Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[camber]

It is nice to see the new 100octane Spit I and Hurri.

But boost levels are a bit weird:

Spit Ia 100 octane: +9psi normal/+12 psi WEP (should be +6.25/+12psi)
Hurri 100 octane: +6.25psi normal/+12psi WEP (correct!)

Spit II (unchanged, always 100 oct): +6.25psi normal/+9 psi WEP (should be +9psi/+12psi**)

** there was some previous discussion whether +12psi was approved for BoB Spit IIs.

There doesn't seem to be much point doing detailed testing on FMs that B6 said would be changing further anyway. But basically, the new WEP speeds (at SL) for Spit I and Hurri seem roughly to bring them into line for the historical non-WEP speeds, which is of course a step in the right direction. It should be noted that assuming the 109s are unchanged in the patch, they are slow at SL as well (but not as much as the RAF, depending on whether you subscribe to Messerchmitt official specs or some variously problematic actual flight tests)

The CloD Spit II (+9psi) could always do 290mph at SL, the CloD Spit 1a (+12) can now do ~280mph at SL (from 260mph at +6.25psi) and the CloD Hurri (+12psi) can do 270mph at SL (from 240mph at +6.25psi).

Cheers, camber

[TomcatViP]

The CloD Spit II (+9psi) could always do 290mph at SL, the CloD Spit 1a (+12) can now do ~280mph at SL (from 260mph at +6.25psi) and the CloD Hurri (+12psi) can do 270mph at SL (from 240mph at +6.25psi).

Cheers, camber

I never had any prob to race back to base at SL at 270 in a hurri before the patch (coarse, raise rad, check your alpha, beta and close that stupid hood).

I wonder how fast she would go now !?!

[Kwiatek]

I never had any prob to race back to base at SL at 270 in a hurri before the patch (coarse, raise rad, check your alpha, beta and close that stupid hood).

I wonder how fast she would go now !?!

We speak about beta patches not official ones.

In beta previous patch speed were :

"Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included."

So if you get 270 mph in Hurricane you probalby fly withouth wings or in dive or in your imagination.


Camber unfortunately you have right still level flights for RAF and German planes are porked. Now 100 Octan fuel version of SPitfires and Hurrcianes near reached speed correct for 87 Octan version so there is still huge error.

The same is with power settings. SPit MK1a 100 Octan at +12lbs and 3000RPMs should fly at least 5 minutes without engine problems but in game it couldn't go over 2 minutes. Dont checked other planes yet - before patch Spitfire MKII had also engine power settings bug and engine broke too fast.


109 also is still too slow ab. 20 kph at low alts. Also 109 slats open too late (nothing change here). Rudder still work like in hellicopter not a prop plane.

So 1C have a lot work to do here. I hope they know the problems and BlackSix said that they still working with FMs so hope is still here but we will see.

[Ernst]

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."

The guys here complain about the spit. I go online and see a complete different situation: Man the spits are very agile, once the pilot sees you and are not a complete noobie is very difficult to put your guns in it, mainly if you are alone. Sometimes they start to whirlwind down there, the only thing they need do to is to pull the elevator as they. They have not to think in a strategy to escape, think about energy, force the adversary to lose their initial energy to after escape in a dive, etc they have just to turn in and endless whirlwinding... So simplistic and ridiculous... However i just accept the performance that i have in the 109 and fly with my brains... Man, is this guys playing the same sim than me?

just my point...

my be the devs would develop two versions of the sim. One for the british commowealth and another for the rest of the world.

[camber]

Ernst,

This sounds like the beginning of an interesting argument. I was worried no-one would ever reply to this post :) But to start off, my position is that once within historical performance precision, if possible FMs should be balanced for to enable good on-line balance at least for one variant on each side. How exactly is that a request for an unbeatable Spit coming from my totally noobie-ness? We had a super-Spit in the last retail patch (Spit II), a plane with approximately historical performance in land of neutered allies and opponents :)

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

This is easy to state unless you try to actually become one of the interpreters (which is interesting but takes time!). A lot of flyers post "just make them historical", but never state their precise historical conclusions and their justification ....for aircraft as closely matched as 1940 109s and Spits, imprecision in the historical record makes a real difference in on-line matchups. And then some interpretation needs to made. The RAE data for the Spits is hard to argue with, but to use flight test data for 109s, or the Messerchmitt official specs? You could make 109s +/-25kmh faster on the deck and still be within the official factory specs. These are just speeds, what about things that that there is not objective historical data like energy bleed in high AoA zoom climb? That makes rather a big difference. How should the devs address parameters like that?

There is rather a big difference between "+12 Spit can just catch 109 at SL" and visa versa when you are bouncing or running away. I could argue either historical case in the pub (would lean to the Spit)


I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

That is interesting...in the last patch before this one (despite the target performance data that B6 posted) Spits were terrible at altitude for speed as opposed to the 109s (which hit their factory spec data). But that is according to the cockpit guages. Whose to say they are right? I haven't noticed or done any high alt testing for the most recent patch yet. If 109s are terrible at height compared to Spits in the new patch, of course that is wrong.


If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

I can't see how you would construe my post as "wanting" this. I don't play enough 1946 to know what recent patches have done to on-line balance.


What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."


Well people have always done that in Il-2. Myself I just send them a smiley face and don't take them seriously. Maybe even a ~S~, that drives them crazy.

What is the point of analysing the flight data and comparing to the historical record if 109 drivers such as yourself see it as having a secret agenda to get the super-spit that drives the 109s out of the servers, so the Spits can fly channel laps by themselves forever congratulating themselves on winning the virtual BoB? :) I fly red but I want happy and fulfilled 109 drivers (within defensibly historical performance), I am sick of seeing hardly anyone in ATAG at my flying time.

camber

[Ernst]

Hello Camber,

Sorry. You misunderstanded me. My post is not for you but for all. My post was for all, red or blue, not for you. i do not called you noobie and or stated you want the 109s porked. Not my intention. Please forgive, but i stand my general point.

I put it in a general way. I am not saying to one or another... I just say sometimes appears that some want the things are this way because i cannot accept that people call the spit as they are modeled today as a complete mess compared to 109. And justfying their failures because the fm is wrong... They suppose the fms are wrong because other way they cannot be defeated...

Sorry for bad english.

[WTE_Galway]

meh ...

You cannot combine a totally accurate historical flight sim with a popular online flight sim.

Online flight sims need to cater to game balance issues and make concessions for popular (but historically inaccurate) myths about famous aircraft.

The two are not compatible.

[Crumpp]

The RAE data for the Spits is hard to argue with

Much of the RAE data is ONE airplane.
Supermarine also had a guarantee percentage of a mean in the Spitfire's performance.

I would like to see the stability and control characteristics modeled. As much as any other performance parameters, they are key to an aircraft's ability to fight.

[Ernst]

I do not agree with the guys stating spitfires are porked. However since the devs make the 100 octane the servers are more populated and in fact i am happy with this because now we have more enemies to play with. In fact the reds are more happy to fly since they have 100 octane and the blue are happy because they have motivated enemies to play with. I expect the devs fix the hurrincane start procedure then the guys who like the hurries ll come too.

My only worry is that the devs create proper CEM and weathering that prevent players of using 12 lbs boost unpunished. Now after they had the 12 lbs they want to use it all time they want for longer periods without damage. Why? My critique is for that guys who thinks that while their acs overperforms the enemy in any situation then is not good enough. When i fly the 109 i only use 1.2 ata or aprox 70% trothle while climbing and only 1.1 ata or aprox. 50% while cruising. Normally when i change course i accelerate to 80% (only to maintain speed) for a while then trotle back to 50%. When entering combat i accelerate full power but always when i can i reduce the power to 1.2 or 1.1 to preserve the engine. With the actual CEM i really not need to fly this way, i could simpe maintain full power and be happy. But i fly this way because i like. I like to fly as is should be, even if the CEM permits the other way. I dream about the day when this ll really make some difference. This way not only that few moments of combat ll be important, but all you do since you take off. You ll have to really prepare to find you enemy. But i am cetic cause i known there ll be many complaining about: "I cannot fly more than x minutes full power" "The engine is porked" "Engine is heating too fast" "This is not true" "Engine is toast after some minutes" etc. So i am not very helpfull because the devs ll not made that way cause most guys are only turn and burners...

Some say: If the manuals say 3 or 5 minutes then they can use it for much more time without damage (based in what? developers are conservative?), i.e, using their own interpretation about a thing that is not wrote anywhere to get more advantage.

And i agree with Crummp control stability is very important and we have some things complete wrong like the 109 stall and spin behaviour.

[gimpy117]

I feel like there is a lot of bias when it comes to the spit, I feel more so than the Me-109. Spit Pilots Complain because they keep getting bounced by the ME-109 and call it a god plane...except for the fact that the 109 pilots are screaming in from a height advantage. From my experiences with the spit, it is far from uber sure, but it's REALLY REALLY good. To fight an ME 109 all you need do is turn and wait for his first mistake. It's easy to fly it on the edge because of it's baby easy flight model. It might well be slower than RL like everyone screams (as far as i know the 109 is too) but it's roll rate is crazy overdone and the controls are balanced wonderfully (which is not right). The Me-109 on the other hand is porked to a degree because it has no wing slats that function. to fight a spit I always seem like I need to fly on pins and needles. Many Times I have had a spit dead to rights (or the other way around) and have had him somehow fly out of it.

and yes, I agree the Me-109 has a completely wrong stall and spin. but I bet thats because it has no slats!

[Jatta Raso]

actually i see it the other way around, the Blues were used, since last beta, to fight horrendously underpowered Reds, and were having joy almost every day; personally i felt much harder to catch a 109 with a Spit IIa then it ever was with the former Spit Ia, when the also former super Spit IIa was almost banned; i also knew i had not unlearned, rather the Spit had its speed chopped, bled E like crazy, could barely climb, and dropped like stone above 15000ft.

what happened i think, is that the Reds had to became smarter and improve their game, the situation became an intensive training against a foe that was better in almost every aspect; so by now, with our refurbished Spits, what i feel and see is the Blues having their arses handed a lot more often; i know they're having a harder time atm.

however i agree the Spit is very difficult to stall, WHEN you know were the limits are; since the Reds are a lot more used to turning fights, this notion has became second nature by now. but i assure you it's very easy for a Spit to enter a spin when you overdo a tight turn.

as for the 109s, well i've seen a lot more crashes due to spins lately, essentially when they try to pull very hard turns at low speed near the ground; my advise, DON'T; without speed, it's half a suicide. then again, what is to be expected? 109 doesn't have that turning ability, it has always been known for being very twitchy pulling such stunts. maybe atm is a bit exaggerated, i cannot say; but for sure not completely fake; i guess they'll have to get used to it somehow until they master it or it's toned down a bit

[Robo.]

I tend to agree with Jatta Raso - comparing the first and the current Beta patch, the RAF has got more chances now, which is good for everyone and it is also closer to historical specs.

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

It's all about the pilot. If he started with advantage (21k) and kept his speed up, it is possible to stay on top of 3 109. It's not particulary easy and you have to shoot well. It's the other way round if you bounce him, esp. at lower altitudes (10k). What was the pilot's name if you don't mind me asking?

I smiled reading your opinion on Spitfire, I suggest you try it for a month or so and fly against some competent 109 pilots if you can (there is quite a few out there).

Don't get me wrong, I fly in a RAF Hurricane Squadron (not too much fun at the moment, huh?) but I spent lots of time in all fighters and I very much like the 109. My opinion is that all the FMs are a bit on the dodgy side and it is possible to do crazy stuff in any of them. Not just the LW or RAF in particular.

I agree on the red whining though. It's usually based on lack of discipline and cooperation (especially that!) and inability to accept own failure. You can see this on both sides though, I suggest you ignore this kind of remarks, certainly works for me.

The game is what it is, just have fun. Improve, learn and appreciate the advantages of whichever plane you chose (109, Spitfire, whatever). It takes a good pilot to be succesful in anything. None of that is easier than the other, it's just different approach. The Luftwaffe has got the performance superiority, that's the way it was in RL, but at the end of the day it's just about the pilot's skill and tactics.

[41Sqn_Banks]

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

"short periods"

March 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

August 1940: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=8863&d=1332111666

November 1940: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=9179&d=1334724569

"5 minutes"

August 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

[Robo.]

Great post, Banks!

Just to evaluate the current model - it is possible to engage the BCC-O in a Spitfire Mk.Ia (100 octane) with following results:

- with mixture at auto rich, full boost (incorrect at +9lbs) and 2600rpm. Any more rpm and engine starts shaking (also incorrect, should be alright even at 3000rpm with the temperatures rising accordingly).

- with mixture at auto lean, full boost, it is possible to engage the BCC-O and fly at +12lbs AND 3000rpm for short period of time. Just watch your temperatures and adjust your power before it's too late.

The altitude where boost reads +9lbs with BCC-O on is around 12.000 feet (seems about right).

With the dodgy mixture and other things still incorrect, the devs are getting there I'd say. The BCC-O and 100 octane fuel can be very useful at lower altitudes, you need to be good with your CEM to get full use of it.

[Flanker35M]

S!

CEM is way too forgiving and simple in this game at this point, FM/DM so porked that really hard to tell if it resembles a RC plane or what? And this goes for both sides, I repeat BOTH SIDES so there will be no commotion that I am biased to either side.

For me the biggest gripe are the oversensitive rudder and elevator trim inputs. I've tried to adjust it in the Controls but no..move the pedals 2-3mm and your plane wiggles like crazy making it hard to keep ball centered on 109 for example. Spitfire and Hurricane has trim so it easens the task a bit for these guys. Elevator trim is the same, making precise adjustments is very hard as merely touching the trim makes plane bop up or down. There is a RANGE of movement for a reason. And just check the Controls -> Axes how LAGGY the input indicators are, like it polls the inputs every 3 seconds or what? Compare to original IL-2 where you could instantly see the effect.

Also controls feel a lot twitchier online than offline. Can be the lag or whatever but very annoying at times when you try to execute precise maneuvers like aiming during a bomb dive or dogfighting.

In short the FM feels too much like the original IL-2 one with minor differences. For one I do not understand making Bf109 twitchy as it was not unless one the VERY edge of it's envelope where one should not be anyway. Where the Hurricane was said to be a stable work horse, but not so much here. Spitfire the full bred fighter but not without vices and punished you if could not tame her proper.

