"

[Robo.]

In a defensive way, yes, but there also only to a certain point. (..)

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.

I agree completely with what you say about fighter development and speed vs. maneuvrability doctrine, good post btw, there is no problem with that. It's just I am staying at BoB topic and I am concerned about the reality depicted in the sim, not the actual WWII.

[Bewolf]

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.

I agree completely with what you say about fighter development and speed vs. maneuvrability doctrine, good post btw, there is no problem with that. It's just I am staying at BoB topic and I am concerned about the reality depicted in the sim, not the actual WWII.

I am not so sure if that really is the case. Many people confuse tight turning ability with maneuverability in general. The first case, I agree, the Spit (and Hurri) have the advantage. But in a close in dogfight that does not just involve flying circles around each other, but all kind of maneuvers using all 3 axis of space, things like acceleration, roll rate, climb rate and mass inertia also play a huge, if not even bigger role.
Here the 109 actually has the edge even in a 1:1, if, and that is a big IF, the pilot knows what he is doing. A better weight to hp ratio and less drag in the 109 does not hurt that plane, either.

Fact is, the 109, despite it's advantages, is rather easy to fly, but it takes a lot of time and expirience to master it. But here we all are pros after years of flight simming. So I do not really wonder about your expiriences.

[bongodriver]

When the 109 is cornered into a slow turning fight and its leading edge devices are deployed it has lots of induced drag from the slats, the spitfire does much better in that enviroment.

[Kurfürst]

Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper of III/JG 52 wrote of the difficulties new pilots found operating the Me 109's propeller:

We began our climb almost immediately after take-off and he was constantly using the radio to ask us to slow down so that he could keep up. It was obvious that he wasn't manipulating the pitch control with the skill of the more seasoned pilots to produce the same power as our machines. We tried to tell him what to do on the radio but to no avail. Eventually, about half way across the Channel at 4,000 metres Kühle told him to leave the formation and return to base. 119

Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September combat which demonstrated that the Me 109's propeller could be troublesome:

I was not flying my usual plane but, as I was the Technischer Offizier, I had to fly a plane with a new automatic propeller just to test it. That was my bad luck, having that bloody plane on that day for the first time because that 'automatic thing' turned that angle of the propeller so that an average speed was always maintained and not a kmh more! That meant trouble when starting and trouble at high altitude as the plane was nearly always unmanoeuvrable and swaggered through the air like a pregnant duck.

Nice copy paste job from spitliarperformance.

However, the above pilot accounts describes the early manual propellor pitch system of the 109E, and this was superseded already in late 1939 by a fully automatic (CSP) system, which governed propellor pitch with a single lever system, and made tinkering with engine controls unnecessary. I am sure a number of early aircraft still had manual propellor pitch early in the Battle, especially those which converted to 109E early and still had early production machines, but the situation was hardly worse than in Fighter Command, where fighters for some time had to struggle with inefficient 2-pitch propellors.

German pilots were instructed to make full advantage of this disadvantage of RAF pilots:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html

The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers. Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

The trend of system automatization was carried over to the 109F-K, which had additional automatic system (oil and coolant radiators). Much like the Fw 190, engine controls were automatic and relived the pilot of additional workload, in contrast of British aircraft, where RPM, boost needed the pilots attention, as well as setting the mixture to the correct position.

The British described and acknowledged the advantages offered by a fully automated system as follows:

10. The Me.109F, altough very similiar in appearance to the Me.109E is much superior in all-round performance. The fact that the airscrew is fully automatic, and the oil and coolant temperatures thermostatically controlled, helps to make the aircraft a simple fighting machine, as the only things then occupying the pilot's attention in combat are his throttle, flying controls and guns.

It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well. British 109G evaluation:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html#sumres

7. The cockpit is simple. A number of technical controls such as regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant radiator and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch control have been made automatic and need no attention from the pilot. The pilot is then able to give more attention to fighting tactics, teamwork, navigation and practical flying.

8. The shortcomings of the aeroplane are, the weakness of the ailerons at high diving speeds, the weakness of the undercarriage, the stiffness of the tail trimming gear at high speeds, and skittishness during landing and take off.

Recommendations.

9. The small size of the 109G remains a prime reason for its good performance. It is recommended that British aeroplanes should be designed to be small, but that skittishness on the ground should be prevented by having a nosewheel undercart.

10. British cockpits should be freed of auxiliary technical controls which need the attention of the pilot, and the regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch should be controlled by reliable automatics.

It should be noted that this view is supported by the Jugoslav airforce who had both Hurricanes and Me109E fighters. They had problems with the propeller and found the Me109 a difficult plane to get the best out of. In the end pilots due to fly the Me109 first spent time on a Hurricane squadron as it was an easier aircraft to fly before moving to the Me109.

Interesting, this seems to be in contrast with what I have read. Do you have a quote etc? It would be interesting to see these views as well.

The following is an excerpt from a Yugoslavian pilot, who probably had a fairly good insight, as they Yugo airforce operated a wild mix of airplanes - P-47s, Hurris, Spits, 109Gs, Yak 3 etc.

»The main shortage of Jak 3 was its obsolete technique. Its cockpit was spartan, everything had to do be done manually. Particular problem was when you had to get air compressor into its second gear when rapidly changing altitude. In such situations engine is not receiving the right mixture of air and fuel and is loosing power, so you had to be very concentrated in doing it all synchronized and in exact moment. The same applies for the oil cooler which was adjusted with an mechanical wheel, during the dive the cooler had to be closed and during the climb opened as the engine needed more air. All of it was automatio on the Messerschmitt. In Jak 3, throttle handle and the propeler pitch handle were beside each other and you had to move them simultaneously, so all the time you pulled the throttle you had to think about the pitch. So imagine when you are in a midst of a combat, chasing and being chased, turning the wheels, setting the handles, adjusting the pitch, setting the gunsight and at the same time manouvring and trying to hit your enemy. Messerschmitt had it all automatic.

