Throwing some light on rates of turn

[pstyle]

Hi all,

Had an interesting encounter on ATAG over the weekend.

I was in a Spit IIa

Was running about 200-230mph when I got bounced by a 109 at about 2,000ft. We both got low and slow fairly quickly. 109 was on my tail following me in a turn. Due to the already low speed, I dropped flaps and pulled round in a max rate.

For the first time in this game, I saw the 109 stay with me all the way around in the turn, for at least two full revolutions. He matched me for speed and turn rate. Both when I had flaps down, and when I had them up.

I think I stalled and got clobbered soon after. But I don't have the server info window on, so I could not see who it was. (I suspect Mr.X - he was online at the time)

Bravo to whoever that was.

I will never ever listen to anyone who complains about the Spit2a being "too maneuverable" anymore. Whoever was flying that 109 demonstrates that the 109 can stay with the Spit2a in a max-rate turn.

[6S.Manu]

Turning with a Spitifire at 2,000ft while having a good K/D ratio is not possible.

I really don't think he was Mr.X, nor your enemy was a good pilot.

[pstyle]

Turning with a Spitifire at 2,000ft while having a good K/D ratio is not possible.
NOT possible?

I really don't think he was Mr.X, nor your enemy was a good pilot.
Are you saying that he was a bad pilot for being able to turn with me?
I know it might be a bad tactical mistake (trying to turn with a spit) but that assumes the 109 cannot match the turn. This 109 did match the turn. And, of course, he had enough power to get away afterwards....

[6S.Manu]

NOT possible?

Are you saying that he was a bad pilot for being able to turn with me?
I know it might be a bad tactical mistake (trying to turn with a spit) but that assumes the 109 cannot match the turn. This 109 did match the turn. And, of course, he had enough power to get away afterwards....

Running cicles at sea level is going to kill the pilot soon or later, of course depending on the territory over which he's flying.

Now if the 109 was over his own territory, then ok, he can try to turn with the Spit (but then I ask why the Spit was in that awful position), otherwise it's a suicidal tactic.

IIRC Mr.X has a great K/D ratio, that mean he is not going to do those mistakes. :-)

[pstyle]

Running cicles at sea level is going to kill the pilot soon or later, of course depending on the territory over which he's flying.

Now if the 109 was over his own territory, then ok, he can try to turn with the Spit (but then I ask why the Spit was in that awful position), otherwise it's a suicidal tactic.

IIRC Mr.X has a great K/D ratio, that mean he is not going to do those mistakes. :-)

OK, I see what you're saying. Has anyone actually ever shot MRX down? ;)

I'd still like to know how this person got the 109 to turn like that though... first time I've ever seen one keep up in the turn.

[drewpee]

The only way you can make any sort of assessment on ac characteristics is to fly both with similar skill. I do fly both but am a better 109 pilot than spit/hurry. After the patch its harder to get a kill, red and blue. If you can get hits on a 109 in a extended dog fight that end low the spit will get the kill when the 109 stalls and hits the deck.
It's so dangerous to turn in the 109 now with it's new stall habits. Once in a stall it takes a hell of a lot of hight to recover (like five times more than before). After flying blue with limited success switched to red when they were out numbered. I felt sorry for the 109 pilots as all you have to do when he gets you in range is turn and he just can't. If he slows to match your turn he is as good as dead. Either he'll stall to the ground or you'll out turn him in just 1 turn and be on his 6.
As I said this is what I have found and there is always exceptions.

[pstyle]

I felt sorry for the 109 pilots as all you have to do when he gets you in range is turn and he just can't. If he slows to match your turn he is as good as dead. Either he'll stall to the ground or you'll out turn him in just 1 turn and be on his 6.
.

This is exactly my thoughts since the patch... Until this encounter on the weekend. I was looking over my shoulder thinking, there is no way he should be able to stay with me. Yet he did... that's why I'm not convinced any more by arguments about the 109 being such a bad turner.

[drewpee]

Dumb question I know but are you positive it was a 109? If it was you were unlucky because the vast majority of 109 pilots just couldn't turn with you now after the patch. Maybe if he had flaps extended but he would not then be able to keep up (at the moment with patch)

[drewpee]

pstyle I urge you to go on line and fly a 109 and you will honestly see for your self.:grin:

[pstyle]

.

[pstyle]

Dumb question I know but are you positive it was a 109? If it was you were unlucky because the vast majority of 109 pilots just couldn't turn with you now after the patch. Maybe if he had flaps extended but he would not then be able to keep up (at the moment with patch)

not a dumb question at all - it pays to be correct about details like that.
It was a 109. ;) I'm 100% on that
I was on ATAG server, and he was yellownose, crosses on the wings and shooting at me, from about 100-150m back. I had a pretty good view.

I can understand the incredulity. You should have heard me swearing on comms! I was dumbfounded (and cussing a lot) that he could stay with me... my poor squad mates were getting an earful!

pstyle I urge you to go on line and fly a 109 and you will honestly see for your self.:grin:
I've flown the 109 I can never get it to do what this guy was doing..... And flown against them plenty enough times to know what they can do (and I've watched them stall out, overshoot etc...)

[ZaltysZ]

At what day and hour that happened?

[pstyle]

At what day and hour that happened?

Sunday, around mid-day I think.
I wish I had the server info window on now.. and I wish I had recorded it too ;(

[drewpee]

I can understand the incredulity. You should have heard me swearing on comms! I was dumbfounded (and cussing a lot) that he could stay with me... my poor squad mates were getting an earful

LOL ,thats funny. I can just imagine it.

[von Brühl]

Are you sure you were in a max-rate turn in the Spit? Dropping flaps does not automatically guarantee that you are turning beyond the 109's capability.

[pstyle]

Are you sure you were in a max-rate turn in the Spit? Dropping flaps does not automatically guarantee that you are turning beyond the 109's capability.

OK, so max-rate turn usually requires a constant speed and altitude as well, I cannot grantee that. I didn't actually time the turn, and I didn't have the time, nor the measuring tools to calculate my actual (as opposed to indicated) rate against the flying manual. I was certainly turning as fast as I could, both before, and after dropping the flaps.

We've all seen how much of an advantage the Spit 2a has had in this game when turning. I've done it loads of times, drop into a hard turn, and if he still stays with me and I'm getting close to the stall, drop the flaps. This has always shook 109s.

But not this time. It seems there is someone out there who can really coax a 109 in the turn.....

Hey, it might just be my imagination. I might not have been turning very steeply... (I doubt that) because I wasn't broken (I had not been engaged yet, and I was over friendly territory) and I was just on the stall buffet.

[CaptainDoggles]

I was in a Spit IIa

Was running about 200-230mph when I got bounced by a 109 at about 2,000ft. We both got low and slow fairly quickly.You were at 230 mph at 2000 feet, and you say that you "got" low and slow? Sorry to say that 230 mph and 2000 feet is already low and slow to begin with.

I dropped flaps and pulled round in a max rate.
Edit: Not to mention that deploying flaps will DECREASE your turn rate, not increase it. How can you be sure you were at max turn rate? I'd bet that you weren't. Min radius is not the same as max rate.

[Al Schlageter]

You must have been really slow as the airbrakes, err flaps, have to up above 120mph.

[gimpy117]

I think the spit pilots are afraid of my G.50. Already Dropping flaps the minute they see an axis aircraft

:-P

[JTDawg]

To the question has anybody shot down Mr X , Yes i have! several other 71st, jeepy several times an i'm sure others have to ,but it only happens if your wing man tacktics are good. We have a little saying at 71st ,How many 71st does it take to shoot mr x down we found the number was 6 lol

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

How can they extend the flaps in full flight? Should not be the case or should cause damage.

[Robo.]

Edit: Not to mention that deploying flaps will DECREASE your turn rate.

Not in this sim I am afraid ;)

[pstyle]

You were at 230 mph at 2000 feet, and you say that you "got" low and slow? Sorry to say that 230 mph and 2000 feet is already low and slow to begin with.
How about 500ft and 130mph?
It's relative to the engagement conditions.


Edit: Not to mention that deploying flaps will DECREASE your turn rate, not increase it.

As others have noted...Try it in game see what you think.

[pstyle]

You were at 230 mph at 2000 feet, and you say that you "got" low and slow? Sorry to say that 230 mph and 2000 feet is already low and slow to begin with..

Oh, and the max speed you can get out of these Spit IIa is around 260-270mph.

So being 15% off max speed can hardly be described as "slow" now can it?

[robtek]

I don't have much spit experience, but when i flew the spit II on the ATAG server i easily reached 280 -290 mph in level flight!

[CaptainDoggles]

Yeah, sorry, you're not going to convince me that 2000 feet is not "low" and the graphs that BlackSix posted say that even the spit 1a can reach just over 300 mph on the deck.

So yes, you were low and slow.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Yeah, sorry, you're not going to convince me that 2000 feet is not "low" and the graphs that BlackSix posted say that even the spit 1a can reach just over 300 mph on the deck.

So yes, you were low and slow.

The graphs posted by Black Six only start at 3000 m, not at zero feet altitude.

The Spit Ia's maximum speed online at 0 feet altitude is 253 mph IAS (max boost 6.25 lbs @ 3000 rpms -- there is NO 12 lbs boost modelled in Cliffs of Dover for the Mark I/Ia Spits, nor both Hurricane Marks).

[ATAG_Snapper]

I don't have much spit experience, but when i flew the spit II on the ATAG server i easily reached 280 -290 mph in level flight!

The maximum ONLINE speed at sea level for the Spitfire IIa is 290 mph IAS, but drops rapidly down to 270 mph IAS by 5000 feet altitude and even further to 262 mph IAS by 10,000 feet -- as I'm sure you've noticed but failed to mention.

"Strangely", the OFFLINE Spitfire IIa does NOT lose IAS at the higher altitudes noted, but actually holds close to 300 mph IAS as it should.

I've already posted this several times in this forum, but clearly "the fix is in" by a number of you in wishing to suppress the historic capabilities of the Spitfires and Hurricanes in this "sim" (I use the term loosely) to maintain an unfair and unhistoric advantage online of the 109 over the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Clearly you have the devs' ears as witnessed by the further downgrading of the Spitfire and Hurricane performance curves in the latest patch.

Congrats, gentlemen. :rolleyes:

[von Brühl]

Rofl, they downgraded it to historic numbers, which apparantly is too much for you?

OP: Sorry for getting this thread derailed, I actually meant were you keeping your speed up at the optimized turning speed once you dropped your flaps? If not, it's very easy for a 109 to deploy partial flaps , maintaining a higher speed, and better turning via that route. As Doggles mentioned, getting too slow is just as detrimental to your turning ability as going too fast.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Rofl, they downgraded it to historic numbers, which apparantly is too much for you?
.

They are NOT historic and you and the rest of your crowd know it. Be smug all you want, but you fool no one.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Rofl, they downgraded it to historic numbers, which apparantly is too much for you?

They downgraded it to below the performance of an 87 octane fueled Spit tested at Boscombe Down in March 1940. Data for this aircraft only exists from 10,000ft up. This is N3171.

No, I'm not going to produce evidence, because all of these arguments are immaterial when we consider that no aircraft in the game can achieve its true operational ceiling. If this is unachievable within the bounds of the current game engine, any arguments about performance at any altitude are so much hot air. Whoever you are, and whoever you might think you want to be. How do the FMs compare @ 30,000ft?

When the designers of this so called simulator finally get around to modelling the atmosphere necessary to allow any aircraft modelled to perform as it should at any altitude, I'll start to take notice, but until then, I'm sorry but you're all talking faeces.

[IvanK]

Good point Dutch +1

[CaptainDoggles]

"Strangely"Are you implying that Maddox Games has purposely made the online flight model worse, due to bias?
I've already posted this several times in this forumOh get over yourself. I and I'm sure many others don't subscribe to your posts via RSS and so probably missed it. Graph is broken below 3000 meters? K. Thanks. First I've heard of it, now kindly stop attributing ignorance to malice and bias. :evil:

but clearly "the fix is in" by a number of you in wishing to suppress the historic capabilities of the Spitfires and Hurricanes in this "sim" (I use the term loosely) to maintain an unfair and unhistoric advantage online of the 109 over the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Clearly you have the devs' ears as witnessed by the further downgrading of the Spitfire and Hurricane performance curves in the latest patch.

Congrats, gentlemen. :rolleyes: Yeah yeah yeah, the big bad blue guys have a secret club where we all try to imbalance the game because we're Nazis in real life and walk around with hitler mustaches, etc etc.

Let's all ignore the haphazard way the developers have put together the game. Everything else in the sim is broken, but the flight models probably aren't broken, right? I mean, sure, the entire game is a complete mess and crashes constantly. But that's probably because they spent sooo much time on the flight models. These models must be exactly the way the developers want them to be.

That's the only explanation, right? It's gotta be the Luftmafia that's convinced MG to purposely nerf the spitfire. That makes perfect logical sense. It also makes sense that every single person on these forums who is a Blue pilot is complicit and should be blamed for the current state of the flight models (ignoring for a second that the Spit 1a is extremely competitive above 6km). We should all focus our anger on them. It's their fault. Those freedom-hating Nazi bastards.

Oh wait. Maybe the FMs are broken, just like the rest of the game. Maybe if we exercise a little patience we might get representative performance in game. Maybe it's not my fault that the FM's suck. Maybe it's not von Bruhl's fault. Maybe it's not robtek's fault.

One of the most immature posts I've read on these forums in a long time.

Is the game broken? Yes. Is the game broken for both sides? Yes. Does trying to blame it on Axis pilots help anyone? No.

Please stop.

[CaptainDoggles]

I could be just as much of a troll and point at the thousands of gallons of tears that were shed when they brought the spit 2a down from La-La-Land.

All that crying must have been done by Red pilots who want to suppress the historically accurate performance of the spitfire in favor of an inflated and overpowered model to maintain an unfair advantage online.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What a joke. The hyper-partisan nature of the posts that get made around here really piss me off.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

[CaptainDoggles]

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

No I don't think I will give it a rest.

I've argued many times for historical accuracy, and I think it's unconscionable for Snapper to come in here like some kind of Spitfire McCarthy, slinging mud at everyone and telling us it's our fault that the game is broken.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Settle down, Doggles, and learn how to read a chart for once. The Spitfire Ia chart provided by Black Six only STARTS at 3000 meters of altitude -- he himself admitted they did not have data for lower altitudes. Yet you start blathering how this same chart shows the Ia at 300 mph at sea level.

When you can demonstrate that you know what you're talking about perhaps then you can make a valid point.

[CaptainDoggles]

I'll admit to not reading the chart correctly. I was in a hurry and not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.

My reading errors aside, you don't get free license to come in here and try to paint me or whoever else as the reason the spitfire got nerfed. Go direct your comments to Luthier or to BlackSix, the community liaison.

Nobody blamed you when the Spit 2a was overmodeled.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I've argued many times for historical accuracy,

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

But you're right in that when the game was released, both the Spit II and the Rotol Hurri performed better compared to the 109 than they should. Tests I carried out myself said they performed closest to published data out of all the a/c however. This was pretty much accepted by all, including the 109 jocks who were saying that their mounts performed lower than historically.

What was expected by some in the patch was everything else to be brought up to that level of performance accuracy. Instead the RAF fighters have been neutered, and we're being told that the Spit II and Rotol Hurri were wrong.