I think Chernarus calls again :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

I want to add a little bit of interpretation from my side. I don't think the time limits are directly connected to the engine overheat. The reason for the time limits is to ensure a reasonable engine life. Of course the time limits are indirectly connected with engine overheat as the temperatures will be higher with higher settings.

You may run the engine on "5 minute all out" setting for 1 hours without overheating, however this would reduce the time between overhauls considerably (maybe to 20 hours compared to 100 hours).
On the other hand you may run the engine on "30 minute climb" setting for 10 minutes and damage the engine due to overheating, because radiator was shut and speed was to slow.

So a "5 minute" limit doesn't mean it will only overheat after 5 minutes, it may overheat earlier and actions must be taken to prevent this. It also may overheat later or not at all and there won't be any trouble during this flight if the engine is new. There might be trouble in the next flight or you are grounded because of required engine overhaul ;)

[Flanker35M]

S!

But with current system you can abuse the engine at will as the wear/tear/damage does not carry over to next flight. Always a factory fresh plane in use.

[41Sqn_Banks]

S!

But with current system you can abuse the engine at will as the wear/tear/damage does not carry over to next flight. Always a factory fresh plane in use.

Indeed. Maybe the sequel/mmo will take care of this.

[Robo.]

So a "5 minute" limit doesn't mean it will only overheat after 5 minutes, it may overheat earlier and actions must be taken to prevent this. It also may overheat later or not at all and there won't be any trouble during this flight if the engine is new. There might be trouble in the next flight or you are grounded because of required engine overhaul ;)

I completely agree and I am aware of what you wrote. I guess the time limit implemented within the sim is just for the game purpose, so people won't abuse it unreasonably. I don't know if that's good or bad or if there is a better way of modelling this.

My comments on the actual usage in the sim had nothing to do with the real life, basically I shared what we found out with our Squad while testing these new planes shortly.

[TomcatViP]

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."

The guys here complain about the spit. I go online and see a complete different situation: Man the spits are very agile, once the pilot sees you and are not a complete noobie is very difficult to put your guns in it, mainly if you are alone. Sometimes they start to whirlwind down there, the only thing they need do to is to pull the elevator as they. They have not to think in a strategy to escape, think about energy, force the adversary to lose their initial energy to after escape in a dive, etc they have just to turn in and endless whirlwinding... So simplistic and ridiculous... However i just accept the performance that i have in the 109 and fly with my brains... Man, is this guys playing the same sim than me?

just my point...

my be the devs would develop two versions of the sim. One for the british commowealth and another for the rest of the world.

Very good post Ernst. I say Amen to all that.

[David198502]

S!

CEM is way too forgiving and simple in this game at this point, FM/DM so porked that really hard to tell if it resembles a RC plane or what? And this goes for both sides, I repeat BOTH SIDES so there will be no commotion that I am biased to either side.

For me the biggest gripe are the oversensitive rudder and elevator trim inputs. I've tried to adjust it in the Controls but no..move the pedals 2-3mm and your plane wiggles like crazy making it hard to keep ball centered on 109 for example. Spitfire and Hurricane has trim so it easens the task a bit for these guys. Elevator trim is the same, making precise adjustments is very hard as merely touching the trim makes plane bop up or down. There is a RANGE of movement for a reason. And just check the Controls -> Axes how LAGGY the input indicators are, like it polls the inputs every 3 seconds or what? Compare to original IL-2 where you could instantly see the effect.

Also controls feel a lot twitchier online than offline. Can be the lag or whatever but very annoying at times when you try to execute precise maneuvers like aiming during a bomb dive or dogfighting.

In short the FM feels too much like the original IL-2 one with minor differences. For one I do not understand making Bf109 twitchy as it was not unless one the VERY edge of it's envelope where one should not be anyway. Where the Hurricane was said to be a stable work horse, but not so much here. Spitfire the full bred fighter but not without vices and punished you if could not tame her proper.

I think Chernarus calls again :)

+1

especially with this beta patch, the elevator and aileron controls are really a mess....ive tried today the steam version again, to see the difference, and there is a big one....this beta patch is a big, really big step backwards regarding the elevator and aileron sensitivty in the 109...its hardly possible to aim accurately now.its a shame and damn its annoying...the rudder is maybe a bit better, but just like you said, its still hard to keep the ball centered in straight and level flight, with the slightest rudder input resulting in big reaction of the plane...

[Redroach]

Is that true for all airspeeds? At least the elevator controls SHOULD get heavier when going very fast.

[David198502]

thats the strange thing,....its pretty much the same when flying really fast

[pstyle]

+1
with the slightest rudder input resulting in big reaction of the plane...

I noticed the same with Spitfire last night.
A tiny touch of my z-axis threw the rudder out and I got the wind/buffet sound effect. I can't confirm this, but I am of the opinion that this is much more marked than previously.

I have a Joystick with the rudder on the Z-axis. Obviously this makes turning difficult now because I almost always accidentally shift the Z-axis slightly when turning.

I tried increasing the dead-zone on my joystick Z-axis to 10% at both the 0 had 100 marks but his had no effect. A tiny input still results in a very unsubtle movement of the control surface.

I'm not sure if people playing with rudder pedals have noticed any change in sensitivity.. it wouldn't matter so much if I could get the dead zone to work, then my accidental inputs would not result in a control surface change.

[David198502]

well, i play with rudder pedals...
though for me, although i notice a difference in rudder behaviour as well, its not my main concern...to be honest, i think the rudder of the 109 had a okish behaviour before both betas, the first beta messed the rudder up, and now its better again(though still too sensitive)...

my main concern(note im a 109 guy) is the elevator and aileron control behaviour with this patch...it just sucks

[gimpy117]

Very good post Ernst. I say Amen to all that.

yeah I tried to write some paltry thing of my own, but ernst pretty much summed it up. I well flown spit Boosting Is a very very hard plane to fight. It was said that a well flown spit could dance around the sky, and that is probably true, the Issue to me is though...that the games spit is too easy to fly, It rolls far too well and has ungodly E retention. you really can't stall it at full power unless you do something drastic...and the Elevator/Ailerons exhibit perfect harmony, unlike real life where the elevator should be more sensitive.

I think If we actually make the Spit a challenge to fly like every plane should be on the edge we would solve our problems

[Jatta Raso]

the elevator is also very twitchy with the Spit, considerably more than before, has caused me a lot of missies from dead six, i end up fine tuning with the vertical trim on approaches and even so it's not easy; regarding rudder, it's the same situation with a sudden response on slight inputs. i find the control surfaces' response more sluggish at high speeds, although maybe more with the ailerons than with elevators.

as for the CEM questions, about WEP (boost cut-out in my case), well i don't think i can reach 2min at 3000rpm on cut-out without blowing the engine, and that with slight variations from level flight; i may fly for quite some time with cut out on 2700rpm, or i may be unable to sustain it at 2640rpm, it really depends on the given situation and speed; speed is another variable in the fray, i have been squeezing 300-310 mph at level flight with rad at 30-35% with cut-out at 2640rpm and getting away with it, i think because of the extra speed meaning extra cooling.

furthermore, i've realized there seems to be some random factors on the engine's thermal behavior; also there's a tendency to overheat when reaching 10000ft, sometimes forcing me to reduce rpm just below 2640rpm,or to reduce boost (throttle) which makes sense to me, as the air should be thinner and the prop would get less opposition, in turn heating up the shaft, governor and engine itself. right?

last note: i've read extensively that in RL the Spit was really childish to fly, "anyone could fly a Spitfire", so i don't think it's harmonic behavior is that far off... slightly overdone probably; what may be lacking to destabilize it some more is some wind conditions and different air masses with dissimilar air density

[Kwiatek]

Here are Real Life power settings for Merlin III and Merlin XII during BOB era:

Merlin III with CSP at 87 Octan fuel:

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +6 1/4 at 2600 RPM
Continous cruising- +4 1/2 at 2600 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM

Merlin III at 100 Octan :

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour)- +6 1/4 at 2850 RPM ( below 20 000 ft)
-3000 RPM (above 20 000 ft)
All-out level flight ( 5 minutes)- +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)
Emergency power (5 minutes)- +12 lbs at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)


Merlin XII at 100 Octan

Max take off - +12 at 3000 RPM
(probably emergency 5-minutes also)
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +9 at 2850 RPM
Continous cruising- +7 at 2650 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit)- +9 at 3000 RPM


I really hope and want to see such power settings in CLOD RAF fighters

But probably it would be miracle if we see it :roll:

[TomcatViP]

as for the CEM questions, about WEP (boost cut-out in my case), well i don't think i can reach 2min at 3000rpm on cut-out without blowing the engine, and that with slight variations from level flight;



Don't expect perf as in the manual if your eng is not properly in the same state as during the test.

For example if you are cruising too fast toward the combat zone, you can't expect max perf from your eng especially with WeP.

I scarcely see ppl cruising at 260/300+kph in game in a spit (some are and I like to see it).

[WTE_Galway]

You may run the engine on "5 minute all out" setting for 1 hours without overheating, however this would reduce the time between overhauls considerably (maybe to 20 hours compared to 100 hours).
On the other hand you may run the engine on "30 minute climb" setting for 10 minutes and damage the engine due to overheating, because radiator was shut and speed was to slow.


Or in the case of the p38 it would run forever without overheating but exceeding recommended time limits would stuff the turbocharger with the consequent drastic reduction in power.

Clearly in a game "overheating" is used to represent a wide range of engine faults not all of which manifested in real life as actual overheating. This applies to many FM and DM scenarios, you cannot model everything.

As a result if you want to claim your favorite ride has been nobbled (regardless of what plane is) its not to hard to find some area in any sim where the simplified modelling means a mismatch with historical data.

[Crumpp]

Clearly in a game "overheating" is used to represent a wide range of engine faults not all of which manifested in real life as actual overheating. This applies to many FM and DM scenarios, you cannot model everything.


Exactly.

The most thing they can simulate is the mindset of piloting an aircraft. That means maintaining a scan of the instruments and operating the aircraft by the POH limits.

IMHO, CloD does this better than any game before it.

[Osprey]

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."

The guys here complain about the spit. I go online and see a complete different situation: Man the spits are very agile, once the pilot sees you and are not a complete noobie is very difficult to put your guns in it, mainly if you are alone. Sometimes they start to whirlwind down there, the only thing they need do to is to pull the elevator as they. They have not to think in a strategy to escape, think about energy, force the adversary to lose their initial energy to after escape in a dive, etc they have just to turn in and endless whirlwinding... So simplistic and ridiculous... However i just accept the performance that i have in the 109 and fly with my brains... Man, is this guys playing the same sim than me?

just my point...

my be the devs would develop two versions of the sim. One for the british commowealth and another for the rest of the world.


People should note that Ernst was one of those in the tiny minority who voted against 100 octane fuelling in bug 174. As a result I take what he says with a pinch of salt.

[Robo.]

Exactly.

The most thing they can simulate is the mindset of piloting an aircraft. That means maintaining a scan of the instruments and operating the aircraft by the POH limits.

IMHO, CloD does this better than any game before it.

I agree, but the POH limits should be modelled correctly. I can see they can't model everything and the engine damage is simplified (and overaggresive for the gaming reasons) and I have no problem with that. Even though the relative performance now seems to be much better than even before and maybe the boost gauges showing incorrect values are purely cosmetic issue. This is still subject to change and I am not about to do any proper testing just yet, but I would say that most of the RAF flyers welcome the current beta. All it needs now is fixing the instruments (if that's really the issue) so correct figures are being shown, fixing the incosnistencies within RAF fighter mixture control including the necessity to go Auto Lean in order to be able to use +12lbs. at 3000rpm. And include similar limitation for DB 601 Notleistung so people won't abuse it like I do. :grin:

Osprey - Ernst seems to be just a frustrated LW pilot that was outflown by some Spitfire pilot, there is nothing wrong with that. His post is interesting and I understand what bothers him (I don't like whining either), but he is obviously wrong in his assumptions.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I routine get my butt kicked flying the spitfire. I generally put this down to poor tactical choices, slow reactions time and being deviod of any combat flying skills! :)

As such I tend to be of the opinion it's the pilot not the plane!

I'm not to sure about all this talk of Uber Spitfires when I can almost keep pace with one in a Blenhiem!

You can always tell a noob Blue pilot from the radio message!

Pilot 1 - "I've just shot down a Spitfire!!!!!!! :) :) :)"
Pilot 2 -"That was only Skoshi tiger!, Everyones done that! :rolleyes:"
Pilot 1 - "Oh! :("

Cheers!

[TomcatViP]

People should note that Ernst was one of those in the tiny minority who voted against 100 octane fuelling in bug 174. As a result I take what he says with a pinch of salt.

Lol tht's all your theory of 100oct available in fighter during BoB that has to be taken "with a pinch of salt".

Your way of re-writting the big and the small history is remarkable ! Wew :grin:

[Ernst]

People should note that Ernst was one of those in the tiny minority who voted against 100 octane fuelling in bug 174. As a result I take what he says with a pinch of salt.

Osprey and Robo,

Voted no by the same reason i explained above. Without proper CEM and engine tear/wear people should abuse using boost every time. You should consider others opinion in full not only the part you want, trying to demoralize the person instead to argument against their ideas.

You should attack the ideas not the person. I am in the right to say this since i never attacked you before. And then you decided to discredit my ideas simple attacking my person. If you only want to demoralize others and have no new idea to add to the discussion do not post. This a good topic that i m affraided it ll be derailed by now.

If once a time i attack you personally, i do not remember but i would like to apologize now.

[Osprey]

.....riiiiight.........:rolleyes:

[Robo.]

Osprey and Robo,

Voted no by the same reason i explained above. Without proper CEM and engine tear/wear people should abuse using boost every time. You should consider others opinion in full not only the part you want, trying to demoralize the person instead to argument against their ideas.

Ernst, just for the record I never commented on your voting, that's your personal opinion and I never had any intention to question it. Just so you know, as for now, you can't abuse the 12lbs. boost at all, it's actually quite tricky to use it and you can destroy your Merlin pretty easily when you're not careful.

You should attack the ideas not the person.