Messerschmitt had leading edge slots to prevent it from stalling and Jak stalled even on highest speed. In sharp turns Messerschmitt provoked a black-out and that was not possible with the Jak since he would stall. On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces which would become »shaded«. Therefore it was neccessary to give a hard contra with the food pedals, full gas or sometimes to lower the gear. Messerschmitt had the electrical loading of weapons, and Jak mechanical, I remember how it clicked.
In all, Jak 3 had marvelous flying performance and excellent manouvrebility, it was invented for peacetime flying and aerobatics, but you had to have »a hand« for it. On other hand Messerschmitt was much more simple to fly, especially in air combat, of course once you learned to cope its small rudder on take-off and landing.«

As for the stalling qualities, the 109 had very good ones. See Karl Baur:

Word came from the Luftwaffe out of Antwerp early in the spring of 1943 that many pilots had experienced spin problems with the Me109 G and had to bail out. Numerous airplanes had been lost. Karl Baur's first reaction: "This is almost a foolproof airplane. How do these guys accomplish that?" The Me 109 had a relatively high wing loading (32.2 lb/sq ft) and therefore stalled readily under heavy G forces but the stall was gentle and the aircraft exhibited good control under G forces. If the stick was eased forward the aircraft immediately unstalled with no tendency to flick over on its back and spin. While not totally spin proof it took a fairly ham fisted pilot to get into trouble in the Me 109.

It took Karl several nerve wracking flights before he was able to get a Me 109 into a spin. Finally, after he had tried every possible dog fight maneuver, he had it figured out. It was during those split seconds before going into a vertical dive that it was possible to get this airplane to spin. Only rough flying inexperienced pilots were able to do it. Karl's solution to the problem was very simple. He advised: "Drop the landing gear boys, and the spin will end immediately." The dropped landing gear would appear to lower the airspeed and reduce the severity of the yaw (the movement around the normal axis of the aircraft, i.e. direction stability). Once the aircraft is not spinning (yawning) around its center of gravity the aircraft being in a nose down attitude accelerates and becomes unstalled.

The US opinion on 109G-6: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/Bf109G-6_US_EB102/109G-6_US_EB102.html

f. Stalls and Stall Warning.

Automatic Handly-Page type slots are provided on the outboard leading edges of the wing. They extend at about 240 KPH indicated. The airplane`s stall characteristics are good with little tendency to fall off on either wing. No specific stall checks were made but it is believed the stall with wheels down and full flaps is about 150 KPH indicated.

The British also agreed (RAE report of 1940, quoted above):

When doing tight turns with the Me.109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2½ and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about ½ g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch ; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.

Please note however that the 'suddenly flick over on to its back and spin' is how the Spitfire stalled, altough its stall speed was lower, once the stall occured, it was very violent.

and also of interest:

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.

The good stalling characteristics of the Bf 109E did not escape the French either, who have tested the very same plane, Bf 109 E-3 WNr 1304. it against the D.520 and found:

B - Maneuvrability in combat

[b]The D.520, in close combat evolutions (maneuvres) seems to stall more than the Messerschmidt 109, holding on the air by his wing-slats. The stall of the D520 is very brutal and start always to the left; it is indeed serious in the combat to the right, the Dewoitine 520 pilot making almost a full roll; as result, the combat should ALWAYS be started to the left, at least if the choice of the turn direction is possible.

It would seem to me that the more benign stalling characteristics of the 109 as opposed to the Spitfire (or Yak 3, D.520) consisted a definite advantage in turning combat, as it gave 109 pilots had the confidence to fly near the stall and get the maximum out of the aircraft.

The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive." 106

Again, nice copy paste job of a selective quote. The problem is again that diving the 109 by trimming it into the dive is against the diving instructions the 109 pilots notes, which specifically tell the pilots not to trim in dive and instead keep the aircraft diving angle by pushing the stick forward.

The RAE actually wrote: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

4.5. High-Speed Dive. – The aircraft was dived at 370 m.p.h. and all three controls were in turn given a slight displacement and then released. No vibration, flutter or " snaking " developed.

If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a moderately large push is necessary to hold the aircraft in the dive, and there is a temptation to wind the trimmer forward. If this is done, recovery is very difficult unless the trimmer is first wound back again, owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator at high speeds.

At 370 m.p.h. a considerable amount of pressure is needed on the left rudder bar to hold the aircraft straight, and if the rudder is displaced in either direction and released, the aircraft eventually banks and turns to the right. Small rudder displacements, sufficient to yaw the nose about 10 deg., give rise to no appreciable nose-down pitching moment. Large rudder displace-ments do cause the nose to pitch down, but as the rudder is very heavy at 370 m.p.h. they would not normally be used.


The Bf 109 manual says, that before dive, the trim is to be left in neutral position, so during recovery, they simply need to release the stick into neutral position, and trimming position will assist the recovery from dive, which is then easy and fairly tight turns are possible.

See AFDU tactical trials of Bf 109F-2 - this time they operated to aircraft correctly, with the controls trimmed for level flight. http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F2_UK/109F2_ES906_AFDU.html

7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that altough the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.

In short, your quote tells us nothing that if the aircraft is operated against the prescribed manner - ie. trimming it into the dive instead against regulations. An analogue case is the Spitfire trimmed for level flight before entering the dive, against regulations. It had to be operated the opposite way, as the Spitfire manual tells the pilot to trim into the dive, otherwise blacking out or breaking the wings in dive due to pulling excessive 'g' with the over-sensitive elevator control is the likely outcome.