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

Unfortunately, we can't ban everything on the blue team except bombers, because then we'd have no game.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide. ;)

[SEE]

I have seen a 109 match my turn but only on one occaision (with this patch).
I didn't make a mental note of the exact circumstances for that particular encounter so I wouldn't risk jumping to any conclusions.

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.

[CaptainDoggles]

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft. I agree 100%. The game is broken on a fundamental level, which makes it all the more galling to have somebody come in and tell me it's my fault that his precious spitfire is too slow.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels. I'm not unsympathetic to this, but why is Snapper not directing his rage at 1c? When did it suddenly become my fault or whoever else's fault?

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.Given the abysmal state of my Russian-language skills, I can't say I've seen his signature at sukhoi. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I have to ask again: how is this the fault of the forum members who fly axis?

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide. ;)Maybe you should bring that up next time you and Snapper are on comms.

[CaptainDoggles]

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

[WTE_Galway]

OK, so max-rate turn usually requires a constant speed and altitude as well, I cannot grantee that.

Maybe for some form of calibration to put in a text book or manual --- but historically a constant speed/altitude turn in a 109 gave well below the practical max turn rate for a short engagement (though clearly giving optimal sustained turn rate) and was regarded as a technique for mediocre pilots.


There is more than one account by German wartime fighter pilots that suggest that many Luftwaffe novices did not use the turning performance of the 109 to the full. They seem to have regarded the point at which the automatic slots popped out as being a warning to ease back. Only more experienced pilots pushed the Bf109 to its limits. The way the slots operated could itself be a problem, causing the Bf109 to "buck" and throw off the aim of the Bf109 pilot, perhaps at the critical moment.

From my understanding the historical way the 109 was flown by most of the experienced pilots was more the egg shaped turns described by Leykrauf. Deliberately pulling the slats out improves the instantaneous turn rate letting you crib lead for a snap shot or trade some excess speed for a few seconds at a better turn rate. However then you have to unload the wing again fairly smartly before too much E is lost and accelerate for a while before trying again.

I recall Molders may have had a different view on things but generally speaking flying the 109 in a nice neat circle was regarded as the best way possible to get shot down.

Max turn rate - like corner speed - is one of those armchair figures that its important not to get too fixated on.

[Talisman]

Having been out turned by a Me 109 E a few times when flying a Hurricane, I decided to check my CloD control calibration (green bars for input and output) and found that I was not getting full elevator deflection.
After giving the joystick some vigorous movements, full forward and back a few times, it appeared to reset to my original settings with full deflection. This seems to happen to me on an intermittent basis (when flying Me 109 too). I suspect that it may be my joystick, which is rather old now, so I plan to order a new one soon. I keep checking my elevator deflection now as I am unable to trust to it. Hope the new stick solves this issue for me. Perhaps others may be getting the odd glitch with elevator calibration too.

[6S.Manu]

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

Since FMs are not accurate IMO many Spitfire pilots should use this period of time to train themself on being successfull without TnBing like dogs in heat.

I've not voted for the 100 octane bug as a priority since I hope that meanwhile the overall quality of the RAF players can improve, since it's so boring to hunt guys running circles at 1km that most of my squadmates are not flying in public servers anymore.

There are some great Spitfire pilots out there: IMO many should learn from them without thinking to the actual speed performances of their plane.

Attacking with altitude advantage is only the first step...

[pstyle]

...not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.


You should reconsider your expectations.
...as I explained in the follow up, this is relative to where the engagement started. All I need to do, is go back and and an "er" to that post and this whole nit-picking falls apart.

Criticisms of the description/ terminology in the OP do nothing to add to this thread and are simply a side-show.

Here's the discussion point: 109 followed me around in a turn when I was turning as hard as I thought I could.

OK, so maybe I was not at the statistical max-rate, but I was sure I couldn't turn any faster.

[pstyle]

Having been out turned by a Me 109 E a few times when flying a Hurricane, I decided to check my CloD control calibration (green bars for input and output) and found that I was not getting full elevator deflection.

Thanks Talisman. It's not impossible that my stick was out of calibration. I had not checked this for a few days, and it is kinda old.
A sensible post.... at last.

[snapperpuss]

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills.

[pstyle]

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.


Do you think the Spit 1a outperforms the 2a at these altitudes?
Where did that post with the updated graphs go?.... I'd like to overlay the three spit variants....

[pstyle]

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.
.

I agree Snapper, there are a number of things about the Spits which are an unfair advantage - I fly them & I acknowledge this:
1. Canopy open has no performance implications. There isn't any red flyers on comms who don;t want this fixed, to my knowledge. Canopy open should slow you down. end of.
2. ramming. Not sure if it's the same for both sides, but sometimes I've collided and the other A/C has fallen apart whilst I've merrily flown on. Odd.
3. Damage decals... I don't know how confusing these are for the blue pilots, but they don't really indicate likely performance on the red A/C. Sometimes , though, I see no damage, yet cannot fly. Other times I have holes... but no effect on combat performance.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Having been out turned by a Me 109 E a few times when flying a Hurricane, I decided to check my CloD control calibration (green bars for input and output) and found that I was not getting full elevator deflection.
After giving the joystick some vigorous movements, full forward and back a few times, it appeared to reset to my original settings with full deflection. This seems to happen to me on an intermittent basis (when flying Me 109 too). I suspect that it may be my joystick, which is rather old now, so I plan to order a new one soon.

Its worth making sure that after turning on your joystick (if it isn't when you start up) and before you start the game that you move the stick through all its movement, including throttle. Sometimes if I don't my PC assumes that certain axes are at 100% when at 50% or so so there is not full movement and I have to move the stick through all its axes in the air when i realise which is dangerous. It might not be your joystick, just the way that calibration works.

[SEE]

These ac were tested in mock combat by the RAE back in 1940 and the results are well documented.

May be two or more players could agree to test the 109 v Spit on a server - find a quiet part of the map and be on the same TS channel.

It would be interesting to see the results of such a test for the CloD 109/Spits but, for the results to be meaningful, the players would have to be completely impartial.

[notafinger!]

... since it's so boring to hunt guys running circles at 1km that most of my squadmates are not flying in public servers anymore.

I agree. Since the patch the game is much less dynamic. Encountering nothing but Spit II's online is making things quite dull. Unless critical damage is inflicted on the first pass almost every combat will play out the same. The Hurricane & Spit Ia FM's should be a priority to make them competitive online.

[Stublerone]

Sorry, I am not that FM expert, but what is about turning speed at low speed.

Perhaps I remember wrong, but as I learned it, the graphs of spit vs 109 always showed the tendency, that the bf suddenly turns better than a spit at real slow speed. I even remwmber some graphs, that a 109 even could turn faster at some low speed, than a LA5. Were this graphs referring to the real life or to the old il2?

I also remember some flights in old il2, where I thought, that I pulled my F4 to the max, but a P38 turned with me. I know that this smy fault and my lack of flying skills at this time, so you should really ask yourself, if the other pilot was simply much better pilot than you!?!

Just to throw the big ???? of skill lack into the discussion of this case. :) I do not want to blame anybody, bit just take it into account when argueing about fm.

What I got to hear from some skilled pilots and self named experts is the opposite of snapper. I heard thatthis should be okay so far, because bf109 had nearly no fm advantage left. They for sure say, that there are other things to be fixed, but I never heard anybody of them complaining as hard as snapper.

The bf is not uber! I am really looking forward to the implementation of fw190's WITH "kommandogeraet?", which will cause the focke to be uber in many condition. But that is another topic, but red pilots will argue about that as well. :)

[pstyle]

These ac were tested in mock combat by the RAE back in 1940 and the results are well documented.
May be two or more players could agree to test the 109 v Spit on a server - find a quiet part of the map and be on the same TS channel.
It would be interesting to see the results of such a test for the CloD 109/Spits but, for the results to be meaningful, the players would have to be completely impartial.

Not a bad idea.
Could run a series of tests where pilots fly 109 v spits, then swap aircraft.

Then also put the same guys in spits v spits and 109s v 109s just to see how much human/ pilot skill influences their ability to turn.

[pstyle]

...incidentally, did a performance graph for the Spit 2a ever get released by BalckSix after that patch? I can only find 1a graphs....

[drewpee]

It's said that so many discussions end in an argument that is so obviously and selfishly swayed by the plane they fly. Planes on both side were very close in the out come of a dog fight in the BOB. It came down to pilot ability and luck. I find that just checking the stats window can give you a pretty good idea what planes are performing best at different stages of game development. For instance I have noticed the Hurricane has fallen from favor and scores are lower overall (red slightly ahead).

At the moment both sides are down on fighter performance and it's very frustrating since the patch. I don't mind to much because COD is a work in progress. The main aim at the moment is computer performance issues and progress (for most)is obviously being made because more guys are playing now.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills.

Actually, you raise some valid points that need to be fixed -- especially the open canopy that doesn't cause any speed reduction. The "sound radar" was greatly reduced with the latest patch, but not eliminated.

Turning rate reduction with the patch? Can't say -- no data on that. Visible damage with no effect on performance? Can't say I've been that lucky. Ram a 109 and fly away undamaged? Can't say, either -- never done it.

Bring back old Spit IIa? Nope. Just fix the FM of the existing Spits and Hurries. Yes, that does mean 100 octane and 12 (not 20) lbs boost with the short term performance boost that was historically accurate.

One last thing: if you have any strength of conviction then have the guts to post under your regular handle.

[Stublerone]

You will always be on the side of your favorite plane and that is also a good point. So, you can only rely on ingame graphs to be released and discuss that. Hopefzlly, after the performance fix, tje dwvs can talk with us about that topic and I see that coming. It bexomes necessary as more and more planes will join the game with sequels. Just let us hope, that they will get into thos discussion soon, but not on the currently given data. You can just discuss, when ingame data is available. Then you can compare between the planes and also between game and reality data to change non sufficient simulation of various things. This will be a long way, because there is so much things to influence performance or behaviour of the graphs ingame in simulated conditions. It is very difficult.

Concerning "kommandogeraet" a friend told me, that a spit mk XVII and a focke flew side by side and the spit already had full throttlle, while the fw190 flew withnearly no throttle. I think, that pilots often do some faults and that this kommandogeraet was really superior. The focke pilot just flies, while the spit pilot has to manage several things in every new condituon to maintain good performance. I hope, that this will be simulated as well. So, one fault by a spit pilot and he gets serious problems with the focke! :)

[ATAG_Snapper]

I agree Snapper, there are a number of things about the Spits which are an unfair advantage - I fly them & I acknowledge this:
1. Canopy open has no performance implications. There isn't any red flyers on comms who don;t want this fixed, to my knowledge. Canopy open should slow you down. end of.
2. ramming. Not sure if it's the same for both sides, but sometimes I've collided and the other A/C has fallen apart whilst I've merrily flown on. Odd.
3. Damage decals... I don't know how confusing these are for the blue pilots, but they don't really indicate likely performance on the red A/C. Sometimes , though, I see no damage, yet cannot fly. Other times I have holes... but no effect on combat performance.

Trust me, that wasn't my post! LOL

But he/she did raise some valid points which few take issue -- including the canopy. Haven't collided with any 109's post patch, but I'll take the faceless "snapperpuss" word that it's only the Spit that flies away unharmed from a ramming and never the 109. Huge damage on a Spit but no change in performance? Hmmm, as I said in my response to him -- I haven't been that lucky yet!

[pstyle]

Trust me, that wasn't my post! LOL

But he/she did raise some valid points which few take issue -- including the canopy. Haven't collided with any 109's post patch, but I'll take the faceless "snapperpuss" word that it's only the Spit that flies away unharmed from a ramming and never the 109. Huge damage on a Spit but no change in performance? Hmmm, as I said in my response to him -- I haven't been that lucky yet!

Sorry for attributing that to you!

I'm not 100% convinced on the reference to "huge" damage. but I do think the damage decals can be confusing though.

[ATAG_Snapper]

These ac were tested in mock combat by the RAE back in 1940 and the results are well documented.

May be two or more players could agree to test the 109 v Spit on a server - find a quiet part of the map and be on the same TS channel.

It would be interesting to see the results of such a test for the CloD 109/Spits but, for the results to be meaningful, the players would have to be completely impartial.

That's a great idea, Evangelus. I recuse myself since no one would believe me to be impartial, and also because I have very little stick time in the 109 to do it justice.

I myself am doubtful as to the accuracy of the RAE's findings with the 109. No slight to the RAE intended, but they were using a captured 109 without benefit of factory techs (AFAIK), specialized factory tools, etc. The statement that the Spitfire easily matched the 109 in a dive raised my eyebrows -- was this indeed a 109 in as-new shape in proper tune and fitting?

I'd be very interested to hear the findings and impressions of all flyers concerned.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Its worth making sure that after turning on your joystick (if it isn't when you start up) and before you start the game that you move the stick through all its movement, including throttle. Sometimes if I don't my PC assumes that certain axes are at 100% when at 50% or so so there is not full movement and I have to move the stick through all its axes in the air when i realise which is dangerous. It might not be your joystick, just the way that calibration works.

I think you and Talisman may be on to something. In flight I've sometimes noticed I wasn't getting full deflection of my ailerons (Spitfires, Hurricanes), but figured that was due to, what? Airstream pressure? On the ground I always had full deflection of all control surfaces, so I never gave it much thought. I never did any altitude/airspeed checks on control surface effect. It may be hardware-related or another bug come to light.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Since FMs are not accurate IMO many Spitfire pilots should use this period of time to train themself on being successfull without TnBing like dogs in heat.

I've not voted for the 100 octane bug as a priority since I hope that meanwhile the overall quality of the RAF players can improve, since it's so boring to hunt guys running circles at 1km that most of my squadmates are not flying in public servers anymore.

There are some great Spitfire pilots out there: IMO many should learn from them without thinking to the actual speed performances of their plane.

Attacking with altitude advantage is only the first step...

Well, many of us have had over a year "to train [ourselves] on being successful", then with the latest patch we suddenly have the enhanced opportunity to become even MORE "successful" -- with the RAF fighter FM's getting further nerfed. :rolleyes:

As many Blue 109 pilots say: "It's the pilot, not the plane." Well, until the pre-patch Spitfire IIa's were rolled out. Suddenly those Blue pilots weren't saying that anymore! LOL

None of the fighters, LW or RAF, have accurate flight modelling at present. The two that actually came closest, the pre-patch Spitfire IIa and Hurricane Rotol, were penalized because of their relative performance at the time to the 109's inaccurate FM. Go figure: a "coding optimization" patch also managed to slip in FM changes detrimental to the RAF fighters.

No recognition by 1C was given to the 12 lbs boost/100 octane issue with the Spit Ia and Hurri Rotol. It's a shame. The Blue pilots are being denied the "opportunity to be more successful" and are saddled with B&Z impunity over RAF fighters. :rolleyes:

[6S.Manu]

These ac were tested in mock combat by the RAE back in 1940 and the results are well documented.

May be two or more players could agree to test the 109 v Spit on a server - find a quiet part of the map and be on the same TS channel.

It would be interesting to see the results of such a test for the CloD 109/Spits but, for the results to be meaningful, the players would have to be completely impartial.

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

[ATAG_Dutch]

how is this the fault of the forum members who fly axis?.

It isn't. But the people who post reams of 'data' receive a level of support from the members, both on the forum and on the bugtracker.

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters.