Also, I never attacked you (maybe on ATAG), I simply disagree on what you wrote in post 4, that is just your observation based on what you encoutered (probably a capable pilot with E advantage). I simply believe that your comment on Spitfires is wrong and your comment on red pilots whining is very correct. I don't know you and I have no intention to offend you, but the post I commented was pretty much the same thing you disliked on the red side. Except now it was you whining. If you have problem outclimbing a Spitfire, you're doing something wrong with your 109. That much for my opinion.

[Robo.]

Lol tht's all your theory of 100oct available in fighter during BoB that has to be taken "with a pinch of salt".

Your way of re-writting the big and the small history is remarkable ! Wew :grin:

Enough has been said to this topic, the evidence is overhwelming, but you can't please everyone, feel free to believe what suits you best.

Having the 100 octane fighters at least is both historically correct and good for the game.

As for the actual FMs - shall we report the current issues or is it OK to rely that the devs will get it absolutely right in the final release? ;)

[TomcatViP]

Enough has been said to this topic, the evidence is overhwelming, but you can't please everyone, feel free to believe what suits you best.

Having the 100 octane fighters at least is both historically correct and good for the game.



You hve a strange way of understanding the logic behind what is historically correct.

Assumptions does not makes proof of fact. No matter how numerous they are thrown in the basket.

The way the 100oct debate have been pounded and the voices of other opinions (because there was different opinions) repeatedly hammered by constantly repeated arguments and personal insults (I still have a vivid remembrance of being insulted by some myself) shld hve not played in your favor this way.

Even the way of some 100Octaner are flying the sim is subject to doubt.

And know you are arguing the SPit does not have strange FM regarding turn rate, E retention, is not Free of stall etc.. etc...

You know, the more I read you and your affiliates, I make my mind believing that the right simulation for you is something related to Duck shooting in a narrow corridor. And still you might request some change in the bird FM !

[Robo.]

You hve a strange way of understanding the logic behind what is historically correct. Assumptions does not makes proof of fact. No matter how numerous they are thrown in the basket.

Please do tell me what is historically correct then, regarding the 100 octane spirit.

Even the way of some 100Octaner are flying the sim is subject to doubt.

I know I know, everybody is cheating - especially whoever shoots you down. ;)

And know you are arguing the SPit does not have strange FM regarding turn rate, E retention, is not Free of stall etc.. etc...

No I am not arguing about that at all. In fact I have raised many issues regardless on the side preference (I fly pretty much everything) and I am aware of the issues you mention. I never said what you said I said though. :eek:

You know, the more I read you and your affiliates, I make my mind believing that the right simulation for you is something related to Duck shooting in a narrow corridor. And still you might request some change in the bird FM !

You are very wrong in your assumptions, but it does not matter all that much. I have nothing else to say to you.

[phoenix1963]

Kwaitek's post reminded me that with this patch the Spit 2a versus 100 octane Spit 1a performance is now completely out of kilter. They really should not be massively different.
The 100 1a now feels strangely unstable, much slower to accelerate, struggles to turn.

Spitfires were always "nice" to fly, this one is not. Yes, this is a rather subjective view! I'd be grateful if someone could produce some comparative performance graphs, particularly sustained turn rates, it's difficult I know.

56RAF_phoenix

[CaptainDoggles]

Do not turn this into another moronic 100-octane thread. Please and thank you.

[Robo.]

Kwaitek's post reminded me that with this patch the Spit 2a versus 100 octane Spit 1a performance is now completely out of kilter. They really should not be massively different.
The 100 1a now feels strangely unstable, much slower to accelerate, struggles to turn.

Spitfires were always "nice" to fly, this one is not. Yes, this is a rather subjective view! I'd be grateful if someone could produce some comparative performance graphs, particularly sustained turn rates, it's difficult I know.

56RAF_phoenix

I don't think that would make any sense now as the devs might come with a new patch soon, putting all testing and graphs to the square one again.

From technical point of view, main Spitfire FM issues are:

1. Mixture still wrong way around (although unlike the Hurricane, this one works correctly as 2 pos. lever)

2. +9lbs. bnominal boost on Merlin III :-x

3. inability to use BCC-O at Auto Rich mixture at 3000rpm (and +12lbs.), just makes no sense, but your engine will shake above 2600rpm :o

4. temperature limits too strict (time wise) for both all out and BCC-O, engines too fragile

As for the 'feeling' I don't think they have changed anything, neg. G is still dodgy, now you can't stall the thing, you can apparently pull like a plunger and it won't stall while turning. It's still a spitfire with some nice extra kick at lower alts, just as it should be. Above 10-12k it's the same like good old Mk.Ia. I haven't noticed any changes in acceleration or stability - non of these are strong points of this plane anyway.

We'll see how and if these issues will be addressed, but I'd say that with this patch it's a bit more of a Battle of Britain, which is good.

/edit/

If you feel like voting for the mixture bugs, please do so here:

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/18

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/102

It seems that some of the most obvious bugs have been addressed already based on the bugtracker system.

[Kwiatek]

Still some here try to put these disccusion into red or blue agenda whining lol. Poor anyside biased people.

The true is that actuall engine power modeling is wrong in many ways. Merlin engines in CLoD dont reach their real life specification. It should be corrected.

No one from "blue guys" dont even mention that 109 E in CLoD could fly all day in 5-minutes emergency power rating - 1.3 Ata at 2400 RPM without any engine problems but when it is clearly that Merling III or Merlin XII cant even reach their 5-minutes emergency rating without broken engine and some want it to be correct "blue guys" screem like hurted kids.

Im sure that time limit for engine power settings (from manual) should be reachable without any seriously problems in normal condition of flight and only in extremaly condition ( e.x very hot temperatures, cooling system damages, engine damages) could casue a problems.

Unfortunately in CLOD even in normal condition time limits for engine power settings are not possible to achive not mention that there are many bugs with designated engine power settings like e.x. SPitfire MK II with Merlin XII - nominal power should be +9lbs at 2850 RPM ( not +6 like now) and emergency should be +12 lbs at 3000 RPMs (not +9lbs like now)

I repeat correctly (historical) engine power settings for Merlin engines:

Merlin III with CSP at 87 Octan fuel:

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +6 1/4 at 2600 RPM
Continous cruising- +4 1/2 at 2600 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM

Merlin III at 100 Octan :

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour)- +6 1/4 at 2850 RPM ( below 20 000 ft)
-3000 RPM (above 20 000 ft)
All-out level flight ( 5 minutes)- +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)
Emergency power (5 minutes)- +12 lbs at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)


Merlin XII at 100 Octan

Max take off - +12 at 3000 RPM
(emergency 3 or 5-minutes also)
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +9 at 2850 RPM
Continous cruising- +7 at 2650 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit)- +9 at 3000 RPM

[Crumpp]

now you can't stall the thing, you can apparently pull like a plunger and it won't stall while turning.

That is not right at all. The Spitfire gave plenty of warning but the longitudinal instability made it easy to over control and stall with a wing that had very harsh accelerated stall characteristics.

3/4 in stick travel runs the wing from cruise to stall with 5lbs per G.
Here is the post war proposal to adopt quantifiable stability and control standards like the United States. Up until then, stability and control at the RAE was opinion. It is interesting too reading the measured results vs opinion.

In Gates test, the Spitfire exhibited peak stick force during a steady 4G pullout was only TWO POUNDS!!

Of course he labeled it too light. The Stirling on the other hand exhibited a peak stick force of 84lbs during a steady 2G pull out. It was considered normal under quantifiable stability and control criteria.

Now Gates did publish several papers after visiting the NACA attempting to get the RAE on a standard or at least improve their stability and control science but it was not adopted until post war.

Between Gates and Lyons the RAE was finally on a standard by 1950.

[Robo.]

What Kwiatek said.

That is not right at all. The Spitfire gave plenty of warning but the longitudinal instability made it easy to over control and stall with a wing that had very harsh accelerated stall characteristics.

I am aware of that, Crumpp.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Kwiatek, I do not complain about the 1.31ata as I VERY rarely even use it ;) My most used setting is actually the best cruise power 1.21ata :) That way can keep oil and coolant cool with minimal radiator flap opening thus I have nice speed too :)

But this all boils down to the "complicated" CEM we have, basically a bit refined from IL-2. CEM is not an issue most of the time as you soon learn the settings that can be run regardless power settings. Be it blue or red.

I think all agree that the FM/DM/CEM needs a LOT of work and we can only hope that before the sequel is out, it is done or all hell will break lose and this bickering here will be nothing compared to that.

Over and out :)

[=AN=Felipe]

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.



S! Ernst,

First, you guys dont took me down, i land my plane, with damage but i land... lol

So lets talk about this point you bring up in your topic... All performance test i have read tells me one thing, spitfire still under modelated, BUT almost red pilots complain agains 1009s not becouse the spitfire was under performed, its becouse they dont know how to manage the engine settings...

That night we fight a hell of a great battle, i shoot 2 109s down at 23k ft, and apper 2 more and i have to run away and land... How i do that? How can i make barrel rolls at 22k top how can i loop in that altitude...

So... every loop i made, i lost my engine at top, flaps down to help me bring my nose down again and dont stall, to restart my engine again... BUT in result of that i lost about 5k 6k ft to recover and back to fight again.

In that altitude you can compare, spitfire got almost the same climb rate, i just set my engine for better flow of cavalary and acceleration... Thats the point when a Blue pilot fight against a Red Ace, we got the same vantages you got.

I know you are a great fighter pilot, we play togheter a long time, but belive me, in that altitude fighting against a Spitfire IIa in certain hands, its very difficult to win...

I dont want to be arrogant or rude with anyone, but its fact, blue pilots trust too mutch in their planes, this excessive trust maybe will defeat someone maybe not, deppends against you are flying. I belive in two things, gunnery and pilots hands, of course engine performance will help too, but in war we saw this happening, spitfires rocking 109s and vice versa...

We will try to reach a more realistic Spitfire, and of course we want a more realistic 109s, but guys, open you eyes, dont reach a IL2 1946 performance, that simulator SUCKS becouse that unaccurate flightmodels... fact too...

Ill post Spitfire tests soon in this forum, for comparasions... ok?

Cya guys! Cya in skyes! ;)

[6S.Manu]

I know you are a great fighter pilot, we play togheter a long time, but belive me, in that altitude fighting against a Spitfire IIa in certain hands, its very difficult to win...

I claim it since 6 years at least... Spit's energy retention gives to it a great advantage at that altitude.


I dont want to be arrogant or rude with anyone, but its fact, blue pilots trust too mutch in their planes, this excessive trust maybe will defeat someone maybe not, deppends against you are flying. I belive in two things, gunnery and pilots hands, of course engine performance will help too, but in war we saw this happening, spitfires rocking 109s and vice versa...

The first part it's true for both the sides. ;)

Gunnery, yes, but more than pilot's hands it was pilot's IQ. Fatigue modelling, but above all realistic scanning timing and visibility would give the real advantage to the smarter and more disciplined guy, and not to the one who's good with the stick. ;)

[=AN=Felipe]

Gunnery, yes, but more than pilot's hands it was pilot's IQ. Fatigue modelling, but above all realistic scanning timing and visibility would give the real advantage to the smarter and more disciplined guy, and not to the one who's good with the stick. ;)


Thx for the kind words! I 100% agree with you! I think we can add the famous "Situation awarness" or "SA" in parallel with IQ and discipline of the Pilots.

Of course we will reach for realistic flight and models like you said =)

Cya! ;)

[Robo.]

Nice reading Felipe - I didn't get that it was yourself in the Spitfire from Ernst's post. Well flown then!

But what you discuss here with Manu is all about individual pilot's skill = using the existing FMs but not about FMs themselves. Although I obviously agree with what you said, it always comes down to the guy in the cockpit, his brain, his hands, feet, eyes, experience...

As for the Flight Models - there are still mistakes and inconsistencies in all aircraft, this thread is about improved RAF aircraft from the last Beta patch. Not because anyone is complaining but because all this is new stuff and we want it to be evaluated, discussed etc. It always takes some time to get used to the new stuff and to figure it out...

Coming back to what Ernst said about the initial FM discussion:

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

You can take whatever FM and make it work for you. Good pilot is a good pilot... but that doesn't mean that the FM is correct.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level.

Have you ever tried flying a Spitfire above 20k? It certainly outperforms the 109s up there, which is why Felipe was at that altitude in the first place. But it's certainly not easy, I would say that many people with less hours in a Spitfire would blow their engine before you say Messerschmitt Messerschmitt Messerschmitt.

If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc...

How exactly matched? Speed wise or climb rate? What altitudes are we talking about? Looking at the hard data - graphs etc it looks that Merlins had a slight edge up there, see http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html (I do know the site is red biased, but the actual graphs are not far off). German pilots were struggling up there and it required some skill to get some extra speed above FTH - see Steinhilpers book and fiddling with RPM etc. Even more pronounced with the Merlin XII.

The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

I agree it is very capable and now quite well matched (with this new patch I mean). But we're still not quite there hence this discussion and pointing out at things that are still wrong - including weird mixture behaviour or wrong limits for engine operations.

Where exactly did you see a 3' limit for BCC-O (Merlin III)?

[Robo.]

Bugtracker issues dealing with Spitfire FMs :

1. Incorrect boost settings (Rolls Royce Merlin engines):

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/370

2. Incorrect mixture operation (Rolls Royce Merlin engines):

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/102

3. Incorrect mixture position (Spitfire)

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/18

Please do vote, it seems the devs are listening and are basing the fixes on the number of votes.

[Talisman]

Kwaitek's post reminded me that with this patch the Spit 2a versus 100 octane Spit 1a performance is now completely out of kilter. They really should not be massively different.
The 100 1a now feels strangely unstable, much slower to accelerate, struggles to turn.

Spitfires were always "nice" to fly, this one is not. Yes, this is a rather subjective view! I'd be grateful if someone could produce some comparative performance graphs, particularly sustained turn rates, it's difficult I know.

56RAF_phoenix

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

I found the gen via the above link (esp para 4) rather interesting Phoenix.

Happy landings

[Osprey]

I've flown with Felipe before, he knows his stuff. Had you (Ernst) been taken down by me then perhaps we could argue about overmodelling, but Felipe, no, he just gets the best out of it.