[Robo.]

I am not so sure if that really is the case. Many people confuse tight turning ability with maneuverability in general.

Yes but I do not. ;) My point was that at this moment, the Hurricane is almost as fast as 109 and 109 is able to outturn a Hurricane. What I am saying is that the game does not reflect the known real life characteristics all that well. (we'll see how it will be after the patch).

I understand what you're saying though and I agree - give me a fast plane that climbs and rolls well and I am a happy fighter pilot ;)

[Kurfürst]

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.


The RAF itself had a very disillusioning view of the usefulness of aerobatics in air combat. The following is from the Spitfire II Pilots manual.

In view of this, personally, I find it rather ironic all these Mike on his site for example goes into great lenght about how excellent the Spitfire's aerobatic qualities were compared to the 109E (he quotes the same manual which a few pages later flatly states that aerobatics are useless as combat manouvers). What does it help you in combat if you can make tidy loops while the other guy can't..? A loop is quite possibly the worst manouver ever in combat, as it slows you down and make a perfect target of you.

Please note that under aerobatics, I (and the RAF as well) mean loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays. A rather different thing than briskly executed, often uncoordinated combat manouvers which are 'untidy' exactly for the reason so that they are difficult to follow.

[Robo.]

However, the above pilot accounts describes the early manual propellor pitch system of the 109E, and this was superseded already in late 1939 by a fully automatic (CSP) system, which governed propellor pitch with a single lever system, and made tinkering with engine controls unnecessary. I am sure a number of early aircraft still had manual propellor pitch early in the Battle, especially those which converted to 109E early and still had early production machines, but the situation was hardly worse than in Fighter Command, where fighters for some time had to struggle with inefficient 2-pitch propellors.

Negative, both pilot accounts are relevant to the 1940 scenario and Battle of Britain. In Steinhilper's case, this happened in September 1940. Same practice is being described in his book on 27. October - the day he got shot down.

[Robo.]

Please note that under aerobatics, I (and the RAF as well) mean loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays. A rather different thing than briskly executed, often uncoordinated combat manouvers which are 'untidy' exactly for the reason so that they are difficult to follow.

Loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays is obviously useless in the actual combat. We (virtual pilots) know that and RAF learned the hard way back in the day. ;) Still, combat manoeuvres have to be tidy if you want to succeed and / or survive in the sim. We're getting into fighter combat tactics here and that is not necessary I suppose - all I say is that the aerobatic abilities of the Spitfire can save your life although aerobatics as such is useless.

[Kurfürst]

Negative, both pilot accounts are relevant to the 1940 scenario and Battle of Britain. In Steinhilper's case, this happened in September 1940. Same practice is being described in his book on 27. October - the day he got shot down.

As said, the Emil pilots manual already notes the automatic prop pitch in December 1939. Stenihilper simply flew an older machine. See also picture and crash report of Werknummer 4101:

The Air Intelligence Enemy aircraft report on the aircraft is quoted by K G Wakefield, 27 Mar 77 - DoRIS Ref.B2708/1.

Report No.102/4 Me109. Crashed on 27.11.40 at 1555 hours on Manston aerodrome. Markings (Black) 12 + (the 12 outlined in white). Cowling and rudder yellow, spinner green with one white segment. No crest. Airframe made by Erla Flugzeugwerke in 1940. Works number 4101. A plate described the aircraft as being `Me109 Ele E3'. Engine DB601 A-1. Number 64760 made by Daimler Benz, Genshagen. The new type of supercharger was fitted. A constant speed airscrew is fitted with a notice on the dashboard. `Machine has automatic airscrew. Follow the short instructions for use'. Armament: 2 MG 17s and two 20mm shell guns. Armour - normal fuselage bulkhead and pilot's head protection and curved head shield. This aircraft was brought down by fighter action and the pilot made a very good belly landing, the aircraft being little damaged. Twelve .303 strikes in fuselage and a few in each wing, all coming from the port quarter astern. Pilot prisoner.

[Bewolf]

Yes but I do not. ;) My point was that at this moment, the Hurricane is almost as fast as 109 and 109 is able to outturn a Hurricane. What I am saying is that the game does not reflect the known real life characteristics all that well. (we'll see how it will be after the patch).

I understand what you're saying though and I agree - give me a fast plane that climbs and rolls well and I am a happy fighter pilot ;)

You are waiting for the 190, I see ; )

But yeah, I was talking generally, not CloD specific. In here I completly agree to your points.

[Robo.]

As said, the Emil pilots manual already notes the automatic prop pitch in December 1939. Stenihilper simply flew an older machine. See also picture and crash report of Werknummer 4101:

Well, it seems many pilots didn't need that manual as late as October 1940 ;)

[Glider]

Nice copy paste job from spitliarperformance.
Nothing wrong with cutting and pasting original quotes, I have done the ame from your site.


However, the above pilot accounts describes the early manual propellor pitch system of the 109E, and this was superseded already in late 1939 by a fully automatic (CSP) system, which governed propellor pitch with a single lever system, and made tinkering with engine controls unnecessary. I am sure a number of early aircraft still had manual propellor pitch early in the Battle, especially those which converted to 109E early and still had early production machines, but the situation was hardly worse than in Fighter Command, where fighters for some time had to struggle with inefficient 2-pitch propellors.
I don't disagree but the RAF had switched to CSP by July 1940 I think and its clear that the Luftwaffe were still using older versions much later. The interesting question is how many 109's were still using the old props.

edit
All Spitfires were converted by 20 July, All Hurricane Units by 16th August



German pilots were instructed to make full advantage of this disadvantage of RAF pilots:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html

The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers. Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

I don't disagree with this either but would point out that the RAF witched to CSP very quickly and the above comment is of limited use.