Great. Unfortunately, no other aircraft has been adjusted to perform more true to life over this altitude, so the Ia is the only a/c worth flying up there. Add to this the ridiculous altitude limit imposed by the 'broken game' as you put it, why should we be smug whilst we're flying around up there between 18and 22,000ft on our own in our Spit Ia, up where no Blue chaps will go?

Maybe you should bring that up next time you and Snapper are on comms.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with me ole mate Snapper on most points he's raised.

Oh and here's a Google translate of Luthier's Sukhoi signature;

'Messershmidt all the chief and commander of the Spitfire'

[drewpee]

I see no point in continually quoting RL performance figures at this time. The argument just goes around in circles. I think for the moment until the Dev's are ready to implement more complexed flight/damage model keeping teams balanced is important for online play. Online if one plane is far superior then those who prefer to dominate rather than be challenged will forgo alliances and go for the killer plane. When the 109e-4 was arguably the better ac I would fly the 109e-1. When it was the spit-II dominating I would fly the spit-I. If I'm going to win I like it to be on equal terms. I know I'm not alone, many pilots are tired of imbalanced planes.

[ZaltysZ]

Oh and here's a Google translate of Luthier's Sukhoi signature;

'Messershmidt all the chief and commander of the Spitfire'

It is "Chief of all Messerschmitts and Commander of Spitfires".

[6S.Manu]

No recognition by 1C was given to the 12 lbs boost/100 octane issue with the Spit Ia and Hurri Rotol. It's a shame. The Blue pilots are being denied the "opportunity to be more successful" and are saddled with B&Z impunity over RAF fighters. :rolleyes:

Blue pilots had the opportunity to learn in 10 years of IL2... flying a truck called Fw190, provided with ridiculous gunsights and gas tanks, against anti-G planes who didn't overheat and could lose oil for more than 10 minute (I'm not talking only about Spitfires, of course... do you know the old P39?)

They had the opportunity to learn teamwork tactics and to be patient, otherwise they would be fresh meat...

Don't worry, one day they will model the 100octane version and I'm sure nobody will say a thing against... provided that it's modelled as a real plane and not as anti-G machine like the Oleg's planes...

Be sure, SpitIIs were/are/will be not a problem until they are not flown in the correct way.

Just for your knowledge the last time I've flown alone in CloD I found myself against a Spit a 5000km over the channel... he tried an headon (a stupid manouvre I say), he made a 180° flat turn while I was trying an Immelmann turn that I failed to complete because on my lack of experience on CloD planes.

So I was in disadvantage and I've started a gentle dive for my territory... the guy followed me gaining as I was keeping my speed very high (probably a SpitII but who cares?)... he followed me over my home base, down at 1km where two other 109s helped me so that I could take him down.

Simply that was a moron.

Now I'm really getting frightened that this uprising for the 100octane Spitfire as priority, historical or not, it's only to kill the enemy without difficulties... since it's easier to stick you nose on someone 6 gaining on him instead of to lose time in learning tactics and teamwork.

[pstyle]

.. since it's easier to stick you nose on someone 6 gaining on him instead of to lose time in learning tactics and teamwork.

I hear your pain.. but there will always be one aircraft which dives faster/ more stable than the others. Which ever this happens to be, that guy will always be able to follow other aircraft down and kill them. (until we get some actual working clouds to hide in)

In my opinion (based mainly on reading pilot's biographies etc) I would think that, generally the German built fighters (109s and 190s) were "better" in the dive than the British variants. And only the P-51 and P-47s were really their equivalent in the dive - as a general rule.

[pstyle]

It is "Chief of all Messerschmitts and Commander of Spitfires".

thanks for putting that one to bed.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

Manu, you raise some good points IMHO about the fallibility of the RAE tests -- I forgot to add about the 109 pilot not being an actual LW pilot (and preferably an experten to wring out maximum performance from the captured 109). Obviously it was the best the RAE could provide at the time, but it would've been dangerous for a Spitfire pilot to put his trust in those RAE test results for the reasons we've both noted.

What Evangelus (See) suggests is of value and interest from a subjective viewpoint. It can help point to some glaring issues with both aircraft if all pilots' findings agree. Per your post, any actual changes to FM's of any aircraft should be done scientifically using established data. A good example would be the increasing complaints amongst 109 pilots of the wicked flight departure in an accelerated stall that seems to have cropped up with the latest patch + Hotfix. Is this really so? Certainly organized trials with Red & Blue pilots, all on Teamspeak, could establish this fairly quickly during dogfight scenarios. If all (or most) pilots actually find this to be so, then this would certainly be worth noting on the Bugtracker Report as a high priority item.

(As a Red pilot, I get great satisfaction if a pursuing Blue pilot "collides with terrain" at ground level....call it a "maneuver kill". But I would get no satisfaction if it occurs at, say, 2000 feet. I would much rather try for a guns kill as he recovers from the stall or take that opportunity to escape if I'm damaged or Winchester-ammo.)

So, I'm strongly in favour of one-on-one trials with plane swapping simply to get the subjective viewpoints of the pilots as a matter of interest.

[ATAG_Snapper]

@Manu: Any time I've gone head-to-head with a 109 it's been accidental -- usually not paying attention -- and I've always lost! LOL

The 12 lbs boost/100 octane historically was for emergency use only. If a Spitfire pilot uses it for a prolonged chase over the Channel he's asking for oil on his canopy and the 109 to circle back and demolish his badly-shaking aircraft. It DOES make the Spitfire extremely dangerous to the 109 pilot who gets careless in a boom & zoom attack, but the Spit will be far from invincible. It WILL discourage 109 pilots from loitering over RAF airfields as they will no longer enjoy total impunity from Spits clawing their way upwards to meet their airfield suppression attacks.

Spitfires are SUPPOSED to be frightening to its opponents, just as the 109's are frightening to the Spitfire pilots.

[6S.Manu]

I hear your pain.. but there will always be one aircraft which dives faster/ more stable than the others. Which ever this happens to be, that guy will always be able to follow other aircraft down and kill them. (until we get some actual working clouds to hide in)

In my opinion (based mainly on reading pilot's biographies etc) I would think that, generally the German built fighters (109s and 190s) were "better" in the dive than the British variants. And only the P-51 and P-47s were really their equivalent in the dive - as a general rule.

You forget the mighty Tempest! ;-)

But it's not really a issue of who's the faster IMO.

The problem resides in the realizing of your plane performance and the enemy's one, and how to fight because of these. Understanding your chances regarding energy state, relative position and territory over which you're fighting.

If I'm in the slower plane, for example a 190 against a P51, do you really think I'm going to follow the P51 in level flight KNOWING that I can't gain on him? No... first I'll try to not be in energetic disadvantage and if I'm forced to fight in that position then I will not stand on the P51's six for more than 5 seconds, above all if he's pointing at his territory. Of course he will attack me again when I turn away.. as he should.

The famous DnB... the most liked tactic of 190s... an impossible tactic without slower planes flown by guys with target fixation issues.

And if you are afflicted by this terrible curse that's target fixation then why don't you fly with a wingman? (here I'm not referring to you pstyle :-) )

You need only to stay over your home base and every 10 minute you'll see some enemy guy coming to strafe you on the landing strip, coming ALONE... give him a faster plane, nothing will change. Except that he will reach you in 30 seconds but it's enough to be killed by your wingman.

[6S.Manu]

@Manu: Any time I've gone head-to-head with a 109 it's been accidental -- usually not paying attention -- and I've always lost! LOL

The 12 lbs boost/100 octane historically was for emergency use only. If a Spitfire pilot uses it for a prolonged chase over the Channel he's asking for oil on his canopy and the 109 to circle back and demolish his badly-shaking aircraft. It DOES make the Spitfire extremely dangerous to the 109 pilot who gets careless in a boom & zoom attack, but the Spit will be far from invincible. It WILL discourage 109 pilots from loitering over RAF airfields as they will no longer enjoy total impunity from Spits clawing their way upwards to meet their airfield suppression attacks.

Spitfires are SUPPOSED to be frightening to its opponents, just as the 109's are frightening to the Spitfire pilots.

And I can't wait for a so well modelled Spitfire. :-)

I'm only stating that it's not really a priority in the sim IMO.. of course it HAS to be modelled for historical accuracy, but if the number of downed Spits is always upper than the number of lost 109s it's not because RAF misses the 12lbs boost... it's because the wrong tactics.

Don't get me wrong, Spitfires ARE FRIGHTENING (seriously, since my first objective is to avoid my own KIA/MIA) but only IF they are in the correct position and flown by an expert guy.

If I scroll the ingame score table and I read that a pair of the DangerDogz veterans are currently flying on a Spit you can bet I'm really worried about this.

But if I find a lonely spit 2km under my position why should I be worried? Probably only if it was a Oleg's Spit25lbs...

About headons, my squad severely prohibits them... there is actually one pilot who keeps doing them but it's the black sheep of the squad (and it's funny since he's our only real military pilot :-D ).

Anyway inside the message board of 12oclockhigh.net a guy posted this (confirmation needed):

This report is in "The Captive Luftwaffe" by Kenneth S. West, pp127-135:

"Mock dog-fights were staged between the Bf 109 and a Spitfire, both flown by pilots of the RAE. In addition, a number of fighter pilots, all of whom had recent operational flying experience, visited the RAE with their Spitfires and Hurricanes in order to obtain further combat practice. During these flights AE479 (W.Nr. 1304) was flown by RAE pilot, Flying Officer J.E. Pebody, who had completed the handling tests and was thoroughly familiar with it, and could thus be expected to get the best out of it. ...

"When the Bf 109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that the British aircraft turned inside the German machine 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 Bf 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because their pilots would not tighten up the turns sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning. ...

"During the dog-fights against the Hurricane and Spitfire it became apparent that these fighters could out-turn the Bf 109 with ease when flown by determined pilots. Since the minimum radius of turn without height loss depends largely on stalling speed, and hence on wing loading, the poor turning performance of the Bf 109 may be ascribed to its high wing loading, 32.2 lb/sq ft compared with 24.8 lb/sq ft on the Spitfire. The minimum radius of turn without height loss was obtained by flying as near to the stall as possible at comparatively little g; this radius was about 696 ft on the Spitfire as against 885 ft on the Bf 109."

As I said many times.. flying was a matter of bravery... it was a dangerous thing and actually some "pilots" were braver than other "pilots"...

It happens in IL2, ROF or DCS too... I'm afraid of the stall/spin and my squadmate, flying the same plane with the same loadout, can out-turn me.

[CaptainDoggles]

Do you think the Spit 1a outperforms the 2a at these altitudes?
Where did that post with the updated graphs go?.... I'd like to overlay the three spit variants....

I don't know for sure if the 1a outperforms the 2a at those altitudes, but it certainly outperforms the 109. I'll perhaps fly a test later tonight.

[CaptainDoggles]

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills.

:lol:

[ATAG_Snapper]

I'm only stating that it's not really a priority in the sim IMO.. of course it HAS to be modelled for historical accuracy, but if the number of downed Spits is always upper than the number of lost 109s it's not because RAF misses the 12lbs boost... it's because the wrong tactics.

Well, I think it's fair to say many Red pilots would disagree about the wrong tactics getting them shot down. But if you are right, then Red pilots will still get shot down even with their 100 octane/12 lbs boost because of these "wrong tactics". However, the strong opposition to the 12 lb boost would indicate many Blue pilots don't think this at all.

Are Blue pilots afraid of Spitfires getting their precious 12 lbs boost because, on a limited basis, the 109's and Spitfires will now be fighting on a more level playing field? Or is it apples-to-oranges, cannon shells-to-rifle bullets? (oops, poor choice of words, eh? ;) )

[ATAG_Snapper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by snapperpuss
"Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills."

Even I had to laugh at this one. :)

(And I realize that whoever posted used the nom-de-plume to avoid a possible infraction -- which I wouldn't want to have happen on my account)

[CaptainDoggles]

(And I realize that whoever posted used the nom-de-plume to avoid a possible infraction -- which I wouldn't want to have happen on my account)It's easy enough for the moderators to check IP logs and see who the real account holder is.

[6S.Manu]

Well, I think it's fair to say many Red pilots would disagree about the wrong tactics getting them shot down. But if you are right, then Red pilots will still get shot down even with their 100 octane/12 lbs boost because of these "wrong tactics". However, the strong opposition to the 12 lb boost would indicate many Blue pilots don't think this at all.

Are Blue pilots afraid of Spitfires getting their precious 12 lbs boost because, on a limited basis, the 109's and Spitfires will now be fighting on a more level playing field? Or is it apples-to-oranges, cannon shells-to-rifle bullets? (oops, poor choice of words, eh? ;) )

You already know how I'm thinking about it... I'm just watching the total of votes on the bugtracker: I don't think many guys here are against the 100 octane fuel introduction.

Think about the Spitfires outnumbering the P51s on the old IL2 public servers... Most people don't care about their safety (being in a faster plane), they care about TnBing... no tactic, no patience... they act like dogs in heat, point the nearest target. Above all the Spit are historically easy to fly... it's not surprising if many newbies fly them. And to be honest you have to know that I did not let my cadets to fly 109F4 or G2 too...

Give them more speed.. nothing will change until they learn how the real pilots were fighting (ambush and BnZing as priority).

If you ask me I'll always take the P51 over anything... or the Spitfire over the P47 if I have to fly under 10km. If I can't choose then I will think about a tactic (probably it will result on me diving away as during the hunting of heavy bombers... I can't fight against P51 and P47 at 10km... then I'll dive away after the headon with the bombers)

BtW the strong opposition is coming from only 2 guys because of historical accuracy...

[ATAG_Snapper]

OK, I misunderstood your statement on why you thought adding the 12 lb boost should be a low priority. Virtually ALL of the "veteran" CoD Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who already employ solid ACM tactics strongly feel that 12 lbs of boost be a high priority. It makes no sense to make the 12 lbs of boost a low priority simply because newbie pilots would possibly misuse it!

[SEE]

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean for the RAE tests to be uses as benchmarks for what we have in CloD - that would be pointless. I was just pointing out that, like the RAE did, it's possible to do similar and make in game comparisons regards particular aspects of FM that are the subject of discussion.

[Crumpp]

I don't think many guys here are against the 100 octane fuel introduction.


It was certainly being used and the RAF was in the process of transitioning. Of course it should be included.

Both sides were phasing in 100 Octane fuels during the Battle of Britain.

IMHO, they should model the stability and control characteristics of both aircraft correctly, too.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Does ANY thread dealing with something even remotely related to aircraft performance need to turn into a slap concest on the 100 octane issue?

[WTE_Galway]

As I said many times.. flying was a matter of bravery... it was a dangerous thing and actually some "pilots" were braver than other "pilots"...

It happens in IL2, ROF or DCS too... I'm afraid of the stall/spin and my squadmate, flying the same plane with the same loadout, can out-turn me.


This factor was hugely significant with rookie pilots in 109's. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that the combination of the wings creaking loudly under high wing load and the slats pulling out and then slamming shut with a loud bang each time was enough to make rookie pilots avoid tight turns.

Experienced pilots of course had learnt to trust the aircraft, anticipate slat deployment (and take it into account when shooting) and flew quite differently.

Its quite possible this trait of the 109 partially explains the typical later Luftwaffe order of battle where one or two Experten in each squadron undertook most of the combat supported by a large number of less skilled pilots.

[drewpee]

When arguing for 100 octane fuel are you saying the red plane should be faster than they are now? If red planes should be faster due to historical correctness I can understand your concern but only if the blue planes are like wise correct in speed and climb rates, but are they? I both teams are equally down on speed the its not a big problem. Speed is only a figure on the screen as long as its relative to all moving objects. It would fool most of us if they added 10% to the ias gauge.