This was all predicted, that after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FM's are at least brought closer and now a number of blues are suddenly upset about it. One thing I notice is that the best blue pilots are pretty much silent though, they know their machines and how to use them. If you want to learn from some of these types and aren't a squadron take a look at JG26 in Air Combat Group (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=334267&postcount=5) :) JG26_DavidRed is desperately hard to kill !

~S~

[FS~Phat]

Guys enough of the personal attacks. Infractions have been given and more will be on the way if you dont calm down.

Its not acceptable to draw someone into an argument calling them anything, especially in bad taste about the holocaust.

For god sake man GROW UP!

[FS~Phat]

As I have mentioned privately to a couple of people.

Please read the rules, it is against the rules to discuss politics, religion and by definition war crimes. This is a game forum.

RULE #1 no less...

1. Unacceptable behavior - includes vulgarity and obscene language, offensive or threatening content, drugs propaganda, political or religious agitation and propaganda, etc

I hope I have made it clear.

[=AN=Felipe]

Hey Osprey and Robo, thx!

So Robo, i talk about pilots skills but i talk about correct modeling too, i think we all reach the correct FM and we will seek that! :D


Anyway i am workin with AN team for bring up the new datas of performance tests of spitfires and hurricanes ok?

Lets work for a more accurate FM!

:cool:

[6S.Manu]

This was all predicted, that after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FM's are at least brought closer and now a number of blues are suddenly upset about it.
Osprey, many pilots keep flying Spitfires at low altitude and this is not a matter of FM...

I don't know Felipe's skill but just for the fact he flies so high it makes clear that he's more than an average Spit pilot, a good challenger, and I guess he was also when RAF fighters' speed was lower.

But, imo, you find one as Felipe once every 30 engagements with Spitfire pilots. So I can understand if blue pilots feel confident in their rides: probably they used to not look above their plane while flying at medium altitude. ;)

[Flanker35M]

S!

I would say that there is an equal amount of average pilots in both camps, a few shine above them and then the new ones learning the ropes. Has nothing to do with any preferred ride or side.

As many state it would benefit all to make comprehensive tests and post the results and see what is off, what is OK and what needs some tweaking only. Without it going into a blue vs. red name calling, that is not what we need but a game/sim all want to play and learn to be a good pilot.

[Glider]

S!

I would say that there is an equal amount of average pilots in both camps, a few shine above them and then the new ones learning the ropes. Has nothing to do with any preferred ride or side.



Which is of course what happened in the real world

[Flanker35M]

S!

Sure was, but again seems many think that they should be like the very few that became legendary aces. We play a game and it sets some limitations we have to live with. And one is that we will never get accurate FM/DM/CEM because hardware just is not up to it or you would have wireframe graphics ;) I think the expectations are too high combined with the saturation of information/notes/memoirs/interviews and no-one will never be happy no matter how hard a dev tries.

So what we can do try is to get performances and modellings within an acceptable limit so the gameplay will not suffer but again not become too simplified. Then CoD and it's sequels will shine when the balance is found with the CORE of the sim being rock solid to build on. Just some thoughts..

[6S.Manu]

I would say that there is an equal amount of average pilots in both camps, a few shine above them and then the new ones learning the ropes. Has nothing to do with any preferred ride or side.



You're polite Flanker, but do you really think all the planes require the same skill to succeed? I don't think to say garbage by stating that TnB fighting require less self-discipline (see patience) and every new aggressive pilot can get used to it at the first dogfight very fast, since it's a "there 's no need to think: move the stick, aim and fire!"

Instakill.

If the Zeke's pilot keeps downing the Wildcat's one who's trying to turn with him, don't you think that the american pilot will try something different BEFORE the japanese one? Infact the latter does not need to change his tactic at all.. he's winning.

IMO BnZ is harder to learn, required more time and many KIA: it's less rewarding and a guy without patience will switch plane (do you remember the 190's IL2 history?). Because of this I think that the average pilot of BnZ planes (109/190/Hellcat/P47/P51) is actually more skilled than a Spitfire/Zeke/La7 pilot.

Still you enter in one of the most populated IL2 dogfight server and you find most of the 109s flying high and teamworking, and the rest is below, so that I have to fly with SpitfireI/La5/P51C and together with a teammate to have some fun since most of the guys there seem to not cooperate: of course still you find a single 109 who want to turn with you and dies fast... but the same number of BnZing Spitfires.

Of course I'm talking about IL2 1946... only Luthier knows when CloD will be worthy of been played by me.


Sooo... returning to the FM argument: Osprey states that "after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FMs are at least brought closer"... Flanker.. do you really believe it was a FM issue?

The last thing about the FM test (to not be totally OT :D ): have you guys a direct link with the developers? Are you sure that your tests are helping CloD?

Since I think this devotion should be directed where you can actually see results... what about a DCS World MOD?

http://i.imgur.com/ynB17l.jpg

Maybe one day CloD will actually allow the community to gain from your knowledge and perseverance... SDK?

[ATAG_Snapper]

S!

I would say that there is an equal amount of average pilots in both camps, a few shine above them and then the new ones learning the ropes. Has nothing to do with any preferred ride or side.

As many state it would benefit all to make comprehensive tests and post the results and see what is off, what is OK and what needs some tweaking only. Without it going into a blue vs. red name calling, that is not what we need but a game/sim all want to play and learn to be a good pilot.

Well said, Flanker!

[Flanker35M]

S!


What I am saying Manu is that there are average pilots that could not get the most out of their plane no matter how accurately it was modelled. They might not be bad sticks but maybe their SA is not the best or some situations just are too much for them to handle. I am talking about PERSONAL abilities here, not the FM or whatever. You can give an idiot the best tool in the world and he could do nothing with it when a more talented guy would do wonders even with a less good tool. Got the pic?

I've seen over the years many complainers how overmodelled something is and when proven wrong you are a cheater. Again nothing to do with FM or whatever but PERSONAL abilities. Boom and Zoom whereas Turn and Burn BOTH require skill to get good results and not yourself killed. And again the FM has nothing to do with it, but how YOU can handle the situation. You are given a tool, make the best use of it in the situation. Learn how to use it properly.

So I think that if we got FM/DM/CEM/Whatever well done as the CORE of the game then ALL would have a good chance to become a proficient pilot. In current situation there are too many things making some planes better over some due limitations of the game, not the player. But remember that some pilots EXPECT a Spitfire or a Bf109 of that matter to do what they THINK it should, from whatever experience they get it from(books, discussions, programs, insert source here). And it is easy to come here screaming how shit plane A is over plane B when the fault is 99% between the chair and stick. Do not EXPECT but LEARN. Then you will be the ace of all times or whatever or you will just enjoy the game even more.

So basically..Devs should make the CORE (FM/DM/CEM/whatever) of the game rock solid. After that the rest is up to the player and his own abilities, not the game limitation. I hope I made myself clear in a positive way :)

[ATAG_Snapper]

You're polite Flanker, but do you really think all the planes require the same skill to succeed? I don't think to say garbage by stating that TnB fighting require less self-discipline (see patience) and every new aggressive pilot can get used to it at the first dogfight very fast, since it's a "there 's no need to think: move the stick, aim and fire!"

Instakill.

If the Zeke's pilot keeps downing the Wildcat's one who's trying to turn with him, don't you think that the american pilot will try something different BEFORE the japanese one? Infact the latter does not need to change his tactic at all.. he's winning.

IMO BnZ is harder to learn, required more time and many KIA: it's less rewarding and a guy without patience will switch plane (do you remember the 190's IL2 history?). Because of this I think that the average pilot of BnZ planes (109/190/Hellcat/P47/P51) is actually more skilled than a Spitfire/Zeke/La7 pilot.

Still you enter in one of the most populated IL2 dogfight server and you find most of the 109s flying high and teamworking, and the rest is below, so that I have to fly with SpitfireI/La5/P51C and together with a teammate to have some fun since most of the guy there sem to not to cooperate: of course still you find a single 109 who want to turn with you and dies fast... but far far less that BnZing Spitfires.

Of course I'm talking about IL2 1946... only Luthier knows when CloD will be worthy of been played by me.


Sooo... returning to the FM argument: Osprey states that "after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FMs are at least brought closer"... Flanker.. do you really believe it was a FM issue?

The last thing about the FM test (to not be totally OT :D ): have you guys a direct link with the developers? Are you sure that your tests are helping CloD?

Since I think this devotion should be directed where you can actually see results... what about a DCS World MOD?

http://i.imgur.com/ynB17l.jpg

Maybe one day CloD will actually allow the community to gain from your knowledge and perseverance... SDK?

Manu, you run the risk of seriously underestimating your opponent. It works both ways, which you fail to mention. For 14 months the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots have dealt with experienced 109 pilots that, quite wisely, refuse to t&b. The 109's have used their superior speed and climbing performance to dive out of the sun, take their shot, then climb back untouched into the sun to repeat the process over and over and over until they get their kill. Yes, the Spits and Hurries turn for all they're worth, but it's hard to dodge the opponent you cannot see in the sun's glare. Can't dive away......that just makes you an easy target for the 109 pilot who can out dive you. Can't run away.....the 109 can easily catch up and shoot you down easily. Can't porpoise like the 109's favourite evasion tactic....the Merlin's carbureted engine cuts out -- at the worst possible time. Can't climb away.....even a co-energy 109 can easily outclimb you. Can't out-scissors the 109.....his roll rate is faster than yours. Oh....you can out turn him in a sustained turn....but the 109 won't hang around for that. Why would he? He can just speed/dive/climb away to repeat the boom and zoom process against his severely underpowered opponent. I've been told I can "angle fight him"......as the 109 pilot circles 1000 meters overhead laughing.

Experienced Spitfire and Hurricane pilots have learned spawn inland and grab altitude -- lots of it. 20,000 feet for starters. Which is not particularly helpful when a half dozen 109's are tag-teaming each other vulching the RAF coastal airfields. If a Spit or Hurri tries a boom and zoom on an unwary 109 below, he better get it right the first time and make his kill. Reason: Spits and Hurries have to CUT THROTTLE when initiating a dive -- they lose their ailerons past 420 mph otherwise (despite spec of 450 mph dive limit --that's a laugh. Yet a big concern by Blue pilots that the Spit's roll rate is 3 times too fast at 410 mph. Better use the rudder to do your fast rolls, 'cause you ain't gonna have ailerons too much longer! :-P). So if you miss your shot on that first attempt -- keep diving and run away. Otherwise the 109 will bunt down after you, accelerate in HIS dive and catch you as you pull up to regain altitude to repeat your boom and zoom. Don't forget, the Spit and Hurries didn't have WEP at all, unlike your 1.3 -1.4 ata that you can use over and over and over. Now we have "WEP" -- last time I used it (12 lbs boost, 3000 rpms, Full Lean mixture) on Tues night I blew my engine after a 1.5 minute climb just before reaching an unsuspecting 109. He flew on unaware while my smoking Spit fell away losing power. Yet we have Blue pilots quibbling over whether we should have 3 minutes or 5 minutes of "WEP" when we don't even have TWO minutes!!!!:rolleyes:

So, call it whining, whinging, or whatever. I fully realize 109 pilots have their FM concerns as well, especially concerning control surfaces. But I don't for a second cast aspersions on their fighting skills just because they've had it easy against the RAF fighters since Day 1. Exception: the very former Spitfire IIa. Rarely seen online (at most five were allocated). Despite very strong objections on this forum, we're finally seeing some acknowledgement at least from the devs that the Boost Cut Out Override gate (Spit)/plunger (Hurricane) actually served a purpose. The devs still refuse to actually give historical performance to this all-important feature, for reasons not mentioned yet.

All to say, Spit and Hurricane pilots have THEIR challenges, too. It's not the easy turn and burn you make it out to be, unless we chance upon a noobie 109 pilot. Nor is boom and zoom easy, I fully realize, when you have only a few seconds to judge speed, deflection, and convergence. Not to mention the 15 seconds of ammunition the 109's are limited to!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You can give an idiot the best tool in the world and he could do nothing with it when a more talented guy would do wonders even with a less good tool. Got the pic?
Have had the pic for some time now..

In that Chuck sumed it up nicly so many years ago when he said..

It's the man not the machine

[6S.Manu]

Forgive me if I'm multi-quoting you post :-)


What I am saying Manu is that there are average pilots that could not get the most out of their plane no matter how accurately it was modelled. They might not be bad sticks but maybe their SA is not the best or some situations just are too much for them to handle. I am talking about PERSONAL abilities here, not the FM or whatever. You can give an idiot the best tool in the world and he could do nothing with it when a more talented guy would do wonders even with a less good tool. Got the pic?

I totally agree with you. I don't think to have said something different.

I'm all for a sim in which pilot's skill is far more important than plane's performance. IL2 is not one but still it's the best out there (the 4.11 patch is great btw!)


I've seen over the years many complainers how overmodelled something is and when proven wrong you are a cheater. Again nothing to do with FM or whatever but PERSONAL abilities. Boom and Zoom whereas Turn and Burn BOTH require skill to get good results and not yourself killed. And again the FM has nothing to do with it, but how YOU can handle the situation. You are given a tool, make the best use of it in the situation. Learn how to use it properly.

But the tools given to you are different: there is not a single plane, and every plane have different performace and behaviours. You have "to learn" how use it properly because only in this way you can handle the situation as you said. The relative perfomance of the plane is the thing that dictate you tactic, your engagement, your actions and reactions.

And this has a lot to do with FM. IMO. This is why in a 1v1 I lose against one guy but I win if we switch planes. Both we can fly at the same way, but on plane performes better than the other.

This is the reason I think that skill is higher for the ones who fly not friendly planes... because, against a pilot of the same experience (but in a friendly plane, call it easy planes, as 109F4 or G2 in IL2) he's going to have his a$$ kicked... once, twice, 10 times until he "learn" that he has not to do and, at last, how to fight. Luckly for him he's a virtual pilot so he can learn dying.


So I think that if we got FM/DM/CEM/Whatever well done as the CORE of the game then ALL would have a good chance to become a proficient pilot. In current situation there are too many things making some planes better over some due limitations of the game, not the player. But remember that some pilots EXPECT a Spitfire or a Bf109 of that matter to do what they THINK it should, from whatever experience they get it from(books, discussions, programs, insert source here). And it is easy to come here screaming how shit plane A is over plane B when the fault is 99% between the chair and stick. Do not EXPECT but LEARN. Then you will be the ace of all times or whatever or you will just enjoy the game even more.