The rest of your posting I deleted as it had nothing to do with the 109E. As you know better than I the 109F was a very different machine.

However what wasn't a cut and paste was the reference to the Yugoslav air force that supported the view that the 109 was a more difficult aircraft to fly, not a simple machine.

What often happens re the BOB is when people think it started, the UK more or les go from soon after the evacuation of Dunkirk, when do you consider the battle have really started.

Its worth noting that Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September combat did note that the CSP was a new one presumably the other aircraft were still using old ones

[Sandstone]

That's my impression as well. The 109 was simplicity itself, like the T-34. There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:

1. Small size required a narrow track undercarriage. Fine for a peace-time airforce when pilots can be trained at leisure. Not a good idea when pilot training is reduced under war-time conditions.

2. Poor visibility. The aircraft structure was not capable of being adapted to the excellent bubble canopies used on later Allied types.

3. Limited range, restricting it to use an interceptor with limited success as an escort fighter. This would not have been a problem if the Luftwaffe had a good, long-range single-engined escort fighter, but they were unable to produce one.

4. Limited size prevented the wings carrying large/heavy internal weapons. All other fighter aircraft moved towards batteries of wing mounted guns (and particularly cannons). The Bf-109 couldn't do this. Latter versions of the aircraft were effectively reliant on a single cannon at a time when other interceptors were moving towards quad-mounts of 20 mm or 30 mm cannons.

5. Not designed for mass production (here, the analogy with the T-34 is particularly wide of the mark). The Bf-109 was designed to be produced by a skilled workforce. However, as the war progressed the German aviation industry lost men from the workforce who were withdrawn to bolster the front lines. They were replaced with significant volumes of slave labour where the intention was as much to kill the workforce through overwork and poor treatment as to produce aircraft. The skilled workers were thus replaced with "Jewish housewives and teenage girls picked up from places like Auschwitz". As a result, productivity was poor, those directing production became hopelessly morally compromised and aircraft were delivered to a poor standard by a reluctant, unskilled workforce who on occasion would sabotage their own products.

Overall, the Bf-109 was a good design for a peace-time late 1930s airforce. It was poorly suited to the war of national survival that the fascists actually initiated. It was unsuitable for low-hours pilots, it was overly complicated compared to other designs and in the face of actual German production capabilities, it had limited potential for development (because no realistic development could overcome some of the poor design decisions made early in its design cycle) and because the German aircraft industry in any event was unable to move to effective mass production and so was greatly out-produced by its opponents.

By the end of the war, fighter aircraft were becoming larger, able to be flown by relatively inexperienced pilots, had good visibility and often carried batteries of cannon. The Bf-109 had none of these things.

This isn't to say it was a bad aircraft and it still remained a dangerous opponent until the end of the war, but it was typical of the generation of fighters like the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 that the Allied nations replaced or complemented with better types as the war progressed. The Luftwaffe's inability to replace the Bf-109 says more about its disasterous R&D and procurement policies than it does about the strengths of the Bf-109.

[fruitbat]

The Luftwaffe's inability to replace the Bf-109 says more about its disasterous R&D and procurement policies than it does about the strengths of the Bf-109.

Quoted for truth.....

[VO101_Tom]

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:...

Not bad for an average or obsolete aircraft that shot down so many enemies do not you think?

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here. :roll:

The Bf 109's full metal structure (wing and control surfaces as well), hydraulic retractable landing gear, leading edge slats, freely adjustable flap was a revolutionary aircraft design in the late 30's. Combined with a perfect agility and small dimensions made the 109 one of the best war machines. And the war developments held there.
The late war "Erla" canopy provided a perfect view backwards (of course not in the IL-2 game) with perfect armor. The "Rüstsatze" supplements designed to increase range and weapons. Did not have enough weapons? The Mk108 is nothing? I'm sure, 3 MK 108 can handle any Bomber. Against fighters, the single Mk108 is more than enough (one of the survived RHAF Ace said once: "it was not a fair weapon. The enemy planes falling apart if you hit once).


ps. Who are you? New guy here, or one of the banned friends?

[Sandstone]

Not bad for an average or obsolete aircraft that shot down so many enemies do not you think?

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here. :roll:

It was by no means a bad aircraft, but it was far from perfect and by the war's end the Allies were fielding superior aircraft and German aircraft procurement and production was in a poor state as a result of bad decision making. This isn't a controversial opinion.

I actually rather like the Bf-109. It had an interesting history, looked cool and the various versions showed invention and originality in the development of the basic airframe. I would also level many similar criticisms at the Spitfire (narrow track U/C, overly-complex wing construction, poor armament on the early versions etc).

It's an odd thing about some flight simmers that they feel they have to pick sides in WWII and defend the reputation of aircraft from 70 years ago. For myself, I'm just interested in history and in aviation.

PS - nice welcome!

[NZtyphoon]

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here. :roll:


Well, considering that the one who started this thread shows a real hatred of the Spitfire and loads his posts with expressions like "Spitliarforum", "It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well." - as if objective flight reports written 70 years ago reflect his personal prejudices - and generally acts as though it was lucky the Spitfire actually flew at all, it's a little rich to be objecting to those who defend the aircraft as "109 haters".

As it happens I don't agree with some of Sandstone's comments; for example, the 109 was better designed for mass production than the Spitfire - witness the problems involved in getting the Spitfire into production at all. The 109 had a much better modular construction, its engine was far easier to remove and access for servicing etc etc...