[6S.Manu]

This factor was hugely significant with rookie pilots in 109's. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that the combination of the wings creaking loudly under high wing load and the slats pulling out and then slamming shut with a loud bang each time was enough to make rookie pilots avoid tight turns.

Experienced pilots of course had learnt to trust the aircraft, anticipate slat deployment (and take it into account when shooting) and flew quite differently.

Its quite possible this trait of the 109 partially explains the typical later Luftwaffe order of battle where one or two Experten in each squadron undertook most of the combat supported by a large number of less skilled pilots.

It's partially possible: still I think the most important duty of the veterans was to keep the rookies alive for 4-5 missions and that's easily more a tactic matter then practicing "tight turns".

Probably in the training centers whose rookies learned how to fly/takeoff/land, acquainting themself with the plane (mechanically).
A combat mission was really a different thing.

You take some virtual rookies and they will do always the same errors during the first dogfights except for some guys who actually had enough prior experience: I used to have some 1v1 flying in a HurricaneMkI against anything they wanted to ride, above all against the cocky ones... after their 5th KIA they learned that good tactics are superior to raw performances (above all turn rate).

But these virtual pilots can actually die more times. The real ones had to learn what to do and not to do in combat: probably tight turning was not a priority.

Anyway, about the RAE mock fights:

- we know that Flying Officer J.E. Pebody had completed the handling tests, but we don't know how these were conducted... was he totally familiar with the plane? Hermann Graf had a very troubling training on the 109... he was almost to be thrown out of the door and he was more a lucky dogfighter than a silent killer as Hartmann. Could the RAE pilot really push the plane at his 100% also with the slats opened as the 109 veterans did?

- many pilots has flown against him: what about their experience? It's is possible that many (the statement says "large number") of them were not-rookies and still had fear of stalling and spinning (ergo Spitfires could actually lose energy in turns), or maybe were those fresh rookies?

It would be a nice to have some info about that.

[ATAG_Snapper]

When arguing for 100 octane fuel are you saying the red plane should be faster than they are now? If red planes should be faster due to historical correctness I can understand your concern but only if the blue planes are like wise correct in speed and climb rates, but are they? I both teams are equally down on speed the its not a big problem. Speed is only a figure on the screen as long as its relative to all moving objects. It would fool most of us if they added 10% to the ias gauge.

Fair question, Drewpee. Camber's recent post may shed some light on this issue:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=428514&postcount=56

[Crumpp]

Speed is only a figure on the screen as long as its relative to all moving objects.

And all the FM's are ~25mph off.....in some unknown configuration...ie radiator settings, atmospheric conditions, etc...

It is all relative.

I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.

I am willing to bet the FM's are closer than one would think in terms of level speed and climb rates. The stability and control characteristics are not close though.

[ATAG_Snapper]

And all the FM's are ~25mph off.....in some unknown configuration...ie radiator settings, atmospheric conditions, etc...

It is all relative.

I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.

I am willing to bet the FM's are closer than one would think in terms of level speed and climb rates. The stability and control characteristics are not close though.

I wouldn't bet a lot of money, because they're not.

[drewpee]

Looks like you are doing some intense testing there Crumpp. Maybe a test pilot in a former life.
I just hope flight models are looked at soon. I think online player numbers will start to drop if both red and blue can't both be competitive. At the moment dog fights are lasting too long with poor results. Very frustrating. I'd rather both spit and 109 were slower as long as 2 good pilots can end a dog fight, win or loose, live or die, with a smile on year face.:)

[ElAurens]

I just scanned this thread, as it is just like 100 other threads about FMs/aircraft performance vs. historical numbers.

Gents, we are all chasing our tails here, and no I don't mean a defensive circle...

None of the aircraft are correct, NOT ONE OF THEM.

Why beat each other up over this? We are stuck with an alpha build game currently.

It's why I don't fly much anymore, and believe me I do miss it. But it's just not worth doing at this point. When I do fly I just patrol inland and try to find unescorted bombers, if I see fighters I will generally try to run away as any fighter on fighter combat is utterly broken in the sim as it is. And it's not just aircraft performance at issue, visibility, sound, atmospherics, etc... all add up to a less than enjoyable time online.

I hope it does not take a further year to sort this mess out. I want to fly again, and enjoy it.

[335th_GRAthos]

Does ANY thread dealing with something even remotely related to aircraft performance need to turn into a slap concest on the 100 octane issue?

ROFL!

A proof that people can still take things with good humour, even after years reading this forum... cudos! :D :D :D :D

+1



~S~

[ATAG_Dutch]

I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.


Hmmm.....did you also notice that in a flat out dive, it's very difficult to get over 410mph IAS, and at 420mph IAS your ailerons fall off?

According to the Spit I pilot's notes provided with the collector's edition, max safe speed in a dive is 450mph IAS.

[bw_wolverine]

Hmmm.....did you also notice that in a flat out dive, it's very difficult to get over 410mph IAS, and at 420mph IAS your ailerons fall off?

According to the Spit I pilot's notes provided with the collector's edition, max safe speed in a dive is 450mph IAS.

I did some dive testing a while back to figure out my limits and my results confirm this. 400mph is sustainable, but 420 will rip my ailerons off after a couple seconds.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I did some dive testing a while back to figure out my limits and my results confirm this. 400mph is sustainable, but 420 will rip my ailerons off after a couple seconds.

Big whoop. Use the rudder and the roll rate is STILL too fast! LOL

[Talisman]

I just scanned this thread, as it is just like 100 other threads about FMs/aircraft performance vs. historical numbers.

Gents, we are all chasing our tails here, and no I don't mean a defensive circle...

None of the aircraft are correct, NOT ONE OF THEM.

Why beat each other up over this? We are stuck with an alpha build game currently.

It's why I don't fly much anymore, and believe me I do miss it. But it's just not worth doing at this point. When I do fly I just patrol inland and try to find unescorted bombers, if I see fighters I will generally try to run away as any fighter on fighter combat is utterly broken in the sim as it is. And it's not just aircraft performance at issue, visibility, sound, atmospherics, etc... all add up to a less than enjoyable time online.

I hope it does not take a further year to sort this mess out. I want to fly again, and enjoy it.

I fly on-line rather than off-line and must admit that I am flying less and less now too and I never thought that would happen! It is all getting rather depressing.

Lack of historical accuracy, particularly performance accuracy for both Red and Blue aircraft, but especially for Red aircraft for me as I belong to an RAF squad, and game performance issues is resulting in less and less enjoyment as I wait for improvements. Am I waiting in vein though?

Do the developers care much about historical accuracy? Are we wrong to presume that historical accuracy is a high priority, or are they more interested in the game aspects rather than a high level of simulation?

How much historical inaccuracy are customers willing to put up with I wonder? There is not much dialog from the CloD development team regarding historical flight models as far as I can see, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Should we expect more dialog or are we lucky to get what we get?

I can’t help feeling that some transparency regarding the aircraft flight models and the development teams rationale for choosing them might help the customer base understand where we stand regarding this product. What precisely is their intention as far as flight models are concerned?

My squad has flown together less and less since CloD was released, due mostly to frustration and dissatisfaction regarding poor game performance and historical inaccuracy; and of course it’s not so much fun anymore IMHO. Many of our squad members are now off doing other things (WoT, RoF, etc, etc) and I get the distinct impression that other squads are suffering a down-turn too.

I never thought I would consider actually giving up on combat flight simulations, but I am now. Is the demise of CloD having the same effect on anyone else out there?

P.S. The poor attitude of some on this forum is also depressing. For example, opposition for oppositions sake, aggression, insults, lack of respect, lack of civility, lack of consideration, lack of objectivity, people who appear to enjoy the sport of arguing that black is white and baiting others, childish comments, a blue verses red agenda no matter what facts are presented, etc, etc. It strikes me that the vast majority of readers probably do not post in this forum due to the poor attitude of some that do. I have been educated by this forum and am grateful to many who post here, but I suspect that the silent majority that read this forum are judging some of what we post as very poor. That said, I think it will take both the development team and the customer base to work positively together to make us all feel better out this flight sim series and give it a good future.

[whoarmongar]

Personally I was really keen to play Clod, I bought it within days of its release, and downloaded all the beta patches as soon as they were available.

Now, whilst I still check this forum for news I havn`t played the game for six months either on or offline and I never downloaded the latest beta patch, I guess my interest has just waned due mostly to the FM issues.

I guess the most reliable indicator of interest that remains in this game is the number of people who have downloaded the latest beta patch compared with the number who downloaded prevous betas

It really pains me to say this but Clod seems a deadend. All future development will be geared to BoM. It just seems to me that the developers with Clod took on a subject they never had any affinity with or true understanding of, rather they used this scanario merely to have a logical timeline for the development of the new game engine and franchise.

I wish them all the best with Bom and think with a theatre they are more familiar with and have a greater understanding of along with the extra time they will have had to develop the game they should do a better job.

[ATAG_Snapper]

It's easy enough for the moderators to check IP logs and see who the real account holder is.

Yeah, hope they don't. He was just poking fun. :)

[pstyle]

I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.
.

I've not tested the Spit 1, but I do have a video of me breaking the wing of a Spit IIa recovering from a 430mph dive (which is as fast as I could get her to dive), with full (/ almost full) elevator and rudder deflection.

Let me know if you'd like me to upload it.

I'll try the Spit 1 soon.

[Robo.]

I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E ...

I would say it's quite the opposite. So are the reports of my fellow Squadmates flying 109s exclusively. I'd say it's much less stable now and not as responsive as it used to be. They have definitely tinkered with the imput sensitivity, it took me a while to get used to it, but no, the 109E is not easy to spin.

..and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.

You can break a wing of a Spitfire doing just what you described.

I am willing to bet the FM's are closer than one would think in terms of level speed and climb rates.

No, I am afraid they are absolutely not. :(

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hmmm.....did you also notice that in a flat out dive, it's very difficult to get over 410mph IAS, and at 420mph IAS your ailerons fall off?

According to the Spit I pilot's notes provided with the collector's edition, max safe speed in a dive is 450mph IAS.

I lost my starboard wing last night in a steep dive on the ATAG Server, but did not note the airspeed at that moment -- obviously 420 mph IAS or more. But both your observations and Crumpp's point to some further tweaking on that aspect of the Spit's DM.

@Crumpp -- I agree that something serious should have broken (or at least bent) with a hard "assymmetrical" (is that the right term? Dunno!) pullout such as you did. Did you black out during the pullout? My reason for asking is that other threads are noting that full control surface deflection is not being achieved with the Spitfire under random circumstances. That would've resulted in a gentler pullout than you had intended, provided you had enough altitude to recover. But if you did experience blackout in the pullout that would be a fair indicator that the elevator was indeed doing its job as you intended -- and something should've gone crunch IMHO. (I've crunched lotsa virtual Spits and Hurries in Cliffs of Dover LOL).

[ATAG_Snapper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
"I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E ..."

Robo replied:
"I would say it's quite the opposite. So are the reports of my fellow Squadmates flying 109s exclusively. I'd say it's much less stable now and not as responsive as it used to be. They have definitely tinkered with the imput sensitivity, it took me a while to get used to it, but no, the 109E is not easy to spin. "


Hmmm, I think your observations actually coincide. I believe Crumpp is simply referring to incipient spin occurring upon accelerated stall -- which is apparently happening too easily and viciously (for a 109) since the latest patch. Maybe I'm wrong, but that was my impression. :)

[pstyle]

@Crumpp -- I agree that something serious should have broken (or at least bent) with a hard "assymmetrical" (is that the right term? Dunno!) pullout such as you did. Did you black out during the pullout? My reason for asking is that other threads are noting that full control surface deflection is not being achieved with the Spitfire under random circumstances. That would've resulted in a gentler pullout than you had intended, provided you had enough altitude to recover. But if you did experience blackout in the pullout that would be a fair indicator that the elevator was indeed doing its job as you intended -- and something should've gone crunch IMHO. (I've crunched lotsa virtual Spits and Hurries in Cliffs of Dover LOL).

Just now I tested a spit 1, dive at 400mph indicated and I pulled back as hard as possible, with a full rudder. Nothing broke, and my pilot blacked out momentarily. Although at 430mph dive, I broke the spit 2a wing.

It seems to me the limit is between 400 and 430mph (taking both variants to be roughly equivalent.)

I made videos of both. happy to distribute the track file if necessary for proof.

[Crumpp]

Looks like you are doing some intense testing there Crumpp. Maybe a test pilot in a former life.


LOL, Not really...that test would be a death sentence in a real aircraft.

It was a simple test. If you are above ~238mph EAS you should be able to break the airframe in a Spitfire Mk I with a single axis load.

By assymetrically loading the airframe, that speed is greatly reduced. The airframe should turn to confetti.

A dive over 300 mph EAS at full control deflection with an assymetrical load is pretty definative and easy to do.

[Crumpp]

Did you black out during the pullout?

It started too as I reached the top of the apex of the loop. It did not black out though.

[CaptainDoggles]

LOL, Not really...that test would be a death sentence in a real aircraft.

It was a simple test. If you are above ~238mph EAS you should be able to break the airframe in a Spitfire Mk I with a single axis load.

By assymetrically loading the airframe, that speed is greatly reduced. The airframe should turn to confetti.

A dive over 300 mph EAS at full control deflection with an assymetrical load is pretty definative and easy to do.

Are there V-n diagrams for these aircraft available online anywhere?

[Crumpp]

I believe Crumpp is simply referring to incipient spin occurring upon accelerated stall -- which is apparently happening too easily and viciously (for a 109) since the latest patch.

That is it.

LE slats are the aerodynamic equivilent of training wheels. Putting them at the wing tips like the Bf-109 does not do much for raising anything more than the section co-efficient of lift but it does keep the ailerons responsive, make for very good stall characteristics, and it is one of the best anti-spin devices a designer can use.

The stall characteristics of the Bf-109 are very gentle, controllable, and offers plenty of warning:

4.4. Stalling Tests.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

[Crumpp]

Are there V-n diagrams for these aircraft available online anywhere?


Not that I am aware of but you can easily make one.

[CaptainDoggles]

Not that I am aware of but you can easily make one.

Yeah, but I'm moving across the country in a week, so I don't really have the time at the moment :cool:

[JTDawg]

Can anyone else see those brains working from here!! lol

[Crumpp]

No, I am afraid they are absolutely not

Well if everyone is complaining that all the aircraft are 25-30 mph off in terms of level speed, it is probably the environment.

First of all, it will be the summer of 1940. The density altitude is much greater than a standard day on a warm summer day.

Almost all of the performance data quoted by folks defending their favorite airplane is performance on a standard day.

At a higher density altitude, you will see a reduction in Indicated Airspeeds and climb rates. That is normal atmospheric effects.

It does not mean the game is modeled wrong.

If Maddox games really models things correctly, it will be very funny to listen to people. Players will be screaming when they hit their boost override and increase rpm over maximum continuous or 1.42ata, or whatever high power/high rpm system their game shape has only to watch the airplane slow down on that hot summer day!

:grin:

[pstyle]

LOL, Not really...that test would be a death sentence in a real aircraft.

It was a simple test. If you are above ~238mph EAS you should be able to break the airframe in a Spitfire Mk I with a single axis load.

By assymetrically loading the airframe, that speed is greatly reduced. The airframe should turn to confetti.