I think "Do not EXPECT but LEARN" is a great sentence.

So your plane is a little slower than the historical one... the why you still try to fly it in the wrong way? Why didn't you react learining instead of the asking for the correct one "AS PRIORITY" when there are so many broken things in this game?

I'm happy that the develper "tried" to implement the RAF fighters with 100oct: is it historical fuel? great!! But I think also that some use this issue as an excuse for their poor flying.

Every Fw190 pilot in IL2 had to fly plane with worser performance than the one of a captured and crashed plane. Probably many of them cried on a message board (with Oleg denying and closing their mouths) but still the 190 was the butcher bird in most of the dogfight servers (the full difficulty ones, I mean)

So by experience I don't agree at all with the sentence of Osprey since the new FM is been pictured as solution, but bad pilots will keep flying in wrong way, ignoring every tactic and strategy: probably they will stick their nose on the enemy's six knowing that "this time" they could reach it... if they learned, as you say, that altitude/speed is life then they should succeed also in the 87oct version.



So basically..Devs should make the CORE (FM/DM/CEM/whatever) of the game rock solid. After that the rest is up to the player and his own abilities, not the game limitation. I hope I made myself clear in a positive way :)

The should have.. I don't believe they could do anything better that this while part of the staff is modelling russian planes, russian house and russian doghouse for russian dogs (that probably will be animated)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Good post Manu :) Learn the tools of the trade and you will be successfull :)

[6S.Manu]

Snapper, I'm not limiting my opinion on what I've seen in CloD.

I don't fly Clod. I did 34 hours, and most of them were for settings configuration. I just reported the fight in which my chasing Spitfire followed my from 6km to 500m over my base where me and 2 other guys killed him.

I'm taking about IL2 in general: so there are not only SpitI and 109E... I understand that the engine cut is an handicap... And it's a good thing that they implemented it (IL2 Spitfire's flown many years without the Miss Shilling's orifice). I also understand the weapon limitation.. it's all historical (but I question CloD's DM model: damage could be roughly modelled as FMs).

In many years of flight simming I almost can remember every time I found a Spitfire at high altitude dictating the fight: I remember them since with some of these pilots I've became friend (when somebody give me a good fight and fly well I'm used to make him my compliments). I remember many of my KIA (above all the one made by Jaws in his 190 against my spitfire... I learned a lot from that single kill) since I really hate to be killed.

But I can also not forget how many times I BnZed planes with target fixation who had a plane with better performance but didn't used it correcly (SpitIX should be untouchable by Fw190 and because of this it was my favourite prey...I fled only to kill them :-) ).

The few time I entered in a CloD server it was the same thing (but with the addon of invisible planes, ghosts and monkeys operating the flaks).
Sadly my mind refuses to fly with CloD anymore, and so most of my teammates... 20 pilots with CloD, only one still fly it and it's one of the nicer poster here).

Anyway it's fun that you said about the spitfire veterans: I'm not used to fly spitfires but 2 weeks ago I've taken two cadets of my squad in a server... 1940, too many blue and so we took the RAF fighters... we took the SpitfireIs so they could learn the "enemy" plane. I told them to spawn on a base far from the coast because, I guessed, the 109s would come there and cap over our bases... "we spawn and gain altitude far from the coast. Then, with altitude, we enter in the combat zone"... I was right, after some minutes the 109s were there and I managed to kill 3 of them but I crashed while landing against an invisible building... :-|. God cried that night.

I think that the veterans should teach this "tactic", by Chat or by Briefing. With a so inferior plane RAF pilots should not pass the channel at 2km...

I will try to enter in the server to see if things are changed.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Well, guys, I can tell you one thing: give us the earlier "Über Sissyfire IIa" and it will be the Red pilots telling the Blue pilots: "Learn the tools of the trade and you will succeed.". And yes, the Red pilots will be quoting Chuck Yeager to the Blue pilots, too! ;)

[6S.Manu]

Well, guys, I can tell you one thing: give us the earlier "Über Sissyfire IIa" and it will be the Red pilots telling the Blue pilots: "Learn the tools of the trade and you will succeed.". And yes, the Red pilots will be quoting Chuck Yeager to the Blue pilots, too! ;)

;)

I remember that LW pilots were really worried about that plane, above all because of the superior service ceiling ("faster and higher", those were the requested features in a new plane).

Have I to fly in an inferior plane? I will not fly alone... teamwork can do amazing things (but here we should begin to talk about another limit of this sim...)

[ATAG_Snapper]

@Manu: Actually, everything you say I agree with in a general sense. Clearly you have flown flights sims for a long time, as many of us have, too. I fly CloD a lot, usually with the same Red pilots. Let's face it, after several hundred hours and literally many dozens of dogfights, pilots of both sides have far more [virtual] experience under their belts than most of the real life RAF or LW pilots ever could. Certainly well up there with the Eastern Front LW pilots that survived. (I'm not for a minute comparing ourselves with the Real Life pilots of either side; hopefully everyone realizes that!)

The point I'm making is that many of us on both sides are very good at this SIM. Many of our dogfights are very, very close run. We all know how to get the most of our chosen aircraft, which is why many prefer the model we do ie. in my case I choose the IIa over the 2-speed Spit I or the CSP Spit Ia because I can extract more performance from the IIa. Reason? Because I may find myself up against a LW pilot like yourself that can dig the maximum performance out of your E4 rather than settle on a G50.

Basically, as with any fine tool, I can make good use of an extra 20 mph or another minute longer at full WEP before the engine blows. I don't use the extra performance as a crutch, but as a means to better accomplish my task -- shooting down expertly-flown 109's! I know I speak for my mates on this. We don't want a crushingly superior fighter, because historically the Spits and Hurricanes were not. But they were closer a match in Real Life to the 109's than what 1C has modelled in Cliffs of Dover. That's all we ask.

[ATAG_Snapper]

;)

I remember that LW pilots were really worried about that plane, above all because of the superior service ceiling ("faster and higher", those were the requested features in a new plane).

Have I to fly in an inferior plane? I will not fly alone... teamwork can do amazing things (but here we should begin to talk about another limit of this sim...)

Yes, and they were right to be worried. Actually, that IIa was modelled very closely to the Real Life Spit Ia -- it was the 109's that 1C should have modelled faster with better altitude performance to match and, actually, EXCEED it!

But the LW pilots would've been infuriated to be told, "Never mind the Über IIa's, fly better and smarter and stop making excuses."

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, all above just confirms the game has flaws that need to be sorted out ;) Be it FM/DM/CEM. Fix them and rest is up to us pilots. So far been quite able to hold my own, even my best flying days are long gone :)

I rarely dogfight these days, rather plan my routes according to the radio contacts and all that to get the job done :) So yes, I am in that Bf109E-4B or Bf110C-7 dropping eggs on good old RAF ;) I find it more fun to really plan the mission, navigate and use the good range and decent speed in the Bf110C-7 to accomplish what the briefing says on ATAG. It is thrilling to see if the plan works out or someone spots me going for the target :)

I would also like to ask how many of you use historical fuel loads aka 100% on missions? I bet less than 20% of people do, mostly used load is 20-50% fuel and off they go. I use always 100% on the Bf109E, 70% or more on Bf110C as that is more than enough for long range missions. IRL Spitfire suffered from same as Bf109E, short legs = big fuel consumption accompanied with a rather small fuel load.

[WTE_Galway]

meh .... its politics really.

If it were just a game people would choose whatever aircraft suits there flying style. In addition noobs would choose the better performing aircraft and experienced flyers would go for something more challenging.

Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

[Robo.]

I understand what you're saying Felipe, I am just saying that FM is something technical, but I also enjoy discussing tactics and sim flying so what. I am really looking forward for your testing. I did some basic testing, too and I will definitely comment on anything you come up with! :grin:

But, imo, you find one as Felipe once every 30 engagements with Spitfire pilots. So I can understand if blue pilots feel confident in their rides: probably they used to not look above their plane while flying at medium altitude. ;)

I know you mentioned you didn't spend much time in this sim (and I understand) but just to let you know there is quite a few high flying Spitfire pilots. I agree that say on ATAG, most of the action is happening down low, but that applies to both sides equally, even more so to the 109s as they really like their airfield strafing missions. There are many skilled 109 pilots and many skilled RAF fighter pilots, too.

IMO BnZ is harder to learn, required more time and many KIA: it's less rewarding and a guy without patience will switch plane (do you remember the 190's IL2 history?). Because of this I think that the average pilot of BnZ planes (109/190/Hellcat/P47/P51) is actually more skilled than a Spitfire/Zeke/La7 pilot.

I see what you're saying, new pilot usually starts with a nimble plane like Zero or La-5Fn or Bf 109G-2 or 25lbs. Spitfire - and then he learns more and sees that there is more to it than pulling the stick down on the deck. But I am saying that flying any aircraft aon the edge requires same amount of skill, maybe different type of skill. In my experience many pilots who fly BnZ are helpless when it comes to 'close range melee'. You trick him a bit and he just flies straight and doesn't know what to do. Pilot is skilled no matter what he flies, if he flies it well and if he succeeds. I would not despise an experienced pilot in a Fw 190, Spitfire or G.50. That plane type does not matter. Good pilot will fly in a way that's necessary to win and survive and he can do BnZ in a Spitfire and TnB in a 190 when it comes to that. :D I've been into 1946 as long as you are and our squad, altough historically blue would fly just anything.

Of course I'm talking about IL2 1946... only Luthier knows when CloD will be worthy of been played by me.

It is already better than 1946, you should give it a try. I'd like to see how you deal with well flown Spitfires or 109s ;)

Sooo... returning to the FM argument: Osprey states that "after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FMs are at least brought closer"... Flanker.. do you really believe it was a FM issue?

Yes, it was very much a FM issue.

Every Fw190 pilot in IL2 had to fly plane with worser performance than the one of a captured and crashed plane.

That is not true at all. 190s were actually typically faster than they should be, especially early Dora. And they were less maneouvrable than they should be - see latest DT patch where the 190 are spot on (except for manual pp) - just ask Maraz. I might be wrong, that's not the point of this discussion though. But trust me ppl would complain a lot if it would be too slow no matter if blue or red. They never complained about G-6/AS SL speed or performance or early Dora although it was off in the positive direction. That's not blue or red, that's just people. :D

Last time I took a 190 I had 9 kills on a full real server. Spitfires Mk.VIIIs and few P-47s doing ground pounding tbh. Not bad pilots, just the fact unless you're doing silly stuff they can't touch you. And the firepower. It was even better (faster) BnZ butcher before 4.11 but now it keeps E better. Perfect fighter plane but too easy when you master it. Same like 109 in CloD. I switched to late war USAAF and at least had to master .50s. But most of the time, I always really enjoyed flying 'inferior' planes and pushed myself harder to develop better tactics. When I get killed I don't blame the FM or the plane performance, I blame myself because I am the digger, the plane is just my showel.

I agree that FM should not be used as excuse, BUT the fact that an experienced pilot can balance for the shortcomings is not an excuse not to fix these issues. That's why we have this thread.

[camber]

meh .... its politics really.
Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

Well, so anyone investigating historical performance, trying to form a balanced view then seeing how that performance matches the actual game....is childish and partisan?! Sure, there is always some of that kind of content on the fringes. I wouldn't take seriously posts along the lines of: "I red a buk once that said that Spitfires went ultraasonic on those 109 noobs" But seriously, partisan posts with research done badly or in bad faith rather out themselves, don't you think?

I return your meh with capitalisation. Meh ;)

[Flanker35M]

S!

I think Galway tried to say in an exaggerated way that some players might have an agenda for their favorite plane/gun/ship/car or whatever and do not stop pushing it as the only "accuracy" is the one that suits them. Can be found in many games but luckily it is the minority, most want accuracy for all which makes the games/sims a challenge, not another "shoot fish in a barrel" thingy :)

[=AN=Felipe]

guys take a look

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=442089#post442089

;)

[Crumpp]

Ernst says

If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance

In RL, the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs fighter engagement on average.

Read the RAF official history. The United Kingdom was able to out produce Germany in both pilots and machines despite FC's horrendous loss rate in combat.

[gimpy117]

to be honest, unless we fix all the planes, a lot of this is irrelevant. so what if the spit is too slow? so are all the rest of them. I mean right now the spit turns better than anything so it's not like it's really that big of a deal? It can out turn even the Hurricane and G.50, and only the ME-109 is faster if flown flat out (or maybe the 110 if you're some kind of god).

what I'm getting at is, unless we fix them all at once there will just be another spitfire turkeyshoot.

[camber]

only the ME-109 is faster if flown flat out (or maybe the 110 if you're some kind of god).

I'm sorry but after reading that I can't stop thinking about a glowing 110 suddenly appearing in furballs with choral sound effects. Apollo at the controls, Zeus at the rear gun. If you do get them they don't need parachutes, they just float down in togas and swim down to meet Poseidon.

Could someone enter this in bugtracker pls.

[Glider]

Just an obvious statement. There is no doubt that the RAF lost more fighters than the Luftwaffe, but to then extend this to say that the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs. fighter engagement on average is an unproven opinion.

The Luftwaffe fighter’s primary target were of course the RAF fighters. The RAF primary targets were the Luftwaffe Bombers who shot down a good number of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that attacked them.

What the split is I do not know and it’s probable that more RAF fighters were shot down by German fighters than vice versa but even there the tactical situation was different. It would be very misleading to look at the losses and assume that fighter/fighter combats resulted in the loss ratio shown on the charts.

Straight fighter/fighter combats where the numbers were broadly even were rare, if only because the RAF avoided such combats, as the bombers were the priority.

There was an interview shown on the TV a few months ago where an RAF BOB pilot was asked if the German bombers were defenceless. He pointed out that he had been shot down by a He111 and had to crash land after being hit by a Ju88 so he thought that they could take care of themselves. Either that or he was a poor fighter pilot but as he had survived the war, he was probably at least average.

[Crumpp]

Luftwaffe won the fighter vs. fighter engagement on average

It is hardly unproven opinion but is a fact. Statistically the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs fighter battles.