Fact is that both were fine fighters, given that both were designed and built only 30 odd years after the Wright flyer; each had their weaknesses, but there are a lot of grateful pilots who owe their lives to both the 109 and Spitfire and both deserve to be right up there with the best aircraft of their generation.

[Osprey]

Totally agree. It's a shame that we appear that way but all that is happening is we have to correct the extreme viewpoint of a single fanatic. His argument is flawed fundamentally though, since he makes so many claims of superiority by both machine and pilot - yet his side still lost. A heavy cross to bear indeed, I can see how he cannot reconcile, poor chap.

[Sandstone]

As it happens I don't agree with some of Sandstone's comments; for example, the 109 was better designed for mass production than the Spitfire - witness the problems involved in getting the Spitfire into production at all. The 109 had a much better modular construction, its engine was far easier to remove and access for servicing etc etc...

Hello, Typhoon. I actually agree with you. The Spitfire was also not a particularly good design for mass production (or low-hours pilots). As you say, it was probably even less so than the Bf-109. The beautiful elliptical wing is a case in point. It conferred at best a small performance gain, but was a sod to manufacture. Not worth it in a war where mass production is required. It's noticeable that none of the second generation Allied fighter aircraft used such a wing. Where the British did score with the Spitfire was that they organised its manufacture quite efficiently. So they mobilised the female population, organised the factories, rationalised the development of the aircraft and involved industrialists in the process (so as to provide the best aircraft that could be produced rather than the best aircraft that could be designed) etc. They also worked on bringing forward designs that addressed the shortfalls of the Spitfire and managed to get them into service.

In contrast, the German aviation industry was asked to generate a bewildering variety of prototypes, suffered from very poor management and was faced with a manpower and skills crisis as industry personnel were drafted out to the services. The result was an industry that moved from a high-tech one built around a skilled workforce and modest production to one that was reliant on slave labour to achieve a level of mass production. In such an industry it is no surprise that the record of new types successfully introduced was unimpressive.

I posted here because I saw someone claim that the Bf-109 was the aircraft equivalent of the T-34 tank. But as far as I can see, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Interestingly, the Germans did try to develop a cheap fighter aircraft that could be mass produced by unskilled labour using non-strategic materials and so might be a better analogue of the T-34. This was the Heinkel-162 jet fighter. It was cheap, used a wooden airframe, could be built by unskilled and slave labour and was supposed to be easy to fly and operate. The unit cost was ~ 75,000 RM, compared to ~ 144,000 RM for a Ta-152 or ~ 150,000 RM for an Me-262. Of course, it was a disaster because the industry was attempting something far beyond its abilities.

It's interesting to compare this with the approaches to production adopted by the Allies. The Russians mass produced simple but effective designs like the IL-2 and La-5 series or the T-34 tank. For all its faults, Russian production was very rational in recognising what could be achieved. Similarly, in the West, industrialists were heavily involved in the selection of designs, with Ford's astonishing Willow Run plant representing the ultimate 1940s expression of harnessing industry to aircraft production.

It is sobering to consider the different lives experienced by a worker at Willow Run building B-24s and a malnourished slave worker in an underground factory in Germany building Bf-109s.

[VO101_Tom]

Well, considering that the one who started this thread shows a real hatred of the Spitfire and loads his posts with expressions like "Spitliarforum", "It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well." - as if objective flight reports written 70 years ago reflect his personal prejudices - and generally acts as though it was lucky the Spitfire actually flew at all, it's a little rich to be objecting to those who defend the aircraft as "109 haters".

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him. He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes, and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap. (small, little switch on the top of dashboard, i doubt, the pilots can using it under hihg G - but in the game, this is the favorite evasive maneuvers by the reds, if the 109 stuck on their 6). He was only interested to find something to make it difficult the German tactics. Of course, in the name of historical authenticity...

So, you may argue with Kurfurst motivation, but the fact is that the red side has same patriots, who fight for only their side. Don't get me wrong. I really have no trouble with it, it would be hypocrisy to say that it does not exist. It's fine, everyone personal motive may be different from the other. But I don't think this would be fair attack a topic, just because one of these "patriot" started...

[Al Schlageter]

Barbi doesn't lie. That is a good one. hahahahahahahahahaha

[Robo.]

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him.

I don't know him, and I have no reason to have any kind of prejudice. All I see is that he's pushing a bit too hard for too long. Same goes for some other people around here, but since you mentioned him...

He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.

I don't think anyone has got any problem with the data he provides. It actually is very useful and I enjoy reading it. I understand he is a 109 enthusiast and somehow tends to interpret this historical data and charts in rather biased way. I am also enthusiast but I like the WWII planes equally. I have to admit I therefore realised he was wrong many times because although his knowledge of German side is extensive, he somehow lacks in the RAF information and his opinions are often one-sided. There is no problem with that, because the same problem is on the RAF side. The truth is apparently somewhere in the middle. There is always problem with objectivity where there is passion involved. Without this passion though, there would be less drive for knowledge. I would say the problem he's got is from his past reputation and personal conflicts he's had. I don't judge anyone, I have never had a problem with him but I also have to take what he says with pinch of salt. I don't have that kind of feeling with anyone representing the red side here their claims and theories are not nearly as biased and ridiculous and my personal view is that they are more reasonable somehow.

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes

Well in fact, he was right about the sensitivity of the trim and data was provided (we had this conversation about if the RAE data was actually useful and the test of a captured machine legit and relevant - I found this very interesting). The trim in the sim can be used in a way that has nothing to do with the its real life usage. I am using it in the 109 to turn into Spitfires and I know that's stupid. The thread actually started after a conversation we had on the TS (Osprey and me and several other squadmembers) about what is wrong with the game. Same goes with the Spitfire flaps...

and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap. (small, little switch on the top of dashboard, i doubt, the pilots can using it under hihg G - but in the game, this is the favorite evasive maneuvers by the reds, if the 109 stuck on their 6). He was only interested to find something to make it difficult the German tactics. Of course, in the name of historical authenticity...