A dive over 300 mph EAS at full control deflection with an assymetrical load is pretty definative and easy to do.

what are the equivalent EAS numbers for the 109? similar?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well if everyone is complaining that all the aircraft are 25-30 mph off in terms of level speed, it is probably the environment.

First of all, it will be the summer of 1940. The density altitude is much greater than a standard day on a warm summer day.

Almost all of the performance data quoted by folks defending their favorite airplane is performance on a standard day.

At a higher density altitude, you will see a reduction in Indicated Airspeeds and climb rates. That is normal atmospheric effects.

It does not mean the game is modeled wrong.

If Maddox games really models things correctly, it will be very funny to listen to people. Players will be screaming when they hit their boost override and increase rpm over maximum continuous or 1.42ata, or whatever high power/high rpm system their game shape has only to watch the airplane slow down on that hot summer day!

:grin:

Regrettably, that is not the problem at all.

Camber's post earlier in this thread highlights the actual cause for concern by the virtual RAF pilots:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=428514&postcount=56

[IvanK]

Regarding G modelling and Structural strength etc, I don't believe its modelled in CLOD .... it should be.

[Crumpp]

Regrettably, that is not the problem at all.


Look, I don't want to piss people off or alienate them.

That post does not show an issue at all. He is comparing apples and oranges by using the FTH on a standard day with the performance on a non-standard day.

FTH at 5000 meter is the FTH at pressure altitude or a STANDARD DAY.

What I mean by that is on a 95 F day, at 29.45inHg, and a 67 F dew point spread, when you are at 5000 Meters True altitude the airplane is at 6992 Meters Density altitude.

In otherwords, when you are standing at sea level on that day, it is the exact same as being at almost 1000 meters in the air on a standard day.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Look, I don't want to piss people off or alienate them.

That post does not show an issue at all. He is comparing apples and oranges by using the FTH on a standard day with the performance on a non-standard day.

FTH at 5000 meter is the FTH at pressure altitude or a STANDARD DAY.

What I mean by that is on a 95 F day, at 29.45inHg, and a 67 F dew point spread, when you are at 5000 Meters True altitude the airplane is at 6992 Meters Density altitude.

In otherwords, when you are standing at sea level on that day, it is the exact same as being at almost 1000 meters in the air on a standard day.

Soooooo, why does the 109 E4 match the STANDARD DAY data at 5000 meters, but the Spitfire Ia and IIa are woefully short at 16,500 ft and 13,500 ft respectively?

[Crumpp]

Soooooo, why does the 109 E4 match the STANDARD DAY data at 5000 meters, but the Spitfire Ia and IIa are woefully short at 16,500 ft and 13,500 ft respectively?


Under what data are you looking at? What data are you using for these aircraft.

Are you looking at Indicated airspeed, TAS,..????

By my calculations, the Hurricane for example is within 2% of its data for a standard day. Whether that is optimistic or pessimestic depends on the weight of the aircraft in CLoD.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Under what data are you looking at? What data are you using for these aircraft.

Are you looking at Indicated airspeed, TAS,..????

By my calculations, the Hurricane for example is within 2% of its data for a standard day. Whether that is optimistic or pessimestic depends on the weight of the aircraft in CLoD.

From the link I supplied you, these are actual in-sim trials conducted by Camber first on the 109 E4, then on the Spitfire Mark Ia, then on the Spitfire Mark IIa. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you -- this is a simple copy & paste from that link:

EDIT: It occurred to me that perhaps a clarification is in order here. What you may not have understood is that a number of us, including Camber below, have been checking the actual in-simulation performance of the aircraft in question to the charts posted by 1C. Under the test conditions in the simulation, the 109 E4 closely matched the STANDARD DAY performance charts (as they should), but the actual in-simulation trials of the Spitfire Ia and the Spitfire IIa did not! These two aircraft performed -- in the sim -- well under the mark that Luthier says they should.

Default weights of each aircraft with fuel at 100% were used.

I can speak from personal online experience on the ATAG Server that many of the air combats that take place are close run things. Even a 10 kmh difference in speed between two aircraft in combat can mean the difference between drawing enough lead or not, or holding a climb just long enough to tag the opposing player -- or not. Each player in this sim continually refines their ACM and engine management techniques to eke out just 1 more mph at the crucial moment. Those who have flown with me or against me know of what I speak. So these numbers below -- taken from that link I had provided you earlier, are not just numbers on a graph to us. We look at them as likely meaning the difference between success or failure of our online endeavours. Hence the passion and hence the scrutiny. Many of us on the Red (virtual RAF) side know there is something very, very wrong with what's happening on this sim. The numbers that Camber has posted, which mirror those that others, including myself, have tested bear out our misgivings.

So, hopefully in a new light, I present again Camber's in-simulation findings:

Camber said:

Quote:

I calculate TAS as 2% greater than IAS per 1000ft altitude using this link (http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html), there may be a more accurate calculation out there.

I just did some altitude speed tests offline (beta patch), they are OK for 109 but a bit horrifying for the RAF as they are below the B6 patch curves. I tested for full Throttle height (above which boost declines at full throttle). My assumption was that top TAS should be around FTH.

109E4 (prop pitch control on)

FTH: 5000m (boost has dropped a bit to 1.32ata, declines rapidly above 5000m)

425kmh IAS@5000m = 569kmh TAS, exactly right for Messerchmitt official average spec.

Spit Ia

FTH = 16500 ft
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 minutes. Just enough time to get stable 245mph IAS (with 3000rpm couldn't get this alt without engine death)

245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS = 520 kmh TAS

Oh dear, this is under even B6 plot speed (560kmh TAS at 16500ft).

Spit IIa

FTH = 13500 ft (?!)
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 mins

260mph IAS@13500 = 328mph TAS = 528 kmh TAS

I really hope I making some kind of testing error here. Tried online and got same values. I wouldn't feel confident taking any Spit against 109s at alt with these values.

camber
Last edited by camber; Today at 03:17 AM.

[drewpee]

LOL, Not really...that test would be a death sentence in a real aircraft.

It was a simple test. If you are above ~238mph EAS you should be able to break the airframe in a Spitfire Mk I with a single axis load.

By assymetrically loading the airframe, that speed is greatly reduced. The airframe should turn to confetti.

A dive over 300 mph EAS at full control deflection with an assymetrical load is pretty definative and easy to do.

LOL that's why I said in a previous life.

[drewpee]

The trouble with testing at this stage of dev is there is little to no difference in performance with hings like fuel loads low/full, radiator open closed. In a dog fight it is for most of us hard to get max performance out of ac due to work load.

I for one (il2-46) when diving into a fight would close radiators for speed but open them if things didn't go to plan after a min or so in fear of cooking the engine from forgetting to check gauge. Prop pitch radiators and war power usage were as important to surviving as maneuvering.

Now prop pitch and throttle gate are the only things to think about. In a fight I tend to feather the throttle a lot and don't often use full throttle for long. When flying the spit I tend to leave the gate in place as the damage to the engine you get with it open is not IMHO worth the small gain. But that's it. It's not that hard any more. So the gap between novice, vet and ace has lessened.

[Robo.]

What Snapper says :idea: Don't get me wrong, the game is still fun to fly, but it can not be called realistic or a 'sim' until they fix the performance issues and untile they incorporate things like radiator drag, open canopy drag, sort out the weight issues, high alt flight behaviour etc. The problem is not -25% for every plane, they simply got the FMs wrong. Some more, some less, but we're currently not flying BoB aircraft.

Regarding the Bf 109E stall, I had this problem when I first applied the patch, but then I did the trick described by DavidRed (deleting the confuser.ini file), reseting my controls settings effectively - voila, no violent stalls, still unstable and different rudder response to what it was prior to the alpha patch. I feel it has something to do with the input sensitivity changes (same with Spitfire throttle or all rudder axes). It just took me a while to get used to it. I will fly more in the coming days and I will report back if I am wrong.

[6S.Manu]

What Snapper says :idea: Don't get me wrong, the game is still fun to fly, but it can not be called realistic or a 'sim' until they fix the performance issues and untile they incorporate things like radiator drag, open canopy drag, sort out the weight issues, high alt flight behaviour etc. The problem is not -25% for every plane, they simply got the FMs wrong. Some more, some less, but we're currently not flying BoB aircraft.


I agree... and FM's trustworthiness is really easy to check... Can we talk about DMs?
If the FMs are crap and the overall sim is a mess are we sure that the DMs are correct? Above all then we don't have an SDK to test it with precision.

Really I don't understand how many of you can actually have fun... I have a total of 34 hours on CloD, and most of them are been spent to configure the settings and test the server functions.

[Crumpp]

In a dog fight it is for most of us hard to get max performance out of ac due to work load.


That is realistic and one reason why automation was an advantage in WWII aircraft.

[fruitbat]

I agree... and FM's trustworthiness is really easy to check... Can we talk about DMs?
If the FMs are crap and the overall sim is a mess are we sure that the DMs are correct? Above all then we don't have an SDK to test it with precision.

Really I don't understand how many of you can actually have fun... I have a total of 34 hours on CloD, and most of them are been spent to configure the settings and test the server functions.

+1.

[CaptainDoggles]

Spit Ia

FTH = 16500 ft
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 minutes. Just enough time to get stable 245mph IAS (with 3000rpm couldn't get this alt without engine death)

245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS = 520 kmh TAS

Oh dear, this is under even B6 plot speed (560kmh TAS at 16500ft).

Max TAS for the Spit1a occurs closer to 22000 feet, not 16500.

I really hope I making some kind of testing error here. Tried online and got same values. I wouldn't feel confident taking any Spit against 109s at alt with these values.
The Spit 1a is faster than the 109 above ~6000 meters.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Max TAS for the Spit1a occurs closer to 22000 feet, not 16500.


The Spit 1a is faster than the 109 above ~6000 meters.

Have you actually tested that, Doggles?

[ElAurens]

Does the sim even work above 6000 meters (19685 feet)?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Does the sim even work above 6000 meters (19685 feet)?

Yep, some intrepid souls have made it to 27,000 feet, but I never have. Even at 6000 meters I find myself singing this song over and over and over.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaKX9YYHiQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[ATAG_Dutch]

Snapper, I thought you'd only starred in the film 'Dogs of Dover'!

How did you land that role? :lol:

I myself had the Spit II up to 28,900ft the other night on ATAG server 1. God I must've been bored.

It just wouldn't go the last 1100ft to 30,000, no matter how hard I tried. It was a nice view though.

Here's a couple of shots. Didn't take one of the view, unfortunately. :(

[SEE]

20/22k is ok, you can go higher to around 24K for sweeps but rarely see anything else at that alt, Wolverine and maybe one or two others. Not much point in going any higher.

[ATAG_Snapper]

But it's so rhoenry way up there....... :(

[CaptainDoggles]

Have you actually tested that, Doggles?

Yes. Spit 1's climbed up into my E4 seemingly effortlessly at 7000 metres not too long ago.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Yes. Spit 1's climbed up into my E4 seemingly effortlessly at 7000 metres not too long ago.

Well, there's rock solid, indisputable proof beyond all doubt.

[fruitbat]

Well, there's rock solid, indisputable proof beyond all doubt.

:-)

[CaptainDoggles]

Well, there's rock solid, indisputable proof beyond all doubt.

*shrug* If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA then that's up to you.

I went up to 7k, closed rads most of the way, leveled out, and hit full throttle. Three Spit 1s who were below and far behind me eventually caught up.

I think that's pretty definitive. Incidentally, it agrees with this graph that Banks prepared from the graphs posted by 1C staff:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0As3w96qEChledFMwODljWXI5cUVnSWN6aWV6Mkho OFE&oid=2&zx=40gk54utfx7r

I note with much amusement that Snapper, you posted in this very thread less than 10 posts after this post was made, yet you act like you haven't seen it.

But again, if you want to pretend that the 109 is superior in every aspect to all the RAF fighters then go ahead.

[Robo.]

But again, if you want to pretend that the 109 is superior in every aspect to all the RAF fighters then go ahead.

Yes high up it was alright for the RAF pre-patch and I assume it's the same now. I suggest you try flying the RAF for couple of weeks to see what they're trying to tell you.

[ATAG_Snapper]

*shrug* If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA then that's up to you.

Hey, you've got no argument from me. Thanks to you, I've seen the light!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

[camber]

Max TAS for the Spit1a occurs closer to 22000 feet, not 16500.

The Spit 1a is faster than the 109 above ~6000 meters.

Apologies for posting this in the turn rate thread...

That is my original testing data Snapper was quoting. My concern was that Spits don't conform to the B6 stated performance (which is what Banks plotted).

For Spit Ia (offline, 0900 game time) I get:

FTH = 16500 ft
at full throttle, 6.2psi, 2750rpm (rad open) 245 mph IAS
245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS

At 19500 ft
at full throttle, 4psi, 2750 rpm (rad open), 230mph IAS
230mph IAS@19500ft = 317mph TAS

Max speed drops above sim tested FTH (16500ft) as would be expected. My Spit I is slower at alt than 109s and B6 data. Simple IAS/TAS conversion (2% rule).

rpms>2700 give rapid oil gasket failures during these tests.

camber

[pstyle]

I went up to 7k, closed rads most of the way, leveled out, and hit full throttle. Three Spit 1s who were below and far behind me eventually caught up.
.
make a vid?

[CaptainDoggles]

make a vid?

Perhaps I will in the future but I'm too busy the next month or so... plus I'm not sure my rig can handle FRAPS and still run the game at playable levels.

[camber]

Perhaps I will in the future but I'm too busy the next month or so... plus I'm not sure my rig can handle FRAPS and still run the game at playable levels.

Damnit Crumpp said much the same thing :) It's like doing the dishes

I don't think it's impossible that (as you say) that Spits and 109s are speed competitive at high alt. Whose to say that the in-flight gauges are actually giving correct information? We could have a Spit 1a and 109 at 20000ft with gauge data showing the 109 20% faster, but both the aircraft actually doing 100mph TAS (or 500mph TAS!) through the CloD air.

At this point it just gets confusing. For any aircraft, mismatched discussions can occur based on any combination of:

* Performance calculated from gauges
* Developer stated target performance
* Actual relative performance in game
* Wishful thinking relative performance in game (hopefully not too much of this :))
* Optimistic historical performance
* Pessimistic historical performance
* Fantasy historical performance (hopefully not too much of this :))

For me I think it is time to give up for now and just have fun with what it is and whatever it becomes.

camber

[WTE_Galway]

* Fantasy historical performance (hopefully not too much of this :))

camber

Don't worry there will be plenty of that once the Mustang makes an appearance (and to a lesser extent the fw190).

[CaptainDoggles]

There's really no conclusions to be drawn until we know what the atmospheric conditions are as modelled in the sim, and until they fix the shoddy state of the current flight model.

Once we have that we can run test flights, correct the data to standard conditions, and use that to compare to historical data.

[SEE]

I have had maybe three encounters with lone BFs at 20K+ co alt (with this beta patch) which ended with the BF109 disengaging or not resulting in a clear advantage for either as long as I maintained my alt and not give a guns opportunity during convergence.

Those encounters tended to be less aggressive with more separation, sort of plugging away untill someone makes an error so to speak, and if neither make a mistake the encounter can go on for some considerable time. I have no idea who the players were or their skill level.

[6S.Manu]

I have had maybe three encounters with lone BFs at 20K+ co alt (with this beta patch) which ended with the BF109 disengaging or not resulting in a clear advantage for either as long as I maintained my alt and not give a guns opportunity during convergence.