You even agree!!!

it’s probable that more RAF fighters were shot down by German fighters

BTW..same arguments were posted on the Ubizoo board by the "blue" side about the Luftwaffe fighter losses in 1944 from the daylight bombing campaign.

I believe you participated!


The Luftwaffe fighter’s primary target were of course the RAF fighters. The RAF primary targets were the Luftwaffe Bombers who shot down a good number of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that attacked them.


This whole community outlooks of "red vs blue" is totally whacked and makes any kind of intelligent discussion of history or aircraft performance impossible.

Nobody gives a rats ass about anything other than what is going to make their favorite better to stroke their own online ace fantasy.

I knew somebody would illustrate the point.

[Crumpp]

I mean right now the spit turns better than anything

It will never reflect reality as long as the stability and control characteristics of these two airplanes is not modeled.

Anybody who can run the math will tell you that especially if you simplify things by using symetrical airfoil formulation with a cambered wing.

It is a fact that many Bf-109 pilots believed they had a turn advantage over the Spitfire.

Why? The Bf-109 had better stability and control where needed for turn performance. It was equipped with ant-spin devices in the form of LE slats so a pilot could reef the aircraft around with confidence. In practical terms, those LE slats alone contribute to a pilot being able to extract more performance. It's stability and control characteristics made it a better gun platform that a pilot could extract maximum performance. Who cares if it stalls, it is not going anywhere and recovers easily.

The Spitfire pilot had very low stick force gardient, very little stick travel to work with, and a extremely harsh stall/spin which could kill him in the right circumstances. It was a twitchy gun platform with a dicey stall.

Which airplane would you want to be at tree top level trying to get maximum performance? A plane that is going to dip a wing a few degrees and keep flying or the one that is going to invert and spin?

[Crumpp]

What I mean by pilots being able to extract more performance?

Well, pilot skill is the largest contributor to airplane performance. Each pilot will get slightly different results based on the enviromental factors and their skill level.

Here is the range of stall speeds pilots achieved on the F6F Hellcat during the JFC.

Until the Stability and control characteristics are modeled, the Spitfire will be a frankenplane.

[Crumpp]

what I'm getting at is, unless we fix them all at once

I couldn't agree more. It is no fun for anybody if one side is over modeled. The reality is these aircraft were equal dogfighters and the result was based on pilot skill.

It is hardly a "simulation" much less a "good game" if that is not reflected.

[Kwiatek]

It is a fact that many Bf-109 pilots believed they had a turn advantage over the Spitfire.

Why? The Bf-109 had better stability and control where needed for turn performance. It was equipped with ant-spin devices in the form of LE slats so a pilot could reef the aircraft around with confidence. In practical terms, those LE slats alone contribute to a pilot being able to extract more performance. It's stability and control characteristics made it a better gun platform that a pilot could extract maximum performance. Who cares if it stalls, it is not going anywhere and recovers easily.

The Spitfire pilot had very low stick force gardient, very little stick travel to work with, and a extremely harsh stall/spin which could kill him in the right circumstances. It was a twitchy gun platform with a dicey stall.

Which airplane would you want to be at tree top level trying to get maximum performance? A plane that is going to dip a wing a few degrees and keep flying or the one that is going to invert and spin?

I think both planes had very noticable pre-stall symptoms. 109 had slats which help at slow speed turning and high angle of attack and gave plenty of warining to the pilot other hand Spitfire had lower wing loading and wash out at the wing tips which casue also plenty of warning to the pilots and airleon control with stall. I have no doubt that Spitfire turns better then 109 but probalby its need little more carefully with elevator ( much more sensibility) then 109 to flying at the egde. I understand then much more experience pilot in 109 could turn with novice in Spitfire who dont feel the plane deeply.


Here is nice opinion Spitfire MK1 pilots from BOB time:

" If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."


And from Spitfire pilot notes:

"General Flying: “This aeroplane is stable. With metal covered ailerons the lateral control is much lighter that with the earlier fabric covered ailerons and pilots accustomed to the latter must be careful not to overstress the wings. Similar care is necessary in the use of the elevators, which are light and sensitive.

For normal cruising flight the radiator shutter should be in the minimum drag position.” ( interesting about radiator position and engine temperature)

Stalling: “At the stall one wing will usually drop with the flaps either up or down and the machine may spin if the control column is held back.

This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.
”

[CWMV]

I do think its quite funny that spit pilots notes and official docs are regarded so highly, but an official doc that shows the 109 maxed out at 500 kph on the deck is debated and discarded.
Oh well, carry on.

[Crumpp]

And from Spitfire pilot notes:


It has been debated ad nauseum.

It is a fact the RAE had no stability and control measured standards outside of opinion and feelings. I have all the reports that Gates submitted during the war trying to get the RAE on a measurable standard. Every one of them reports the early mark Spitfires as unacceptable by a measureable standard.

The NACA had measured standards which the Spitfire did not meet. The stability and control characteristics are documented, measured, and reproducable for a game.

There is also no question the stability and control characteristics are just as important as the standard subsonic aerodynamic formulation for determing the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft.

The Pilots notes ALSO say:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6654/manoeuverability.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/manoeuverability.jpg/)

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4620/spitfireelevator.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/spitfireelevator.jpg/)

Opinion was strong enough to include multiple warnings describing longitudinal instability and what would become in the post war, unacceptable stability and control characteristics.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I think both planes had very noticable pre-stall symptoms. 109 had slats which help at slow speed turning and high angle of attack and gave plenty of warining to the pilot other hand Spitfire had lower wing loading and wash out at the wing tips which casue also plenty of warning to the pilots and airleon control with stall. I have no doubt that Spitfire turns better then 109 but probalby its need little more carefully with elevator ( much more sensibility) then 109 to flying at the egde. I understand then much more experience pilot in 109 could turn with novice in Spitfire who dont feel the plane deeply.


Here is nice opinion Spitfire MK1 pilots from BOB time:

" If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."


And from Spitfire pilot notes:

"General Flying: “This aeroplane is stable. With metal covered ailerons the lateral control is much lighter that with the earlier fabric covered ailerons and pilots accustomed to the latter must be careful not to overstress the wings. Similar care is necessary in the use of the elevators, which are light and sensitive.

For normal cruising flight the radiator shutter should be in the minimum drag position.” ( interesting about radiator position and engine temperature)

Stalling: “At the stall one wing will usually drop with the flaps either up or down and the machine may spin if the control column is held back.

This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.
”

This is what I think the most closest to my own thinking on this subject. The spit can turn tighter (significantly lower wing loading) but it takes at least a seasoned pilot to do so.

Due to the leading edge slats the 109 flown to the edge could turn with a spit pilot who does not fully go to the edge himself as turn performances are close albeit in favour to the spit.

I am not familiar enough with CloD in order to tell if and how well this is implemented.

[TomcatViP]

This is what I think the most closest to my own thinking on this subject. The spit can turn tighter (significantly lower wing loading) but it takes at least a seasoned pilot to do so.

Due to the leading edge slats the 109 flown to the edge could turn with a spit pilot who does not fully go to the edge himself as turn performances are close albeit in favour to the spit.

I am not familiar enough with CloD in order to tell if and how well this is implemented.

Storm don't forget that wing loading does not say anything abt CL.

Wing loading is a tool to compare similar wings design. It's not valuable when in particular the thickness of the wing differs.

For example comparing Hellcat, FW190, Bf109 or Corsair wing loading is relevant as all those plane have near 15% thickness.

For example try to compare the D520 wing loading (with full mil eq.) with that of the Bf109E and you'll find that the 109 turn as better what we know is actually not true (the D520 had an 18% thickness ratio)

Sadly a lot here put this argument frwd just because it looks like tecky (especially on IL2 arguing that the 51 was a poor turner)

Edit : Hve a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

[28_Condor]

hi!

This argument is repeated but for me the tactical situation does not allow conclusions about historical performance of individual aircraft:

The statistics support the idea that the Spitfire was better able to deal with the Bf 109. The German fighters shot down 219 Spitfires and 272 Hurricanes, reflecting the numerical dominance of the Hurricane. However, the Spitfire shot down 180 Bf 109s, the Hurricane only 153. This would suggest that the Bf 109 was superior to both British fighters. This was not the case. However, as the attacker the Germans normally had the advantage of numbers, and often of altitude. Finally, the German fighters were concentrating solely on destroying British fighters, while the British fighter’s main role was to stop the German bombers.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkI.html

Cheers!

[Glider]

It is a fact that many Bf-109 pilots believed they had a turn advantage over the Spitfire.


This is often stated but I am not aware of many examples. Can I ask you to fill this gap in my knowldge.

Thanks

[fruitbat]

This is often stated but I am not aware of any examples. Can I ask you to fill this gap in my knowldge.

Thanks

lol, this is one of crumpps 'facts', therefore don't expect to much backing it up in the near future.....

[Glider]

Its the Many that I am interested in. I know of one who believed that the 109 was as good given pilots of equal skill. So its the rest I am interested in.

[TomcatViP]

well guys maybe one day you should open a real book...those things can be highly informative from time to time :rolleyes:

for example it is said often that the hurri turned inside the spit and not the contrary. How strange is that, humm ?

Secondly reading combat story from BOTH side will give you a hint of how fact were blurred and not bright clear as in your belief.

[fruitbat]

what like the books i have which have pilots talking about 100 octane fuel......

blah balah balah

[TomcatViP]

well more accurately said... the book with no "S".

this is quite a diff btw us. thank you for that

[Glider]

well guys maybe one day you should open a real book...those things can be highly informative from time to time :rolleyes:

for example it is said often that the hurri turned inside the spit and not the contrary. How strange is that, humm ?

Secondly reading combat story from BOTH side will give you a hint of how fact were blurred and not bright clear as in your belief.

If you could suggest a book that shows that the 109 could turn with a Spitfire that would also be appreciated.

[fruitbat]

well more accurately said... the book with no "S".

this is quite a diff btw us. thank you for that

one of my favourite books from bob is 'spitfire on my tail' from the German point of view, can i not read it as it has an S in the title;)

[TomcatViP]

If you could suggest a book that shows that the 109 could turn with a Spitfire that would also be appreciated.

well if you cld yourself suggest a book that shows tht the 109 cld not :grin:

"Blurred" did I say ?

[28_Condor]

I dont know many testimonies that 109 out-turn Sipits, but I know this one:

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

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

Anyway, what was easy for young pilots in Spits, delivery very good pilots (veterans) in Bfs....

[Glider]

well if you cld yourself suggest a book that shows tht the 109 cld not :grin:

"Blurred" did I say ?

Spitfire: Portrait of a Legend by Leo McKinstry
Spitfire! The Experiences of a Battle of Britain Fighter Pilot by Brian Lane
Spitfire Pilot by Flt Lt David Crook
A large number of combat reports

Interrogation of Oberstleutnant Bar. The Spitfire is fast and very maneuverable

Gunther Rall Luftwaffe Ace and NATO General Authorised Biography

Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:

It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could.

Flight tests by both RAF and Luftwaffe pilots, In particular the tests taken in Aug 1940 at the E-Stelle Rechlin

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be acomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

Its also worth remembering that Molders described the Spitfire as being faultless in a turn

Both the above from Kurfursts web site

Now your contribution, I know what you feel about people making unsubstantiated claims.

[Kwiatek]

Also important thing to notice that Rechlin tested Spitfire and Hurricane had only 2-stage prop pitch not constant speed propeller - so their performance was inferior to BoB time British fighters equipped with CSP unit and 100 Octan fuel - but still even with 2-stage prop pitch Bristish fighters was better in turn then 109 like Germans found.

[TomcatViP]

Well once again you are picking extract here and there to build an argument. I only wonder if you did build yourself that way (I speak rudely tht way because I don't like your tone and especially the way you behave as ever tht look like to say: hummph, if you can't answer to this right now then you fail).

At first, did you notice that we are talking rather differently of slow speed turns ? All the argumentation is based on physics and pilot accounts and turn around the stall characteristic of the Spit wing.

if you take the both the 109 and the Spit at constant turning speed the SPit will always have an inferior radius as the Hurri will have with the Spit.

The prob with the SPitfire is her configuration : the thin wing, the wide chord, the low span ratio and the elliptical shape. In the order of appearance it will increase the AoA, aggravate the drag generated by the turbulence around the airfoil and aggravate the stall characteristic and makes the airflow around the wing tips unpredictable (hence the exaggerated washout).

The more you turn, the more E you loose. This E deficit is only compensated by your engine. The more excess of power you have the more time you will stay in that configuration. The Spitfire had less P/W ratio than the 109 (except perhaps in your 12lb+ dreams and what will come next in your request) and thicker wings.

You think you are a pilot so you know what come next...

The Spit will have to turn slightly nose down to compensate for the E loss generated from her draggier turn characteristic and inferior P/W and stay away from the low speed/high AoA/Split angle and bank dangerous situation. Invariably the plane with better stall behavior and superior P/W will stay longer in a turn where the speed decrease hence will loose less alt.

So either the Spit pilot will have to unleash the G before his opponent or will he start to spiral down.

In a turn fight, alt his G (you add the Gravity force to what your plane can do).

That's what the 109 pilots describe when they are talking abt their eggs shaped loop. You can also understand that if they are specifically asked about how horizontal where their turns: they never says it was perfectly horizontal.

Obviously, unless the training was complete, it will be hard to imagine a rookie turning that way (but will you yourself bank a Cessna at 90deg and start pulling on the yoke ?). So things are not that clear blurred in fog of war.
If you are reading with attention the test conditions of the turns chart, you'd understand that the test pilots enter the turn with plenty of excessive power to complete it.

But certainly there was no flat donuts turns in a dogfight. Your speed bleeds out unless you are nosing down.

In a modern dogfight, you see jets nosing down to be able to sustain their best turn rate. Why would you think it would be different in a Spit that had 1/5th of the P/W ratio of an 80's jet !

Talking about the 109 and Spits models alternatively taking the leads in the perf race is all about this: the aerodynamics and the P/W ratio. Once one get the upper hands, it felt more dynamics in a dogfight and keep that ounce of extra E to get the advantage in a high G engagement.

the fact is that the Emil model had the advantage during BoB. Just like The FW190 enjoyed before the IX was launched. (yeah I know you also believe that the 190 was the tank Oleg sold to us with the first opus of IL2)

End of arguments tonight. Feel free to bury my post under a wall of fantastical documents hammered en masse by all the Gang as ever.