...which you mention here - you know it was me who raised this issue on the il2bugtracker (and Osprey voted for that) as I find is equally as ridiculous as the trim exploit. The thread was for discussion only, there is no bug raised by Osprey on the bugtracker and he actually stated this was the case on all planes in the sim. He mentioned the 109 specifically because of the unique Hoehenflosse design and believe it or not, it was for the authenticity sake. I also exploited the flap behaviour of the Spitfire when I got bounced by a 109 pilot who would be turning into my break turn at 500km/h dive using the trim. We both know that this is nonsense and it should be addressed. Mind you this was on Repka 4 df server for fun. I am not doing either on normal servers. But I know it exists and it bothers me a lot. The motivation is indeed to get more of 'Battle of Britain' into what is now 'Airquake'.

So, you may argue with Kurfurst motivation, but the fact is that the red side has same patriots, who fight for only their side. Don't get me wrong. I really have no trouble with it, it would be hypocrisy to say that it does not exist. It's fine, everyone personal motive may be different from the other. But I don't think this would be fair attack a topic, just because one of these "patriot" started...

I agree, both sides are guilty and some people are pushing too hard and it is obvious that they listen to their tune only.

[Kurfürst]

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:

1. Small size required a narrow track undercarriage. Fine for a peace-time airforce when pilots can be trained at leisure. Not a good idea when pilot training is reduced under war-time conditions.

Hi Sandstone,

I have disagree on this. The narrow undercarriage was not a result of the small airframe size, but a result of two factors: 1, Messerschmitt credo was to keep the airframe the lightest possible, and wings light, so the main load bearing element would be the fuselage, not the wing. Thus the wing had to take less stress and could be lightened. 2, It was seen beneficial from production and maintaince so that the wings could be quickly replaced without removing etc. the undercarriage.

The narrow undercarriage itself did not contribute much to the ground looping tendencies of the plane, these were related to other design features, not related to airframe size: the geometry (toe-in) of the undercarriage and the relative rearward CoG of the airframe.

2. Poor visibility. The aircraft structure was not capable of being adapted to the excellent bubble canopies used on later Allied types.

True, a bubble canopy would have offered better vision, but I doubt it would have been impossible to do. The British seem to have little problem of fitting one to the Spitfire (or the US with the P-47/-51), which had a similiar razorback fuselage/canopy arrangement as the 109. It would have required a change in fuselage shape (production delays) and likely the same stability problems as encountered on the Spit / 51. The vision was only restricted to rear, after the introduction of the pilot's steel headpiece, but since this was fixed in late 1942 by the introduction of the transparent Galland headpiece, the vision to the rear was again acceptable.

3. Limited range, restricting it to use an interceptor with limited success as an escort fighter. This would not have been a problem if the Luftwaffe had a good, long-range single-engined escort fighter, but they were unable to produce one.

I guess the definition of 'limited range' is depends on the operational requirements.

While the 109E had indeed limited range (660 km), adding droptanks extended this range to ca 1300 km, and the engine and airframe improvements of the 109F-K increased this to 1600km. The K's rear tank could be used as an extra fuel tank, increasing internal capacity by 25%, so I guess the K could get as far as 1800-2000 km. While not as good as the Mustang, I would say this was more than sufficient for German operational needs. If it would be really needed, I would guess the internal capacity could have been increased further.

4. Limited size prevented the wings carrying large/heavy internal weapons. All other fighter aircraft moved towards batteries of wing mounted guns (and particularly cannons). The Bf-109 couldn't do this. Latter versions of the aircraft were effectively reliant on a single cannon at a time when other interceptors were moving towards quad-mounts of 20 mm or 30 mm cannons.

Nope, the 109 was quite capable of carrying heavy armament (3x20 + 2x13mm) with gondola attachments. Contrary to popular belief, these were not any more degrading to perfomance than internal installations, as the details of Spitfire/ Fw 190 installations I have examined show. Drag and weight costs were identical.

The airframe was also quite capable of carrying them inside the wings, see 109K-6 - K-14, which could carry an MK 108 (or MG 151) in each wing, or post-war Spanish versions of the 109G, which carried a Hispano in each wing. However the Germans typically favoured fuselage armament for the advantages in concentrated firepower it offered. With the 109 (or any other aircraft with H-P slats) the usable space within the wing for armament installation was also rather limited, since the slats covered much of the wing, while the wheel bay took up the roots. Any gun installation was only possible between the one or two section confined between these two.

Quad 20mm is of course probably the most ideal armament for a WW2 fighter, but you really have to ask yourself wheter these planes (Fw 190, Typhoon/Tempest) could offer the same climb or turn performance as the 109. The answer is no.. and with extra armament, the 109 was definietely not worse than any of these.

Also, you describe as if there was a movement towards wing mounted guns, as if things were evolving that way. There was no such thing, whenever possible, everyone went to fuselage mounted guns, because of the obvious advantages: more space for ammo, better concentration and effectiveness of fire. The only designs that went for wing guns were those which's engine installations did not permit enough guns to be mounted in the fuselage - Merlins, Allisons could not take engine cannons, which is why the Spitfire always had wing mounted guns only, as the supercharger was mounted behind the engine and was in the way, the Sabre was quite simply too big, and radials rule out the thing completely, apart from some smaller cowl guns.