Those encounters tended to be less aggressive with more separation, sort of plugging away untill someone makes an error so to speak, and if neither make a mistake the encounter can go on for some considerable time. I have no idea who the players were or their skill level.

A real dogfight. Just think about having a wingman in that moment.

[Crumpp]

I climbed a Spitfire Mk I. It was difficult to trim the aircraft as the stability was pretty much nuetral on the longitudinal axis.

I felt like the oil temperature was high from the begining. The aircraft started the channel free flight at the limit of 90 degrees. I had to have the radiator open in level flight at 4 1/2lbs @ 2800 rpm. The Operating Notes tell the pilot to close the radiator in level flight and open it on climb only if needed.

The rpm changes were rather dramatic too. A small control input caused large deflections in the rpm making it difficult to smoothly and precisely change.

I did not check FTH or anything, just getting a feel for the aircraft.

I dove to 420IAS and did manage to lose an aileron but still could perform and full deflection assymetrical pullout. The pullout again resulted in a loop with some grayout at the top but no blackout.

[gimpy117]

and then there is the G.50....trimming it to fly high is a joke.

Down low at full bore you have to close the radiators because it's over cooling

up high though...it's almost overheating

[Robo.]

I climbed a Spitfire Mk I. It was difficult to trim the aircraft as the stability was pretty much nuetral on the longitudinal axis.

Do you find the climbrate correct?

I felt like the oil temperature was high from the begining. The aircraft started the channel free flight at the limit of 90 degrees. I had to have the radiator open in level flight at 4 1/2lbs @ 2800 rpm. The Operating Notes tell the pilot to close the radiator in level flight and open it on climb only if needed.

Yes, with current Fm it is impossible to follow the manual regarding the temperatures. You will find yourself flying with the radiator fully open at most of the times. I will bother you none as the drag is not modelled, but still. You schould be able to climb at manual settings with the radiator 1/2 closed at 160mph IAS, fully opened rad will cause more drag and less climbing speed = more heat. Does not work this way in the sim I am afraid.

Above certain altitude (12-13k pre-patch), the coolant temperature will become the one to watch more. Unfortunately, you will not be able to fly at full power at FTH to compare your speed with the historical test data - as that will overheat and ruin your engine. Mixture does not work properly. And you have got wrong fuel. But othervise, everything is OK.

The rpm changes were rather dramatic too. A small control input caused large deflections in the rpm making it difficult to smoothly and precisely change.

It was always a bit awkward and sensitive, but you can get used to it after a while and set the RPM quite precisely. What bothers me more post-patch is the throttle axis response. Did you not find it difficult to set the boost? It was alright in the previous patch, I am not sure what have they done to it.

I did not check FTH or anything, just getting a feel for the aircraft.

Great stuff, do more testing please and let us know what you think.

I dove to 420IAS and did manage to lose an aileron but still could perform and full deflection assymetrical pullout. The pullout again resulted in a loop with some grayout at the top but no blackout.

Structural damage is not modelled yet for any aircraft. It should be though. All that happens is you will lose parts of your ac that ou will miss later. As for blackout, try to trim tail heavy while pullout. I remember blacking out at few occasions while turning at high speed. I have no experience with diving as it was a bad idea trying to outdive a 109 in this sim. All I remember was to keep my speed within limit when attacking bombers (manoevrablility limit that is, not structural).

[pstyle]

I did manage to lose an aileron but still could perform and full deflection assymetrical pullout. The pullout again resulted in a loop with some grayout at the top but no blackout.

this broadly concurs with my experience. I made a 430IAS dive, broke the wingtip on the pull-out and was no longer able to maintain level flight as a result (roll input).

But the aircraft was flyable.

[zipper]

What ??? You can drop flaps on a Spit to improve turn performance ??? Seriously ??? That flap is the least efficient flap in the game, needed more for drag, pitch adjustment and ground effect than lift.

So, yet another example showing that to play the game well one should throw reality out the window and learn the game planes. (fun, tho)

My thoughts and my thoughts alone.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Unfortunately some bad things from IL2.1 were transfered to IL2.2

[gimpy117]

What ??? You can drop flaps on a Spit to improve turn performance ??? Seriously ??? That flap is the least efficient flap in the game, needed more for drag, pitch adjustment and ground effect than lift.

So, yet another example showing that to play the game well one should throw reality out the window and learn the game planes. (fun, tho)

My thoughts and my thoughts alone.

well it is curious that those flaps on the spit do that. You are right, they are pretty inefficient flaps, non adjustable, and they drop to a super low angle which in reality should cause a heap of drag

[enriquegastelo]

So interesting, really like it

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

well it is curious that those flaps on the spit do that. You are right, they are pretty inefficient flaps, non adjustable, and they drop to a super low angle which in reality should cause a heap of drag

The Spit flaps at least optically seem correct. They were only landing flaps and there was no way to put them on an intermediate level (which was wrongly modelled in IL2 1946 ). AFAIK, for the seafires, they placed a sort of stopper to fix the flap temporarly to an intermediate level for take off from carriers. As soon as the flaps were retracted the stoppers fell off and gone the possibility to have the flaps on an intermediate level.

[Robo.]

The Spit flaps at least optically seem correct. They were only landing flaps and there was no way to put them on an intermediate level (which was wrongly modelled in IL2 1946 ). AFAIK, for the seafires, they placed a sort of stopper to fix the flap temporarly to an intermediate level for take off from carriers. As soon as the flaps were retracted the stoppers fell off and gone the possibility to have the flaps on an intermediate level.

You are right, the issue has been reported already: http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/91

Just for the record, the flaps have been sorted in 1946 already in one of the later DT patches.

The spitfires using wooden wedge were normal mk.Vs starting from a carrier. Destination: Malta.

[IvanK]

An excerpt from AVIA 6/2422 "Notes on the turning performance of the Spitfire as affected by Altitude and Flaps"

The only comment I would make is that the full doc discusses the fact that only "Flap 85" (Down) is selectable so the intermediate settings and any values discussed are by estimate/calculation. The values in the table are Sustained turn performance ... without Height loss.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/turnwitflap.jpg

[Kurfürst]

Excellent! :) Does the report mention the turn time/radii at SL perhaps..?

[IvanK]

Unfortunately no its all 12,000ft and up.

[Kurfürst]

Ahw. :/ I wonder if its possible to convert the figures to different altitudes..?

[Robo.]

Good stuff IvanK, only thing that confuses me is the 'Merlin XX', i guess that's a typo of some sort, or was that some Mk.III testing?

Good information regarding Spitfire flaps down behaviour at page 11 of this document:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092582_1993092582.pdf

[IvanK]

There is a Pencil Note on the first page next to the title "MKIII". This I presume is an annotation to indicate that the document is based on the spitfire MKIII which would also match the XX Merlin. A weird choice of variant to do tests with !

Got the NACA report.

[Crumpp]

An excerpt from AVIA 6/2422 "Notes on the turning performance of the Spitfire as affected by Altitude and Flaps"


You have the entire report?

I am sure it does not say lower 85 degrees of flap and fly around in small circles.

[IvanK]

Yes

[Crumpp]

I wonder if its possible to convert the figures to different altitudes..?


It is not hard to do at all. We can use the first entry for flaps up turn performance at 12000 feet.

V = TAS/SMOE = EAS

Standard Means of Evaluation at 12,000 feet = 1.2011

Flaps up TAS at 12,000 feet = 160 mph TAS

160/1.2011 = 133 mph EAS

133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KEAS

Oh check it out....They give you EAS on the report. Gee, wasn't that another 100 page discussion on these forums?

Anyway, once you have EAS you can easily convert the performance to any atmospheric condition you want.

I like working with BGS but the units do not matter. Just don't put the correction factors like "1091" and "11.26" if you are using metric and keep your units straight.

Our formula becomes:

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

<theta> = angle of bank which is a fixed relationship with load factor irregardless of altitude

If you use the above formula and knots, our radius calculates out to be 693 feet and the RAE measurement is 695 feet. Pretty good agreement.


Radius is not the primary turn characteristic in a fighter. It not so important how small the circle but how fast we can bring the nose around to put guns on target.

So lets check our rate of turn based on the document:

Flaps up = 160 TAS * .869 = 139 KTAS

1091(tan 68 ) / 139 KTAS = 19.42 degrees a second

360/19.42 = 18.56 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn

18.6 and 18.56 are a match....

Now let's see what it does at 20000 feet:

160 TAS at 12000 feet = 133 mph EAS


133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KTAS

SMOE @ 20000 feet from our Standard Atmospheric Data = 1.3700

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

Radius = {115.6*1.3700}^2 / 11.26tan <68>

= 899.97 or just 900 feet @ 20,000 feet

Rate = 1091(tan 68 ) / (115.6KEAS*1.3700)

= 17.05 degrees a second

= 360/17.05 = 21 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn at 20,000 feet

[IvanK]

Here are 3 Relevant Fan plots from the report posted without comment

Clean:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Fan_cln-sml.jpg

Flap 30
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Fan_flp30_sml.jpg

Flap 60 and Full at 85.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Fan_flp60-85_sml.jpg

[Crumpp]

Here are 3 Relevant Fan plots

Do you have the conclusions stated in the report and the conditions?

It appears the RAE contradicts the NACA's findings on the effect of flaps on turn performance as well as what is taught in modern curriculum's.

I really don't think that is the case and I bet that agreement is in the details of the report you posted.

I understand your reluctance to share those details in this report. I would be happy to provide you the NACA findings on this subject.

[Holtzauge]

It is not hard to do at all. We can use the first entry for flaps up turn performance at 12000 feet.

V = TAS/SMOE = EAS

Standard Means of Evaluation at 12,000 feet = 1.2011

Flaps up TAS at 12,000 feet = 160 mph TAS

160/1.2011 = 133 mph EAS

133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KEAS

Oh check it out....They give you EAS on the report. Gee, wasn't that another 100 page discussion on these forums?

Anyway, once you have EAS you can easily convert the performance to any atmospheric condition you want.

I like working with BGS but the units do not matter. Just don't put the correction factors like "1091" and "11.26" if you are using metric and keep your units straight.

Our formula becomes:

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

<theta> = angle of bank which is a fixed relationship with load factor irregardless of altitude

If you use the above formula and knots, our radius calculates out to be 693 feet and the RAE measurement is 695 feet. Pretty good agreement.


Radius is not the primary turn characteristic in a fighter. It not so important how small the circle but how fast we can bring the nose around to put guns on target.

So lets check our rate of turn based on the document:

Flaps up = 160 TAS * .869 = 139 KTAS

1091(tan 68 ) / 139 KTAS = 19.42 degrees a second

360/19.42 = 18.56 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn

18.6 and 18.56 are a match....

Now let's see what it does at 20000 feet:

160 TAS at 12000 feet = 133 mph EAS


133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KTAS

SMOE @ 20000 feet from our Standard Atmospheric Data = 1.3700

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

Radius = {115.6*1.3700}^2 / 11.26tan <68>

= 899.97 or just 900 feet @ 20,000 feet

Rate = 1091(tan 68 ) / (115.6KEAS*1.3700)

= 17.05 degrees a second

= 360/17.05 = 21 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn at 20,000 feet

As you yourself said there have been many 100 page discussions about your use of EAS to estimate turn performance in the forums you post in and it seems that you still have not mastered the art.;-)

The way you simply use EAS above to derive results for 20,000 ft gives erroneous results that bear no relation to actual performance of the Spitfire at this altitude and a more realistic turn time under these conditions would be about 30 to 31 s.

[Crumpp]

As you yourself said there have been many 100 page discussions about your use of EAS to estimate turn performance in the forums you post in and it seems that you still have not mastered the art.

The way you simply use EAS above to derive results for 20,000 ft gives erroneous results that bear no relation to actual performance of the Spitfire at this altitude and a more realistic turn time under these conditions would be about 30 to 31 s.


We are not going to do another 100 pager because you lack formal education in aerodynamics.

EAS is the most common expression for velocity in all aircraft performance calculation. It is the preferred expression because it is so simple to use.

It is too easy to convert to TAS any performance derived with EAS and you don't have worry about density effects in the mechanics of the calculation. Just convert at the end.

It also a great approximation of Indicated Airspeed and very easy to convert to that with a PEC chart and a universal compressibility.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4475/easspeed.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/easspeed.jpg/)


The flight speed corresponding to maximum climb angle, θmax, is the optimum flight speed, usually measured in EAS,

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-legacy.aero.gla.ac.uk%2FUGrad%2Fhome_pages%2Fperfo rmance3%2F6-climb.doc_1.doc&ei=tdzHT73XNaa20QHRv7TZDw&usg=AFQjCNEzehTK6v1jhA_O8zQcAXIrkSGdKw&sig2=jFRwbpeNo9yenlVuG8g5Zw

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1055/easagain.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/826/easagain.png/)

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5828/easinturn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/easinturn.jpg/)

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6413/easclimbdatareduction.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/easclimbdatareduction.jpg/)

If you are trying to quickly gauge relative performance you don't have to convert back to TAS. The specific numbers for rate and radius will change in proportion to density ratio which is a universal application.

[Crumpp]

your use of EAS

TAS is what is used in the calculation. You don't even recognize it, LOL.

Radius = {115.6*1.3700}^2 / 11.26tan <68>

= 899.97 or just 900 feet @ 20,000 feet

Rate = 1091(tan 68 ) / (115.6KEAS*1.3700)


:rolleyes:

[IvanK]

the conclusion if you can really call it that is covered in the intro summary and the endpapers:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/summary1.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/conc3.jpg

Crumpp I presume you are referring to these NACA documents:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/nacaflp.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Naca2flp.jpg

If so I have them. The RAE report is quoted as a source or reference in these NACA reports. In addition the first one also references the other RAE report "Notes on the dogfight"

All three documents are imo in general agreement. The Devs should study these ! "Combat" flap usage in the classic IL2 imo was totally out of whack with reality ... sadly I am not so sure much has changed in CLOD.

[Crumpp]

All three documents are imo in general agreement. The Devs should study these ! "Combat" flap usage in the classic IL2 imo was totally out of whack with reality ... sadly I am not so sure much has changed in CLOD.


Right, for some reason people tend to think of flaps as a magical aid to turn performance and a crutch for poor ADM.

They are of very limited use in maneuvering to the average pilot.

I think the NACA conclusion in ACR #222 sum it up the best. In general flaps can offer some turn performance improvements beyond the clean configuration stall point but not above it.

In order to realize that improvement, a pilot must be able to precisely deploy the exact amount of flap required at the optimum speed to achieve that benefit.

IIRC, the example they use is 130 mph and 127mph....

That small speed difference with the right amount of flaps realizes a turn performance increase but the same amount of flaps at just 3 mph slower speed results in worse turn performance.

[Crumpp]

Additionally, that report is "pie in the sky".

The Spitfire had only two flap positions, fully retracted and fully extended.

0 degrees or 85 degrees...the pilot can make his choice!!

:grin:

[CaptainDoggles]

Ivan, would you be willing to provide a download link to those two reports, or else attach them to a PM?

Pretty please? :grin:

[Crumpp]

here...

[IvanK]

Additionally, that report is "pie in the sky".

The Spitfire had only two flap positions, fully retracted and fully extended.

0 degrees or 85 degrees...the pilot can make his choice!!

:grin:

They do mention that specifically in the report.