[Glider]

A lot of words that try to hide the fact that you cannot support your statement with any published books. Its worth remembering that it was you that first suggested that we use books. You suggested that we use real books, I always do and its good advice as you can see from my reply.

I also supported my statements with quotes from official German flight tests and quotes from expert German fighter pilots. The books are quoted and the full report available on Kurfursts web site. Hardly a wall of fantastical documents hammered en masse by all the Gang all very relevent and from both sides of the conflict.

You asked me to support my statement and I did. I asked you to support yours and you didn't. Its a common pattern we have seen before.

Another habit of yours is putting words in my mouth which are not true. PLease quote where I have ever, here or anywhere, said that I consider the 190 to be anything but exceptional in 1941/2.

[Glider]

I should add that I do consider myself to be an experienced glider pilot. I went solo at 16 and flew for about 20 years until I had to stop about 10 years ago for medical reasons.

Also had some limited hours P2 (about 35) in powered aircraft of various types

[Crumpp]

Start with this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Fighter-Aces-Jagdflieger-Techniques/dp/0804116962

then:

http://www.amazon.com/JG-26-War-Diary-1939-1942/dp/1898697523

then:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764301756

Pretty much take your pick of any of the Luftwaffe histories.

[Crumpp]

I asked you to support yours and you didn't.

He did support it.

[Kurfürst]

If you could suggest a book that shows that the 109 could turn with a Spitfire that would also be appreciated.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
__________________________________
Reports and Memoranda No. 2361
September 1940*

5. Fighting Qualities of the Me. 109. – 5.1. Dog-fights with Spitfire and Hurricane.

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

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

[Crumpp]

I had to stop about 10 years ago for medical reasons.


Sorry to hear that Glider.

Excellent find Kurfurst.

[DC338]

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

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

[klem]

Well that is hardly an answer that the 109 could turn with a spitfire.

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

Its not scientific but its anecdotal of the time. Pierre Clostermann said in his autobiograohy that the Spitfire could "outturn the 109 at high speed (but not at low speed)". Guess we need to start searching for historical turn data for each aircraft and compare.

[6S.Manu]

Well that is hardly an answer that the 109 could turn with a spitfire.

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.

All your turning rate tests are made by pilots... of course every planes has limits over which it can't be flown: but how do you know if the tester reached those limits? Tehre could be many variables here that simply are not taken in account.

Do you really want to know the REAL max turning rate of a plane? put a robot in it and make it turn until the complete stall... robots should not been afraid to die, and they all have the same skill/strenght.
But I don't know if the plane's owner would be happy to see those tests.

[Crumpp]

But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.

All your turning rate tests are made by pilots... of course every planes has limits over which it can't be flown: but how do you know if the tester reached those limits?

Exactly.

The stability and control characteristics of the designs are significant to their relative dogfighting ability.

[bongodriver]

[QUOTE=6S.Manu;443101]But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.QUOTE]


And this is exactly why there is no reason to question the Spitfires superior turning ability, whenever there is a report of a 109 out turning a Spit the 109 was probably being flown by a skilled pilot against an average Spit pilot.

Spitfire had neutral stability in pitch with light elevators, this means the pilot could hold it in a high rate of turn with little more than 2 fingers on the stick while the 109 driver was using much more effort, the 109's slats may have given it some benign stall characteristics, the Spit was pretty benign too despite the stability, but being able to reach a higher 'alpha' is by no means a guarantee of a high turn rate, in fact holding an aircraft close to the stall is quite bad for turn rate, the 109 has a relatively high wing loading compared to the Spit another diasadvantage for turn rate.

[DC338]

Stalls and spins are nothing to be afraid of for a well trained pilot. I bet they would have given it more of a pull if it had a Swastika on it and Tracers coming out. Probably didn't want to look stupid.

There is a fan plot somewhere of a spit v 109.

[Crumpp]

Spit was pretty benign too despite the stability,

Baloney.

I suppose the NACA, the RAE, the Operating Notes, and Gates are all wrong.

You however must be correct. You can submitt your Dad's logbook as proof.

Spitfire had neutral stability in pitch with light elevators, this means the pilot could hold it in a high rate of turn with little more than 2 fingers

Sure, an experienced pilot could do it who had lots of practice. In fact, in the Spitfire Mk V when the stability and control was addressed with bob-weights, there were pilots who did not like it.

However, the very light stick forces combined with very small amount of stick travel required to use up the available angle of attack would make for an aircraft that is difficult to precisely manoeuver. This is why the POH advises the pilot to brace himself against the cockpit. Small stick movements make for large aceleration changes in the Spitfire.

The stick force imbalance between the longitudinal and lateral axis contributes to the slow rate of roll the pilot is able to apply at high speed. He is fighting a very sensitive elevator with high lateral control pressure. It makes for an aircraft that is difficult to change the direction of the lift axis.

The RAE had no measureable standards for stability and control. It was all based on opinion. However, when the early marque Spitfire was subjected to measureable and definative standards, it was unacceptable.

Who cares if a pilot cruising along with 2 fingers on the stick in the pattern felt it was "easy to fly".

The stability and control of the design effected its ability as a dogfighter and gun platform as noted by the NACA, Operating Notes, and every measurable standard.

[Hood]

Just some general observations.

Pilots were taught not to stall, so that must have led to an in-built reluctance to push at the flight envelope. Those that could push closer to the limit could turn faster.

Turn rate can mean several things. The fastest turn rate can be incredibly quick but the resulting loss of energy means trouble. Continuous turn rate without loss of energy is usually quite a bit higher but as energy is retained that helps further manouevres.

As an example (and from memory of something I did a long time ago) I could turn a Spit Vb 360 degrees in about 12 seconds but was then at stall speed. Turning 360 degrees at a maintained 250mph took about 20 seconds with a far wider turning circle.

If I were in a Spit maintaining 250mph in a turn I bet a 109 could turn inside, but if they missed the shot they have less energy. From memory again I think the best turn/energy ratio for a Spit was about 220mph with a turn of around 18 seconds. At the same speed a 109 took 21 seconds to do 360 degrees.

Finally, I seem to remember that the best way of turning in a 109 against a Spit is to do an elliptical turn i.e. to have a smooth curve to gain energy followed by a tight turn, kinda egg-shaped.

Or to put it more simply. All things being equal, if you're in a 109 don't turn with a Spit - there is nothing to stop a Spit pilot totally pushing the envelope as only our ego is hurt if we pull to hard and stall, we don't die.

Just ramblin'

Hood

[6S.Manu]

And this is exactly why there is no reason to question the Spitfires superior turning ability, whenever there is a report of a 109 out turning a Spit the 109 was probably being flown by a skilled pilot against an average Spit pilot.
How can a RAF pilot with a bunch of hours in the 109 be more skilled than the other RAF pilots in their usual rides?

It could be also that the ones who actually out-turned the 109 were very skilled pilots while the 109 pilot could out-turn the other average pilots...

Simply there's no answer.

We can't know the real turn-rate skill of those plane: wingarea and power are only two of the many variables how dictate the maximum turn-rate.

Anyway I still think that it's easier to reach the best turn rate in a plane that does not kill you if you push too much.
Probably the Spitfire real turn rate was better, but easily only the bravest pilot could go near it (so near that the next day they could have spinned losing their life).

[Crumpp]

Stalls and spins are nothing to be afraid of for a well trained pilot.

Only when you need room to recover and you don't have it.

Or when the aircraft will not recover at all.

There is a reason why the Spitfire was placarded against spinning.

[bongodriver]

NACA this NACA that, baloney this baloney that

[bongodriver]

How can a RAF pilot with a bunch of hours in the 109 be more skilled than the other RAF pilots in their usual rides?



Because if he was selected to an evaluation squadron then he is likely to be regarded as one of the best available.

[6S.Manu]

Because if he was selected to an evaluation squadron then he is likely to be regarded as one of the best available.
To be the "best" in a Spitfire does not mean he will be the best in a 109.

If you place Vettel in a McLaren do you think that after 50 laps he will have the same results of Hamilton? Above all if he can't touch the car's setup.

Or think to Vale Rossi... one of the most skilled biker of all the time that is not able to drive a Ducati correctly and it's always behind less skilled pilots with the same ride (or slower).

[bongodriver]

Boy you people really get desparate in these discussions..

[bongodriver]

Only when you need room to recover and you don't have it.

Or when the aircraft will not recover at all.

There is a reason why the Spitfire was placarded against spinning.


Another reason to doubt your claims to be a pilot, for those of us who do fly recognise the airframes shudders and buffets as 'warnings' of impending stalls and are able to react to them by simply unloading, which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

[Al Schlageter]

Only when you need room to recover and you don't have it.

Or when the aircraft will not recover at all.

There is a reason why the Spitfire was placarded against spinning.

Must have killed a lot of Fw190 pilots with its snap roll/stall.

[6S.Manu]

Must have killed a lot of Fw190 pilots with its snap roll/stall.
Infact IIRC there are not reports of 190s out-turning Spitfires... but the 190 is a totally different animal compared to the 109.

Ah, to be honest, I'm not really a 109 lover...

[Crumpp]

Just some general observations.

Pilots were taught not to stall, so that must have led to an in-built reluctance to push at the flight envelope. Those that could push closer to the limit could turn faster.

Turn rate can mean several things. The fastest turn rate can be incredibly quick but the resulting loss of energy means trouble. Continuous turn rate without loss of energy is usually quite a bit higher but as energy is retained that helps further manouevres.

As an example (and from memory of something I did a long time ago) I could turn a Spit Vb 360 degrees in about 12 seconds but was then at stall speed. Turning 360 degrees at a maintained 250mph took about 20 seconds with a far wider turning circle.

If I were in a Spit maintaining 250mph in a turn I bet a 109 could turn inside, but if they missed the shot they have less energy. From memory again I think the best turn/energy ratio for a Spit was about 220mph with a turn of around 18 seconds. At the same speed a 109 took 21 seconds to do 360 degrees.

Finally, I seem to remember that the best way of turning in a 109 against a Spit is to do an elliptical turn i.e. to have a smooth curve to gain energy followed by a tight turn, kinda egg-shaped.

Or to put it more simply. All things being equal, if you're in a 109 don't turn with a Spit - there is nothing to stop a Spit pilot totally pushing the envelope as only our ego is hurt if we pull to hard and stall, we don't die.

Just ramblin'

Hood


Absolutely.

No one is advocating creating a frankenplane Bf-109 that outturns the Spitfire in a level sustained turn at low velocity. That would be silly.

The stability and control characteristics are just as important to the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft. Those characteristics are documented and quantifiable.

What is the point in having a gameshape that does not fly like the airplane it is suppose to represent?

[Crumpp]

There is nothing to argue about. The stability and control characteristics are well documented and measured.

The only arguments stem from those who do not understand the measurements and conclusions.

which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

You have an inabillity to put things together. Relate to us your wealth of experience flying early marque Spitfires. Oh yeah, you cannot and I know your Dad's logbook does not reflect any Spitfire time either. In fact, nobody can fly a Spitfire without the bob weights today legally.

"Light controls" is desireable. However, you must have some resistance to gauge the feel of the aircraft so forces that are too light are not desirable.

Combined with very small stick movements that created large changes in angle of attack, it is unacceptable when the aircraft is neutrally stable. With positive stability, it would not be unacceptable.

Very light stick forces on the longitudinal axis coupled with neutral stability, small stick position changes producing large angle of attack changes, a very harsh stall/spin, and stick force imbalance on the lateral axis is why the Spitfire did not pass quantifiable stability and control standards.

[fruitbat]

Crumpp, how you get away with your personal attacks i dont know, but boy have you got sour grapes. One of the two of you flew a lear jet to italy yesterday, and it wasn't you.

Grow up.

[bongodriver]

There is nothing to argue about. The stability and control characteristics are well documented and measured.

The only arguments stem from those who do not understand the measurements and conclusions.


Quite, hence why you always seem to end up in arguments, BTW have you figured out how to use the ignore function yet?


You have an inabillity to put things together. Relate to us your wealth of experience flying early marque Spitfires. Oh yeah, you cannot and I know your Dad's logbook does not reflect any Spitfire time either. In fact, nobody can fly a Spitfire without the bob weights today legally.


Only the Mk5 ever had bob weights, and all the other airworthy marks which are as original and flying around don't seem to be attracting any 'legal' issues, My late fathers gliding logbook certainly won't have any Spitfire time in it, care to show us your extensively logged warbird time?


"Light controls" is desireable. However, you must have some resistance to gauge the feel of the aircraft so forces that are too light are not desirable.



As you like to say....Baloney


Combined with very small stick movements that created large changes in angle of attack, it is unacceptable when the aircraft is neutrally stable. With positive stability, it would not be unacceptable.



yet you can see Spitfires at airshows doing high energy turns at low level all the time....oh I guess that's because the FAA and NACA have had a word with the spitfires and told them all to behave themselves.


Very light stick forces on the longitudinal axis coupled with neutral stability, small stick position changes producing large angle of attack changes, a very harsh stall/spin, and stick force imbalance on the lateral axis is why the Spitfire did not pass quantifiable stability and control standards.


Let me guess.....NACA.....again, the only source for all that is right and holy in this world eh?

[Crumpp]

What does that have to do with me being a pilot, my experience, or education?

Really, you, bongodriver, Osprey, and a few others from that 100 Octane thread have consistantly followed me around these boards making personal attacks.

You turn every thread into a discussion on me. Why???

You want to undermine my credibility out of some misguided fear of "red vs blue" baloney that has become the community dynamics of a few. I am not into it and won't buy it.

It is boring and the constant derailment is detrimental to the community.

Who cares about me? Who cares what I do for a living. I sure as hell am not going to post any personal information on the internet. It is stupid and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you or anyone else.

Stick to the facts under the topic of the thread. If I am wrong, then produce facts to prove it.

You can't do that so your same small group resorts to emotional pleas by conducting personal attacks on me. If you can't attack the subject then attack the source of the subject, right?

[bongodriver]

What does that have to do with me being a pilot, my experience, or education?