5. Not designed for mass production (here, the analogy with the T-34 is particularly wide of the mark). The Bf-109 was designed to be produced by a skilled workforce. However, as the war progressed the German aviation industry lost men from the workforce who were withdrawn to bolster the front lines. They were replaced with significant volumes of slave labour where the intention was as much to kill the workforce through overwork and poor treatment as to produce aircraft. The skilled workers were thus replaced with "Jewish housewives and teenage girls picked up from places like Auschwitz". As a result, productivity was poor, those directing production became hopelessly morally compromised and aircraft were delivered to a poor standard by a reluctant, unskilled workforce who on occasion would sabotage their own products.

I have to strongly disagree on this one. The 109 was indeed designed for mass production, by the merit of smart design, enabled by smartly designed generous tolerances.

I direct you to the French report on the 109E they have captured, it strongly contradicts any thesis of the need for a skilled workforce.

Also, this analogue with the He 162:

I posted here because I saw someone claim that the Bf-109 was the aircraft equivalent of the T-34 tank. But as far as I can see, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Interestingly, the Germans did try to develop a cheap fighter aircraft that could be mass produced by unskilled labour using non-strategic materials and so might be a better analogue of the T-34. This was the Heinkel-162 jet fighter. It was cheap, used a wooden airframe, could be built by unskilled and slave labour and was supposed to be easy to fly and operate. The unit cost was ~ 75,000 RM, compared to ~ 144,000 RM for a Ta-152 or ~ 150,000 RM for an Me-262. Of course, it was a disaster because the industry was attempting something far beyond its abilities.

Compared to the 'cheap' He 162 unit cost of ~ 75.000,- RM, you might find it interesting that the unit cost of the 109E-3, produced by Erla was 59.000,- RM in 1940, but kept decreasing during the war, as the 109F brought further simplifications to production. F-4s produced by Erla were produced at a unit cost of 50.400,- RM, while 109G were reduced to about 43-45 000 RM. G-10, G-14, K-4 were produced at 43.700 RM at the war's end.

Also of interesting are the ridiculusly low man hours required for production compared to any other type. The 109E was produced at 5400 man hours in 1940 (compare to 10 000 hours for the Hurricane and 15 000 hours for the Spitfire...),but by the war's end a 109G/K was produced in just 1600 hours while a Fw 190 required about 3100 hours. On avarage it seems that a 109 could be produced at about 2/3 the man hours required through the war. IIRC the Mustang, even with the peacetime conditions and mass production techniques in the

The very simple reason why the 109 was not replaced is that nobody could come up with a fighter with the same qualities, while also being as cheap as the 109. The Germans for example considered some of the Italian types, but those required about 3 times the labour to produce one. And a choice between one similiar or slightly superior design or three 109s is a very simple one to make.

Overall, the Bf-109 was a good design for a peace-time late 1930s airforce. It was poorly suited to the war of national survival that the fascists actually initiated. It was unsuitable for low-hours pilots, it was overly complicated compared to other designs and in the face of actual German production capabilities, it had limited potential for development (because no realistic development could overcome some of the poor design decisions made early in its design cycle) and because the German aircraft industry in any event was unable to move to effective mass production and so was greatly out-produced by its opponents.

The 109 had some design limitations I agree, but for the task it was conceived these were not restricting and was aduquate until the arrival of the jets. Its own domestic rival, the Fw 190 while heavier, was also of very small size. It traded some qualities of the 109 (high altitude performance, horizontal manouverability and climb performance) for extra load carrying capability and ruggedness. The two designs complemented each other but neither could - or did - replace the other.

As for mass production - the 109 was the most produced fighter in history.. so what are you talking about..? I think you'd also find that the WNF plant erected during the war strongly implemented mass production techniques (conveyor line production etc.)

http://www.planefax.com/radar/bf-109-assembly-line.jpg

By the end of the war, fighter aircraft were becoming larger, able to be flown by relatively inexperienced pilots, had good visibility and often carried batteries of cannon. The Bf-109 had none of these things.

True, but the coin had two sides, larger airframes could not offer the same performance or be as cost effective either. For the very same reason the Spitfire was not replaced by the overall more advanced Tempest, the 109 was not replaced by the 190. It had qualities that could not be found elsewhere.

This isn't to say it was a bad aircraft and it still remained a dangerous opponent until the end of the war, but it was typical of the generation of fighters like the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 that the Allied nations replaced or complemented with better types as the war progressed. The Luftwaffe's inability to replace the Bf-109 says more about its disasterous R&D and procurement policies than it does about the strengths of the Bf-109.

I would not mention the P-40 or Hurricane in the same generation. The Hurricane was an obsolate transitional airframe, and the P-40 was clearly a dead-end. Simply too large which curtailed its performance, without offering anything worthwhile in exchange. And unlike those designs, the 109 had room to grow, exactly because the basic recipe of a light, cheap and clean airframe with benign flying characteristics tolerant for pilot errors, was made right in the beginning. This ensured that with any given powerplant, maximum performance was obtained.

The Spitfire had similar performance through the war - and similar limitations - but as far as production techniques go, it was half a generation behind the 109. I do not think the 109 could be replaced by any other type. Certainly not one as dirt cheap as it was, and I doubt that overall superior qualities could be achieved. If you think so, I'd like to hear what type you believe had these qualities.

[winny]

Just a thought on narrow undercarriage.

I thought another reason for this was that the the original spec drawn up by the Germans stated that the aircraft had to be easily transportable by train? To fit in with the whole ethos of mobility.

Hence the design that enabled the wings to be taken off without need for lifting equipment. They could just roll them onto a flatbed truck.

[Osprey]

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes, and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap.