[NZtyphoon]

They do mention that specifically in the report.

I presume the reason for the original RAE report was to decide whether manouevring flaps would be useful for existing designs and how they could be used in future. I doubt whether the original Spitfire flaps would have been strong enough to have been used at medium-high speeds, even if they had been adjustable. It is interesting to note that the Spitfire IV (later XII) Griffon engine prototype DP845 (first flight 27 November 1941) originally had reinforced slotted flaps with external guides, so possibly this alternative design was mooted as a result of the tests on the Spitfire III, which was very similar, apart from the engine.

[CaptainDoggles]

here...

Outstanding. Thanks very much.

[Crumpp]

Here are 3 Relevant Fan plots from the report posted without comment

Clean:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Fan_cln-sml.jpg

Flap 30
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Fan_flp30_sml.jpg

Flap 60 and Full at 85.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Fan_flp60-85_sml.jpg

LOL, the RAE even have an EAS on scale on their fan plot.

:rolleyes:

[WTE_Galway]

Now if only the Spitfire had Fowler flaps .....

[Holtzauge]

We are not going to do another 100 pager because you lack formal education in aerodynamics.

EAS is the most common expression for velocity in all aircraft performance calculation. It is the preferred expression because it is so simple to use.

It is too easy to convert to TAS any performance derived with EAS and you don't have worry about density effects in the mechanics of the calculation. Just convert at the end.

It also a great approximation of Indicated Airspeed and very easy to convert to that with a PEC chart and a universal compressibility.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/4475/easspeed.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/easspeed.jpg/)




http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-legacy.aero.gla.ac.uk%2FUGrad%2Fhome_pages%2Fperfo rmance3%2F6-climb.doc_1.doc&ei=tdzHT73XNaa20QHRv7TZDw&usg=AFQjCNEzehTK6v1jhA_O8zQcAXIrkSGdKw&sig2=jFRwbpeNo9yenlVuG8g5Zw

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1055/easagain.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/826/easagain.png/)

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5828/easinturn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/easinturn.jpg/)

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6413/easclimbdatareduction.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/easclimbdatareduction.jpg/)

If you are trying to quickly gauge relative performance you don't have to convert back to TAS. The specific numbers for rate and radius will change in proportion to density ratio which is a universal application.

The problem is that your turn time of 21 s at 20,000ft is physically impossible. No amount of posturing and posting irrelevant book quotes underlined in red will change that fact:

You have claimed R=900 ft turn radius and turn time T=21 s at 20,000 ft:

Since I'm a metrics guy I will convert R to SI units, i.e. 274.3 m

This gives a turn speed of 82.08 m/s (2*pi*R/T)

So from this we calculate the turn acceleration: a=v**2/R=24.56 m/s**2

So load factor is n= sqrt(a**2+g**2)/g=2.696

Let's calculate the Cl this would require:

n*m*g=0.5*ra*v**2*Cl*S

Spitfire data:

W=6000lb=2724 Kg
S=242 sqft=22.36 m**2
ra=0.65 (Approx at 6.1 Km alt)

Solving for Cl:

CL=(2.696*2724*9.81)/(0.5*0.65*82.08**2*22.36)=1.47

Now NACA claims Clmax for the Spitfire at 1.2 which is a bit low but according to RAE it is 1.36 tops. Your claim leads to a Cl of 1.47 which is clearly unrealistic and like you fails the sanity check.

BTW: I found a RAE report, R&M 2349, Notes on the turning performance of the Spitfire as affected by altitude and flaps.

On page 4 there is a figure 4 which gives the following results for the Spitfire at 20,000 ft: R=1045 ft and T=31.5 s

With my C++ simulations I get R=337 m (1106 ft) and T=31.65 s.

You claim 21 s turn time and 900 ft radius of turn. I get 31.65 s and 1106 ft while Morgan & Morris in R&M get 1045 ft and 31.5 s.

So on the one hand we have C++ simulation data and the data from the RAE report R&M 2349 which seems to tally and on the other hand we have your overbearing attitude and simplistic calculations leading to an off the chart Clmax. What could be the right number I wonder , 21 or 31 s?

Finally, I think the only thing we actually agree on is the other parties lack of formal aerodynamic training. We have been down this road before and as I've told you before I have an Mcs in aeronautical engineering from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm from 1986 and more than 10 years in the business working in the defense industry for Ericsson and SAAB on the Viggen and Gripen fighter systems.

Tell me, What aeronautical companies have you worked with and the Msc in aeronautics from Embry-Riddle you claim to have, which year did you graduate and was that before or after your stint in US Special Forces?;)

[ATAG_Colander]

Math is good. Me likes math.

:grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

Math is good. Me likes math.

:grin:

Me too. In fact, my favourite snakes are adders!

[Crumpp]

21 or 31 s?


133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KTAS

SMOE @ 20000 feet from our Standard Atmospheric Data = 1.3700

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

Radius = {115.6*1.3700}^2 / 11.26tan <68>

= 899.97 or just 900 feet @ 20,000 feet

Rate = 1091(tan 68 ) / (115.6KEAS*1.3700)

= 17.05 degrees a second

= 360/17.05 = 21 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn at 20,000 feet


http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2386/aircraftturnperformance.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/aircraftturnperformance.jpg/)

115.6*1.3700 = 158.4 KTAS

Looks like 21s when we ask the US Navy or use any universal turn performance chart!!

Ha ha ha :eek:

[Crumpp]

we have C++ simulation data

:grin:

The output is only as good as the input...

[Crumpp]

Yes Holtzauge, I am employed full time in aviation as a pilot.

Yes, I retired from the US Army before I went into aviation as a second career.

How about you? You do C+++++ simulations for a living?

;)

[Crumpp]

Your claim leads to a Cl of 1.47 which is clearly unrealistic and like you fails the sanity check.


:rolleyes:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4062/turnwitflap1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/turnwitflap1.jpg/)

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Anyhow, CL, CD or Cwhatever values mean absolutely NOTHING if reference surface (and reference length for couple of forces) is unknown. Anybody with basic notions in aerodynamics should know this. I can announce CL values of 1700 for a brick if I just select a reference surface small enough if I wish to do so and nobody could claim me wrong.

The CL values in this report are only interesting in relative terms with respect to different flap angles.

[Crumpp]

The CL values in this report are only interesting in relative terms with respect to different flap angles.

Another interesting fact about basic aerodynamics. Coefficient of lift is independent of altitude and corresponds to an specific angle of attack.

In otherwords, the angle of attack for best turn performance will be the same no matter what the altitude.

Amazing that some simple calculations reflect that basic fact. OHH the INSANITY OF IT ALL!!!

[MiG-3U]

It is not hard to do at all. We can use the first entry for flaps up turn performance at 12000 feet.

V = TAS/SMOE = EAS

Standard Means of Evaluation at 12,000 feet = 1.2011

Flaps up TAS at 12,000 feet = 160 mph TAS

160/1.2011 = 133 mph EAS

133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KEAS

Oh check it out....They give you EAS on the report. Gee, wasn't that another 100 page discussion on these forums?

Anyway, once you have EAS you can easily convert the performance to any atmospheric condition you want.

I like working with BGS but the units do not matter. Just don't put the correction factors like "1091" and "11.26" if you are using metric and keep your units straight.

Our formula becomes:

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

<theta> = angle of bank which is a fixed relationship with load factor irregardless of altitude

If you use the above formula and knots, our radius calculates out to be 693 feet and the RAE measurement is 695 feet. Pretty good agreement.


Radius is not the primary turn characteristic in a fighter. It not so important how small the circle but how fast we can bring the nose around to put guns on target.

So lets check our rate of turn based on the document:

Flaps up = 160 TAS * .869 = 139 KTAS

1091(tan 68 ) / 139 KTAS = 19.42 degrees a second

360/19.42 = 18.56 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn

18.6 and 18.56 are a match....

Now let's see what it does at 20000 feet:

160 TAS at 12000 feet = 133 mph EAS


133 mph EAS * .869 = 115.6 KTAS

SMOE @ 20000 feet from our Standard Atmospheric Data = 1.3700

Radius = (VKeas * SMOE)^2 / 11.26tan <theta>

Radius = {115.6*1.3700}^2 / 11.26tan <68>

= 899.97 or just 900 feet @ 20,000 feet

Rate = 1091(tan 68 ) / (115.6KEAS*1.3700)

= 17.05 degrees a second

= 360/17.05 = 21 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn at 20,000 feet

All you calculate here is the turn times at constant KEAS and constant g load (2.68 g which corresponds angle of bank 68 deg) at two altitudes, 12k and 20k. Then you claim that an airplane which can do this kind of sustained turn at 12k, can do sustained turn at same g load at 20k at same given KEAS. Note that your calculation does not account the engine power and the power might be different at 12k than at 20k.

Now, think this for a minute instead insult the other members of the board.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Another interesting fact about basic aerodynamics. Coefficient of lift is independent of altitude and corresponds to an specific angle of attack.

In otherwords, the angle of attack for best turn performance will be the same no matter what the altitude.

Amazing that some simple calculations reflect that basic fact. OHH the INSANITY OF IT ALL!!!

Mh. IIRC CL does depend on Mach number even at subsonic speeds and thus indirectly on altitude as for the same IAS the Mach number changes with altitude, the speed of sound being intimately linked to temperature.

[nakedsquirrel]

Math is good. Me likes math.

:grin:

It's not fair. I see all of the math but I still can't shoot anybody down =(

I don't like math.

[Crumpp]

IIRC CL does depend on Mach number even at subsonic speeds

Yes it does but the RAE was using subsonic incompressible flow theory in that report.

In subsonic incompressible theory, Coefficient of Lift is independent of altitude and mach number.

A compressibility correction to velocity is used to account for it.

In the formulation, compressibility is factored in when converting from CAS to EAS.

How does the lift coefficient for maximum range vary with altitude? (No compressibility effects.)

A: The lift coefficient decreases with increasing altitude.
B: The lift coefficient is independent of altitude.
C: The lift coefficient increases with increasing altitude.
D: Only at low speeds the lift coefficient decreases with increasing altitude.

Answer: B



http://www.thedailyatpl.com/atpl/per/how-does-the-lift-coefficient-for-maximum-range-vary-with-altitude-no-compressibility-effects/

All you calculate here is the turn times at constant KEAS and constant g load (2.68 g which corresponds angle of bank 68 deg) at two altitudes, 12k and 20k. Then you claim that an airplane which can do this kind of sustained turn at 12k, can do sustained turn at same g load at 20k at same given KEAS. Note that your calculation does not account the engine power and the power might be different at 12k than at 20k.


That certainly depends on which merlin and which variant we are discussing. I don't know as only snippets of the report have been posted and would only be guessing.

If you read the thread, the question was how to convert that performance to other altitudes.

The answer to that is to use the EAS scale provided in the RAE chart and convert to what ever density altitude you wish.

[Al Schlageter]

That certainly depends on which merlin and which variant we are discussing. I don't know as only snippets of the report have been posted and would only be guessing.

On the first page it says 'Merlin II Spitfire'.

[MiG-3U]

That certainly depends on which merlin and which variant we are discussing. I don't know as only snippets of the report have been posted and would only be guessing.

If you read the thread, the question was how to convert that performance to other altitudes.

The answer to that is to use the EAS scale provided in the RAE chart and convert to what ever density altitude you wish.

So, what's the point of your calculation then? You did not quess any power value but claim a time, 21 sec for 360deg, for sustained turn at 20k which is unrealistic given that power is lower at 20k than at 12k (Merlin II).

The scale does not matter, EAS or TAS, it's just slightly different calculation.

[CaptainDoggles]

If you read the thread, the question was how to convert that performance to other altitudes.

The answer to that is to use the EAS scale provided in the RAE chart and convert to what ever density altitude you wish.

While your work looks ok to me, I think the original question's intent was "can we convert this data to see what the a/c would be capable of at higher altitudes" which is not answered by the math you posted. Rather, we would need to check available power at the relevant altitude.

[Crumpp]

I wonder if its possible to convert the figures to different altitudes..?

Is the question asked and I answered.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=430608&postcount=166

My post was not a treatsie on specific aircraft performance.

It took a few seconds to say, "Yes you can use EAS to convert the performance to any altitude" with any airplane.

And did the correct mathmatical mechanics to show the process to change altitudes given a speed and angle of bank.

As for the other baloney posted, it will always reach CLmax at the lift line irregardless of altitude in the theory the RAE is using.

That should not be a surprise to a MSc Aerospace Engineering.

Any undergraduate who has taken a Basic Aerodynamics course understands that. It is a principle of subsonic incompressible flow theory.

[IvanK]

This document was written around the Spitfire MKIII (never went into production only prototype stage) powered by the Merlin XX. All the data tables and graphs refere to merlin XX equipped aircraft.

There is a single Reference to Merlin II spitfire on the first page.

[Crumpp]

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4786/raeeas.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/688/raeeas.jpg/)

The reason why the RAE provided the EAS scale is to quickly convert to different altitudes and conditions.

Crazy Huh??

[MiG-3U]

It took a few seconds to say, "Yes you can use EAS to convert the performance to any altitude" with any airplane.

And did the correct mathmatical mechanics to show the process to change altitudes given a speed and angle of bank.


The problem is that power varies with altitude and hence the speed and angle of bank for the best turn varies as well. You assume given speed and angle of bank which is not correct for this case.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Anyhow, incompressible flow theory may have been used by RAE or whoever - what is important for our game is what is the most close to reality.

[Holtzauge]

Crumpp: Posting the NAVWEPS chart and showing the relationship between 21 s, 68 deg bank angle and the 115.6KEAS*1.37 shows you have no idea about what you are doing: That chart just shows the relationship between these variables in a stationary turn.

You use the unsupported preconception that the Spitfire can hold a sustained turn bank angle of 68 deg at 20,000 ft and this is where you go wrong. The RAE report R&M 2349 by Morgan & Morris actually states the bank angle for the Spitfire at 20,000 ft which is 51 degress, not the 68 degrees you pulled out of a hat. Now instead enter the RAE turn speed of 141 mph TAS and bank angle of 51 deg in that same chart. This gives us 11.4 deg/s. This is equivalent to a turn time of 31.5, not 21 s. You see now?

In addition, I really like the circular argument you use to MIG-3U's question about the impact of power: First you assert that the Spitfire will have a turn time of 21 s at 20,000 ft without any power analysis whatsoever, period. Now you suddenly claim it's dependant on which Merlin version was used, compressibility corrections etc. Are you perhaps beginning to feel the heat and want back away from the 21 s claim?

Which brings us to the question of proof: I don't think you understand how this works: You have made a claim that the Spitfire turn time at 20,000 ft is 21 s. If you want to convince us then YOU need to provide proof of this either through references or calculations showing where the RAE who claim 31.5 s got this wrong. I wish you good luck with that.

Personally, I'm comfortable with my simulation result of 31.65 s and seeing that this is in line with the Royal Aircraft Establishment result I'm placing my money on Mr Morgan & Morris and their figure of 31.5 s and I will not hold my breath until I see your "proof" for the 21 s claim.

I can add that the C++ code which validity you question (and that I use to come to the same conclusion about the Spitfire turn performance at 20,000 ft as Mr Morgan & Morris of the RAE) is an extension of the code I wrote for my Masters Thesis which was analysis of fighter jet performance and the influence of external stores on speed, climb and turn rate performance etc. This is actually a bit more complicated than analysing the Spitfire by the way since the external stores really mess up the area ruling and leads to complications, especially in the transonic range. However, seeing you are an expert in everything from 100 octane usage during BoB to turn rates I guess this falls far below the level of your extensive expertize.