Tom, Robo is correct, that is exactly what happened. I started a discussion topic to find out more which it did, exposing an exploit in game. It wasn't "against German elevator trim" at all, I requested information from German fliers about it's use in game and in real life as comparison.
After all of that I haven't seen a bug raised though I suggested it should happen from the outcome of the thread and asked if you wouldn't mind raising it. I respect your opinion on the 109, you seem to seek historical truth, is there a reason why this bug hasn't been raised?

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared, because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does. You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to. I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game. I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

PS. I have never suggested that he forges documents but he does select those which favour his argument and dismiss those which don't. He also creates his own documentation with the same style.

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared,

And..? If we would need the 'approval' of our trio of braindead rafanatics, nobody would ever be able to raise any bugs about the Spitfire or any other RAF type.

Just be frank about it. All you want is to cover up the Spitfire roll rate bug. It rolls 3 times as fast than it should, there's plenty of documentation about the real world figures and how it does not match up. It does not require anybody's opinion, because its a FACT. RAE has tested it in 1940, found that it rolled 90 degrees in 8 seconds at 400 mph, we have tested it under the same conditions in Il2COD in 2012, and has found that it rolls in about 2.5 secs instead. Its not a matter of anybody's opinion anymore. It simply does not match RL figures.

Nor do anybody agrees with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of people acknowledged and endorsed that bug at il2bugreport already. You of course are not one of them.

because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does.

No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.

You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to.

Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.


You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?

I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game.

You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.

I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.

[Osprey]

And..? If we would need the 'approval' of our trio of braindead rafanatics, nobody would ever be able to raise any bugs about the Spitfire or any other RAF type.

Just be frank about it. All you want is to cover up the Spitfire roll rate bug. It rolls 3 times as fast than it should, there's plenty of documentation about the real world figures and how it does not match up. It does not require anybody's opinion, because its a FACT. RAE has tested it in 1940, found that it rolled 90 degrees in 8 seconds at 400 mph, we have tested it under the same conditions in Il2COD in 2012, and has found that it rolls in about 2.5 secs instead. Its not a matter of anybody's opinion anymore. It simply does not match RL figures.

Nor do anybody agrees with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of people acknowledged and endorsed that bug at il2bugreport already. You of course are not one of them.



No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.



Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.


You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?



You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.



I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.

Nice. I can just imagine that you must've totally lost it during that diatribe, you don't like bites into your reputation above everything else. Too late though, everybody has you sussed out mate :D

I haven't voted for some of the Luftwaffe bugs purely because I do not know the facts of the matter, because just voting without knowing would just be plain stupid don't you think? If I were against them then I'd have voted against.

But the real lunacy is the implication that I want the 109 'nerfed'. Absolutely not. But even a complete dunce can see from your own data that the 109 roll rate is worse than the Spitfire at high speeds, even when you use comparative data from 'rogue' aircraft against captured 109's.
More simply and in support of my suggestion of your bias is that you apply the adjective 'nerfed' to anything that is of detriment to the 109, regardless of fact. So thanks for supporting my point here.

PS Please take the time to look up No.501 squadron and which type we fly, just to correct you on another conclusion you've jumped to.

[Kurfürst]

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

[fruitbat]

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

Out of interest, do you consider yourself as objective?

[Osprey]

He does, nobody else does though.

@Kurfurst. Hypocritical of you to make demands on others when you are a master of avoiding questions and evidence when you are asked to prove some of your other claims. I don't operate to your demands pal, I'll do it when I'm good and ready, it wouldn't make this patch anyway. I've still got to tidy up bug 174 after you posted your rubbish about the Spitfire IIa boost allowance.

[NZtyphoon]

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him. He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.


You haven't experienced the nastier side of Kurfurst here, on other forums, or on Wikipedia so it would be fair to say that there is another side to this; Kurfurst has (almost deliberately) provoked a great deal of animosity against himself and any views he supports, which has led to some prejudice against the Bf 109. Fair enough though, no further attacks on the source.

However, the data he has presented here, although genuine, is skewed against the Spitfire because it represents one aspect of a complex whole. By maintaining that flight reports about rogue Spitfires with badly adjusted ailerons - reports that are described by Geoffrey Quill - are representative of the flight characteristics of all Mk I Spitfires with fabric ailerons, is drawing an extremely long bow, as is presenting a Rechlin report about a captured Spitfire which may or may not have sustained damage to its ailerons or other parts of the airframe which helped skew the report. I know there have often been complaints about presenting A&AEE or RAE reports about captured 109s because of the state the airframes may have been in. Alfred Price suggests that there was often a certain amount of propaganda involved on both sides, so a degree of caution is needed when using WW2 flight test reports about an enemy's aircraft to generate objective data about that aircraft.

Geoffrey Quill noted that one of his major frustrations with the early Spitfires was the heaviness of the fabric ailerons at high speeds, another problem being, as he explained, the sensitivity of the fabric ailerons to slight variations of tolerances in and around the wing structure and on the aileron itself. The adoption of the metal covered ailerons did away with many of those variations and were on the vast majority of Spitfires.

[Glider]

As is often the case some of what Kurfurst says I agree with and other parts I don't. I totally agree with him re the ease of production and maintanence of the 109. These factors were well thought out during the design phase the RAF were very impressed about this and I have their report should anyone want me to post it.

His comments about the wing mounted weapons is partly true. They did have some impact on the 109's performance that is inevitable with the extra drag, but the biggest impact wasn't on a drop in speed which was a smaller reduction than you might think, but in handling. Difficult to measure but a major impact in combat, fine against unescorted bombers but you didn't want to tangle with a fighter with that extra load.

On the subject of 100 octane fuel for the RAF in the BOB we are poles apart and I do not suggest we get sucked into that topic here.

[Artist]

Sorry to interrupt, but: Kurfürst, you've a PM from me.

Artist