I also notice that you are now "employed full time in aviation as a pilot" which was interesting to learn because previously, while you have generously shared your experiences and anecdotes of a life as a private pilot, posted pictures of small privare aircraft that you own etc., you have made no earlier mention of this that I recall. Would be interesting to hear which type of aircraft you fly on a commercial basis? Do you fly passenger or cargo services?

While you were quick to question my formal education, I notice that you have still not replied regarding your own credentials. When you do, In addition to the info about when you got your Msc and your experience in the aeronautical industry please add some info about what you did for your Masters Thesis. Based on your penchant and reliance on charts like the NAVWEPS, was it something to do with nomograms perhaps? :grin:

[Kurfürst]

So what's your point?

Brag about some C++ analysis of yours of which nobody gives a flying frak...?
Generic harassment of Crumpp because a long time ago he dared to disagree with your opinion?
Assuming a hypothetical identity on the internet as an engineer who have been supposedly intimately involved with the design of Gripen?

This sounds like just a perfectly ordinary internet troll to me.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

And again an interesting topic wasted on mutual personal disputes. Why not use the extraordinary pn system to settle your issues with certain people and leave the discussion to those who are genuinely interested in the topic?

[Kurfürst]

And again an interesting topic wasted on mutual personal disputes. Why not use the extraordinary pn system to settle your issues with certain people and leave the discussion to those who are genuinely interested in the topic?

Because the personal dispute is originated in one party's personal frustration and an acute desire for attention and approval.

[Crumpp]

All the data tables and graphs refere to merlin XX equipped aircraft.


The RAE's use of a single chart given the absence of any differientiation between power levels makes perfect sense with the Merlin XX predictions.

The Merlin XX was predicted to maintain similar power from sea level to 20,000 feet.

1020 Hp at Sea Level and 1075HP at 20000 feet:

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/images/PerfAna/Table-04.jpg

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/ACEnginePerfAnalysisR-R.shtml

[Holtzauge]

So what's your point?

Brag about some C++ analysis of yours of which nobody gives a flying frak...?
Generic harassment of Crumpp because a long time ago he dared to disagree with your opinion?
Assuming a hypothetical identity on the internet as an engineer who have been supposedly intimately involved with the design of Gripen?

This sounds like just a perfectly ordinary internet troll to me.


Troll huh?

I think that criteria fits better on you yourself than anyone else here:

First of all both you posts are totally devoid of any content other than personal attacks. Secondly, you twist words: I have said I have worked on the Gripen, you inserted the word "intimately" to make it seem like I said something else.

And secondly, I'm not assuming any engineering identity or bragging: I responded to a claim by your 100 octane wingman that I "lacked formal education".

I like the psycological assessement in your last post BTW,"is originated in one party's personal frustration and an acute desire for attention and approval"

Talk about pot calling kettle black.......

What Kurfurst neglects to mention is that he holds a grudge since I after several fruitless attempts to him personally was forced to contacted his ISP provider to remove my research material which he without my permission had marked with his own watermark and published on his site.

Now if you have anything constructive to contribute to the issue of 21 versus 31 s turn time for the Spitfire at 20,000ft then add that otherwize you can just bug off and leave the discussion to the grownups.

[Holtzauge]

The RAE's use of a single chart given the absence of any differientiation between power levels makes perfect sense with the Merlin XX predictions.

The Merlin XX was predicted to maintain similar power from sea level to 20,000 feet.

1020 Hp at Sea Level and 1075HP at 20000 feet:

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/images/PerfAna/Table-04.jpg

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/ACEnginePerfAnalysisR-R.shtml

So how does the Merlin XX data you posted above support your 21 s claim?

The Merlin XX is what the RAE refer to in their report R&M 2349 as well. So you both use the same engine data but come to different conclusions.

Why do you agree on the low level results but come to different conclusions for 20,000 ft performance?

Remember the RAE result is that the Spitfire will sustain a loadfactor of n=1.57 (bank angle 51 degress) and turn time 31s at 20,000ft. You get sustainable loadfactor n=2.70 (bank angle 68 degress) and turn time 21s at 20,000ft. Both results refer to the same engine so please explain.

BTW: I note that while you are quick to question other peoples competence and credentials you have not provided anything of substance yourself to back up your claims and it's faily obvious you have nothing to show so I wont press you any more on that.

[Kurfürst]

And secondly, I'm not assuming any engineering identity or bragging: I responded to a claim by your 100 octane wingman that I "lacked formal education".

Let's see your diploma then.


What Kurfurst neglects to mention is that he holds a grudge since I after several fruitless attempts to him personally was forced to contacted his ISP provider to remove my research material which he without my permission had marked with his own watermark and published on his site.

I don't neglect anything at all, you don't own anything of that paper, and I simply get a feeling of puke when I see posts motivated by your most primitive feelings, the very grudge you wish to attribute to me and your perceivable frustration with life. Grudge can only exist between equals, and so in your case, its despise what I feel.

The papers you have mentioned belong to Stockholm Technical School and you have made unauthorized copies of them from without permission, as you have made it clear in your e-mails (and the fact that later despite numerous request, you refused to name the source), which holds them in their collection. You had become very nervous when I suggested to inquire the place about your activities there and your claim of copyright.

Of your character, it tells me a lot that well until that, you were busy kissing my underside in hope that I'd buy it and fetch some bones for your from my collection. We have traded a few items, and thankfully that's where our contact ended before I would begin to feel filthy.

When that cooperation ended, and your ego was hurt by my posts pointing out your immoral behaviour, you have reacted in the exact manner any dishonest freak would do: attempts at slander at various boards, about your allaged rights to certain papers you took photos off without the permission of their holding archieves.

You have tried to sell that story at various respected aviation communities, at allaboutwarfare.com etc. and other serious aviation sites/forums, where people quickly realized who you are and laughed, in distaste. You then disappeared from all these places, having successfully destroyed your own credibility once and for all. I think the most civilized comment you have received was that your behaviour reveals 'seriously bad taste'.

Your pitiful motive was that I stood up against your constant underhand attack on Crumpp, similar to that behaviour you display here. Your post history reveals that you have only registered here to 'get back' at Crumpp for the humiliating education you have received at his hands previously.

You see, that's exactly what motivates you, an overblown ego of the usual internet troll/nerd, wrapped in pompous sentences, and a made up identity.

Now if you have anything constructive to contribute to the issue of 21 versus 31 s turn time for the Spitfire at 20,000ft then add that otherwize you can just bug off and leave the discussion to the grownups.

Or else what happens you big big grown-up?

[Ernst]

I just remembered this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

[IvanK]

I think this "G" is in fact a Buchon.

[MiG-3U]

The RAE's use of a single chart given the absence of any differientiation between power levels makes perfect sense with the Merlin XX predictions.

The Merlin XX was predicted to maintain similar power from sea level to 20,000 feet.

1020 Hp at Sea Level and 1075HP at 20000 feet:

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/images/PerfAna/Table-04.jpg

http://www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/ACEnginePerfAnalysisR-R.shtml

1. The Merlin XX had a two speed supercharger. The first page you refer gives power at high altitude gear at sealevel due to analysis. See the appendix A at bottom of the second page for power at low altitude gear at sealevel.

2. Even at constant KEAS speed and constant power, the resulting force, thrust, decreases when the altitude increases because force is power divided with true speed. To maintain given angle of bank at given KEAS, power must increase with altitude.

[MiG-3U]

IvanK,
Could you please post parts of the report on turning performance at 20k?

TIA

[IvanK]

This is I think the only relevant bit that includes Sustained turn boundaries for 20,000',25,000',30,000', and 35,000'. "Angle of straight Climb" is Ps=0

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Spitturn20K.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/condA.jpg

[MiG-3U]

Thanks IvanK,

So power is higher, 1100hp at 20k, than 1050hp at 12k. Time to turn 360deg is about 30s at 20k, while it was 18.6s at 12k.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I just remembered this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

This video which claims to "proof" that the 109 was equivalent in turn to the spit is pretty much useless. The first interviewed guy never flew a spit as he admitted himself. The second guy we don't learn about his flight experiences. We therefore just learn that the 109 was a good turner (perhaps better than ingame but that's another discussion) and better turner than the P51. Now that is nothing new at all.

Fun to watch but not even anecdotical evidence on how close the Spit and the 109 were.

[Kurfürst]

I think this "G" is in fact a Buchon.

It's a bit offtopic, but I never quite understood this 'Buchon' thing. Sure the Buchon handles slightly differently (from what I gather, directional stability was worse than on the 109, which already exhibited low directional stability characteristics), but in essence it was just a German built G-series airframe, with a very similar Merlin/HS engine wrapped onto it.

[IvanK]

A Merlin installation v a DB605 installation is significantly different though.

Though I havent seen any Specfic excess power differences between the two I am sure they would be significant thus affecting sustained turn and climb performance. My Gut feeling is the DB605 variant would be the lesser performing aeroplane.

[Holtzauge]

The additional data posted by IvanK now gives the engine power as well and the turn time at 20,000 ft can as MIG-3U points out be read out of that figure to be in then order of 30 s. In fact the same report contains an even more precise figure of radius 1045 ft, bank angle 51 degrees and turn time 31.5 s in table 4 on page 4.

While we are waiting for Crummps 21 s 68 degree bank proof here are some C++ simulation results showing the relative performance between the 1.3 ata Me109E and Spitfire Mk1 at +6.25 boost:

As expected the Spitfire is somewhat better at 20,000 ft due to the lower wing loading. However, the interesting thing is however that at low level (1 km) my simulations show that while the Spitfire turn better at low speeds, the Me109E turns better than the +6.25 boost Spitfire Mk1 at TAS speeds over 290 Km/h. However, if one assumes the +12 boost then it is of course no contest, either at low or higher speeds.

[Ernst]

Concerning Kurfurts post I'm not going to be drawn down to that level. Replying to that in an appropriate manner requires breaking the forum rules. Toddler tantrums require strict parenting and I leave that up to whomever it may concern.

So returning to the grownup discussion:

The additional data posted by IvanK now gives the engine power as well and the turn time at 20,000 ft can as MIG-3U points out be read out of that figure to be in then order of 30 s. In fact the same report contains an even more precise figure of radius 1045 ft, bank angle 51 degrees and turn time 31.5 s in table 4 on page 4.

While we are waiting for Crummps 21 s 68 degree bank proof here are some C++ simulation results showing the relative performance between the 1.3 ata Me109E and Spitfire Mk1 at +6.25 boost:

As expected the Spitfire is somewhat better at 20,000 ft due to the lower wing loading. However, the interesting thing is however that at low level (1 km) my simulations show that while the Spitfire turn better at low speeds, the Me109E turns better than the +6.25 boost Spitfire Mk1 at TAS speeds over 290 Km/h. However, if one assumes the +12 boost then it is of course no contest, either at low or higher speeds.

Hello Holtz,

Do you consider 109 slats in your simulation?

[Holtzauge]

Yes, slats are in there implicitly but not modelled as such: I assume a power off low Mach Clmax of 1.45 and since the slats on the Me109 start to come out at around Cl=0.8 and IIRC are fully deployed at 1.2 they can be said to be modelled.

[Crumpp]

To maintain given angle of bank at given KEAS, power must increase with altitude.


I know this very well MIG3.

If you look at the thread before my altitude conversion there is only one document from this report posted.

Page 16 is when IvanK posted one snippet from the report:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32285&page=16
Page 17 is when I showed Kurfurst how to convert performance to altitude from that snippet:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32285&page=17

Here it is the only information in the thread at the time I replied:

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3811/turnwitflap.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/823/turnwitflap.jpg/)

There is not enough information to do any kind of detailed analysis.

None the less, I knew Holtzauge would be up to his old tricks again as soon as he posted. So I included the answer to specific performance in my very next reply.

Crumpp says:

The specific numbers for rate and radius will change in proportion to density ratio which is a universal application.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=430687&postcount=170

But Mr Holtzauge ie Msc Aeroengineering blah blah blah did not understand.

There is no power information provided and the report is obviously discussing theory and not reality with the different degrees of flap. So when I answered Kurfurst question about how to change altitudes, there was nothing to convert in terms of power to get specific performance.

Holtzauge is not some engineer. He is an internet troll plain and simple.

Why do I know this?

I rather long history of dealing with him. Let's look at how to vary thrust production with altitude. This is from the old Ubizoo board. The discussion comes about because some folks cannot seem to line up power in terms of Equivalent Airspeed. They kept coming up with a load factor that was way too high when they used EAS. Why? They knew how to parrot some TAS formulation but did not understand the theory behind it. Therefore when they went to convert EAS back to TAS, they did not convert their power and ended up with much higher load factors.

A basic aircraft performance text, Perkins and Hage, "Aircraft Performance, Stability, and Control:
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7080/perkinsandhagepowerwith.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/perkinsandhagepowerwith.png/)

Crumpp says:

Lastly, for all the "experts"...

If we want to hold our assumptions the same then we need to vary thrust with density.

2300 hp * .85 = 1955thp

1955thp*325 / 180KEAS = 3529.861111lbs of drag

sigma = .53281 @ 20,000ft

SQRT(.53281)* 3529.861111lbs of drag = 2576.58lbs of drag


2300 hp * .85 = 1955thp

1955thp*325 / 246.6KTAS = 2576.5lbs of drag



http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/281698-Soviet-FW-190A-combat-evaluation-and-the-He-100-issue-PART-2?p=2939042&viewfull=1#post2939042

Holtzauge says:

Just had a closer look at your calculation and it does seem you are in dire need of an “expert” to “demonstrate” aerodynamics to you :

You get confused by your own equations.

By definition, EAS means that you have the same dynamic pressure q at both altitudes. You don’t seem to have grasped this since you suddenly show 2576.5 lbs drag at 20000 ft and 3529.86111 lb at SL.

You see the drag will be the same at both altitudes, i.e 3529.86111 lb. Otherwise it’s not EAS.

So entering the correct drag into the thrust equation yields:

Ps hp * .85 = Pt thp

Pt thp*325 / 246.6KTAS = 3529.861111lbs of drag

So Pt=2678.35

Which gives Ps=2678.35/0.85=3151 hp

I guess you shot a really big hole in that foot now Polly. All the while you have been parroting on how important it is to use EAS and you can’t seem to be able to use it properly yourself…

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/281698-Soviet-FW-190A-combat-evaluation-and-the-He-100-issue-PART-2?p=3177597&viewfull=1#post3177597

That is why I ignore the guy.

:cool:

[Holtzauge]

Maybe this is one the lesson in aerodynamics at the IL-2 General Discussion Forum that Kurfurst was refering to earlier? The problem with that lesson was that you did not only loose me but also Wurkeri, JtD and FatCat_99 who did not understand that lecture either.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/246507-Soviet-FW-190A-combat-evaluation-and-the-He-100-issue/page24?highlight=soviet+fw-190a

One thing that escapes me is where you have hidden the proof for the 21 s turn time for the Spitfire Mk1 at 20,000 ft you claim? I can't see the forest for all the trees.

Can you point that passage out please?

Also: I notice you are back to calling me a troll and no engineer and claiming I have no Msc degree. The irrefutable proof for this seems to be that I don't agree with you right? Where is your resume?

How about staying on topic and nailing down the 21 s turn time proof instead?