Huh?......simply you are just not a pilot, no experience and education is questionable too.


Really, you, bongodriver, Osprey, and a few others from that 100 Octane thread have consistantly followed me around these boards making personal attacks.



Actually I just got stuck in to a discussion, but when you showed up with some bizarre claims it became more heated.


You want to undermine my credibility out of some misguided fear of "red vs blue" baloney that has become the community dynamics of a few. I am not into it and won't buy it.



You undermine your own credibility, the only 'red v blue' baloney comes from the likes of you and Kurfurst.


It is boring and the constant derailment is detrimental to the community.



Yes, please stop posting ever again.


Who cares about me? Who cares what I do for a living. I sure as hell am not going to post any personal information on the internet. It is stupid and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you or anyone else.



Nobody cares about you, but you sure do seem to care what you want people to believe, I wonder what you will claim to be next, point is I backed up my claims with hard evidence.


Stick to the facts under the topic of the thread. If I am wrong, then produce facts to prove it.



They do indeed, yet you continue to deny them.


You can't do that so your same small group resorts to emotional pleas by conducting personal attacks on me. If you can't attack the subject then attack the source of the subject, right?


you keep bringing up my late father and his logbook, I didn't ask for your last reply to me so I guess it's you who doesn't want to let it go.

[Crumpp]

Only the Mk5 ever had bob weights

The bob-weights are a quick fix and an aerodynamic band aid. Of course they addressed the issue with good design in later marques.

We are not talking about later marques.

We are discussing the Spitfire MkI, Ia, and II series as found in the game.

[Crumpp]

Let me guess.....NACA.....again, the only source for all that is right and holy in this world eh?


There is nothing to argue with the stability and control characteristics. The NACA measured it.

The RAE had no quantifiable standards at the time but the Operating Notes cover the issues well.

[bongodriver]

Operating Notes cover the issues well.

You probably don't know it so I will forgive your ignorance, but it's pretty standard stuff in aircraft operating notes to highlight the ill effects of mis-handling an aircraft.

[FS~Phat]

Story by Jeffrey Quill (Chief test pilot)

Jeffrey Kindersley Quill OBE AFC FRAeS (1 February 1913–20 February 1996) was a British Royal Air Force officer, RNVR officer and Test pilot and the second man to fly the Supermarine Spitfire after Vickers Aviation's chief test pilot, Joseph "Mutt" Summers. After succeeding Summers as Vickers' chief test pilot, Quill test-flew every mark of Spitfire, originally designed by R. J. Mitchell.


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1953/1953%20-%201323.html

"The impression has once or twice been given that the Spitfire was "right, from the word go." This is not strictly correct. We had our full share of troubles, headaches and frights during that period and it was all full of interest. I personally was keenly aware of the privilege of working for R. J. Mitchell. But it would need a book to record all this. One point of interest is that K.S054 was, I think, one of the first aeroplanes to be fitted with an anti-spin parachute. It had shown up badly in the spinning calculations at R.A.E. and there was thus a certain amount of gloom about the prospects for the actual spinning tests.
The cable of the anti-spin parachute was attached to the fuselage just forward of the fin; it was then led along the outside of the fuselage, secured by sticky tape, and the parachute itself stowed in the cockpit.
The idea was that, if in. trouble, one opened the canopy, seized a handful of parachute and flung it over the side-preferably the appropriate side. I well
remember the first spin, entered at 20,000 feet from a. strangely silent stall with the big two-bladed wooden airscrew ticking over very, very slowly. But eight years elapsed before I actually had to use an anti-spin parachute (in a Seafire with an experimental rudder), and it broke my leg-but that is another story. The only difficulty we ha-d with the proto* type was persuading the R.A.E. that the spin recovery characteris*tics were, in fact, perfect. It seemed they had no business to be, but they were. "


More interesting stats here> (obviously not the definitive source but still an interesting summary of the evolution of the spit from MK1 to seafire 47 with a bunch of stats)

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%202270%20-%200359.html

I read tonight somewhere in this archive there was a chart for spin recovery at various altitudes and it was 1-2 spins to 4 spins worst case and loss of 6000 feet (WORST CASE) from memory. Sorry I couldnt find it again! The spit pilots were not afraid of pulling hard as spin recovery was relatively simple. cut throttle, full opposite rudder, gently slightly forward, release rudder to neutral when slip indicator flips to other side and apply power build airspeed to 180MPH before gently pulling back. Ill try and find it again. Found another copy here.. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

[Seadog]

RAF turning trials:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/109-spit-hurri-turn.pdf


no way the 109e can out turn a Hurricane or Spitfire, a result which Kurfurst's recent post regarding Luftwaffe turning trials confirm.

[Glider]

Crumpp
I like this bit. All this quote does is prove that given pilots of equal skill the Spit turned faster.
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn



Re the books quoted I have read the JG 26 war diary and it as far as I remember didn't confirm that the 109 turned inside the SPitfire. Could be wrong on that but if you find the quote that would help

[klem]

Guys I fell over a post on the A2A Simulations website and it is NOT a reference to 'their' Spitfire but is an article on 'flying the Spitfire'.

What makes it interesting is that it gets away from the simplistic "mine is better than yours" attitude because as many of us know it is impossible to be sure of the circumstances of each aircraft when they meet in combat particularly regarding fuel/weight states, merge airspeeds etc.. Two aircraft as close in basic performance as the Spifire MKI and 109e could possibly reverse turn-capability claims if say under extremely different wing loading conditions and with airspeeds that favour one or other. Combat is never between the bare aircraft off the drawing board and even in compararative tests aircraft states have to be considered when drawing conclusions. Consider also whether you are talking about instantaneous turn rates to get that snap shot or sustained turn rates to wear down the angles and gain a shooting solution.

This link also gives turn rates of various aircraft. I don't know their sources but they make interesting reading and suggest that sources are available somewhere. I expect some 'reds' or 'blues' will disagree with the figures but it does at least make it clear that this is not a simplistic one-size-fits-all question and/or answer.

So here's the link, enjoy....
http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=23909

[Seadog]

Extracted from above link:

SPITFIRE Mk. i

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.2s 13.5s 14.7s -
Two 360s - 24.9s 28.2s 30.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.8s 12.8s 13.4s 14.1s
Two 360s - 24.4s 28.2s 29.9s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.0s 17.8s 20.8s
Full Flaps - 15.1s 16.4s 18.1s 21.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 125mph 125mph 125mph 120mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft)
Speed: 215mph
Turn Radius: 342ft

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 125mph
“ Turn Radius: 431ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 5.0s 5.3s 6.0s 6.8s
360 degrees - 11.3s 11.8s 13.2s 15.2s

360º Roll Rate:
150mph: 6.9s
200mph: 5.1s
250mph: 5.7s
300mph: 7.1s
350mph: 10.4s
400mph: 14.6s

Bf-109E-4

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.9s 13.4s 15.4s -
Two 360s - 29.4s 31.2s 35.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 12.9s 13.7s 15.5s 16.7s
Two 360s - 31.0s 32.4s 36.5s 41.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 18.0s 19.3s 21.2s 24.1s
Full Flaps - 19.0s 19.8s 21.7s 24.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 120mph 120mph 120mph 115mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft)
Speed: 225mph
Radius: 367ft

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 120mph
“ Turn Radius: 503ft

Full Flaps Speed: 100mph
Full Flaps Radius: 442ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 6.0s 6.4s 6.7s 7.1s
360 degrees - 13.8s 15.4s 15.8s 17.8s

360 º Roll Rate:
150mph: 4.8s
200mph: 4.3s
250mph: 4.2s
300mph: 5.5s
350mph: 7.2s
400mph: 11.9s

Hawker Hurricane Mk I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.1s 12.4s 13.6s -
Two 360s - 24.2s 25.3s 30.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.2s 11.7s 12.9s 15.0s
Two 360s - 23.6s 26.2s 28.5s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.4s 18.5s 22.1s
Full Flaps - 14.8s 16.6s 18.4s 22.2s
Best Flap - full full full full
Speed/best 105mph 105mph 100mph 100mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft)
Speed: 200mph
Radius: 291feet

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 125mph
“ Turn Radius: 436ft

Full Flaps Speed: 110mph
Full Flaps Radius: 384ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 4.8s 5.3s 6.2s 6.4s
360 degrees - 10.8s 12.1s 13.3s 14.1s

360º Roll Rate:
150mph: 5.0s
200mph: 4.0s
250mph: 4.3s
300mph: 5.4s
350mph: 7.6s
400mph: 11.6s

Mitsubishi Zero-Sen A6M2 Reisen Model Type 21

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 11.2s 11.5s 12.5s -
Two 360s - 21.5s 23.2s 25.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 9.8s 10.4s 11.4s 12.5s
Two 360s - 21.6s 22.7s 25.7s 28.8s

Sustained
No Flaps - 13.2s 14.2s 16.7s 18.5s
Full Flaps - 13.5s 15.6s 17.3s 19.6s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 100mph 95mph 95mph 95mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft):
Speed: 200mph
Radius: 291ft

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 110mph
“ Turn Radius: 339ft

Full Flaps Speed: 95mph
Full Flaps Radius: 299ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 4.5s 4.7s 5.1s 5.8s
360 degrees - 9.9s 10.2s 11.7s 12.7s

360º Roll Rate:
150mph: 4.9s
200mph: 5.9s
250mph: 6.9s
300mph: 14.8s
350mph: 21.6s
400mph:

[Sammi79]

Thanks Seadog & Klem, very informative post.

Now I'm dreaming of a Mitsubishi Zero...

Patience, grasshopper...

Regards,
Sam.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Now I'm dreaming of a Mitsubishi Zero...



Until I come with my wildcat ... :cool:

[Glider]

Another reason to doubt your claims to be a pilot, for those of us who do fly recognise the airframes shudders and buffets as 'warnings' of impending stalls and are able to react to them by simply unloading, which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

Have to agree with this 100%. In a glider in a stack you fly all the time with your eyes out of the cockpit. As a result and you rely on touch and sound to get the best out of your glider and overtake the other gliders and learning to fly to the warning signs is critical.

Its also a fairly easy thing to teach, it gives the student far more confidence in their abilities and makes it safer for other pilots.

To pretend that its the portent of doom is far from the truth.

As an aside people who highlight that because a high speed stall is loud, that things bang and it can if taken too far cause problems with the structure is only a feature of a Spitfire clearly have no experience of a high speed stall. Guess what, it happens in all aircraft even gliders and all aircraft with have structural failure if pushed too far.

We taught high speed stalls before people were allowed to go solo and it always gets peoples attention. I had an B52 gunner of many years service who thought that his world had come to an end when he first experienced one. However you also teach how to recognise one and avoid it.
In case your interested he brought his pilot along a few weeks later and he was taught how to really fly by another instructor. He got a kick out of going solo before his pilot.

[TomcatViP]

I quite agree with your values Seadog (if it does interest someone)

However the Full flap recommendation with the "best Flap" tag shld be detailed as being the minimal turn radius at slow speed to avoid an obstacle or a collision during airfield operation and NOT a combat procedure.

Split flap are not quite reliable when it comes to pull G what ever your Old IL2 experience teaches you (one thing that I would like so much to stay a thing of the past and being hard coded by the devs - e.g dissimilar operation when G>[2.5; -3] is pulled)

[DC338]

I quite agree with your values Seadog (if it does interest someone)

However the Full flap recommendation with the "best Flap" tag shld be detailed as being the minimal turn radius at slow speed to avoid an obstacle or a collision during airfield operation and NOT a combat procedure.

Split flap are not quite reliable when it comes to pull G what ever your Old IL2 experience teaches you (one thing that I would like so much to stay a thing of the past and being hard coded by the devs - e.g dissimilar operation when G>[2.5; -3] is pulled)

Flaps are used in Combat, though as you correctly say not in the same way as was portrayed in IL-2 (which was the one of the faults). Far too much flap use in the sim. Full flap in a spitfire could have been used in a scissors fight as it is a radius not a rate fight. You would have to be Slow however and careful in it's employment as the speed range is small.

[Crumpp]

Another reason to doubt your claims to be a pilot, for those of us who do fly recognise the airframes shudders and buffets as 'warnings' of impending stalls and are able to react to them by simply unloading, which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

Good lord...

Read the NACA report and the POH.

Stall warning is not the same as stall behavior. You should know that without explaination.

All this quote does is prove that given pilots of equal skill the Spit turned faster.


You people are paraniod about your gameshapes!!

Read my first post. The physics is what it is glider. You cannot change it.

The same physics that dictates the turn rates also dictates the stability and control.

The NACA had a measurable standard.

[FS~Phat]

Guys please play nice or I'll have to start dishing out infractions. :(

On another note: seems we will never know the true performance and when you read things like in this article I attached, Its not hard to see that its human nature to not want to accept the "competition" has a bigger e-peen, given our own ego's and viewpoints. (this goes to both sides of the arguments)

So we should just learn to accept we have differing opinions and present credible material and information for discussion as adults.. So can we please discuss and not attack. Remove the sarcasm, remove the snide comments. PLEASE!

[Glider]

This is the full quote as posted by Kurfurst:-

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

It clearly has two part

a) When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. So when two deteremined pilots fly the aircraft to the full the RAF fighters easily turned inside the Me109

b) In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning
Where the Me109 pilot is the most determined the Me109 can stay with the RAF fighters

From this it seems that with pilots of equal ability the RAF fighters will turn tighter.

All I am saying is read the whole quote.

The fact that pilot skill and/or tactical advantage is of paramount performance should not be a surprise. Most would agree that the Hellcat is a better fighter to a Zero, but would you fancy your chances if Saburo Saki was in the Zero?

There are some other parts of the same test report which are worth noting:-

The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about ½ g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch ; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling
Interesting that at very slow speeds the RAF fighters could maintain control when the Me109 was stalled. This proves that those who believe that the Me109 could turn better than the RAF fighters at slow speed are wrong.
Also that the opening of the flaps fixed with the Me109F caused the Me109E to lose ground. In a tight turning combat losing ground giving an advantage to the RAF is a serious issue. Its also worth remembering that the German Flight tests were clear when reccomending that Me109 pilots shold not get into a turning combat with the Spitfire or Hurricane

After these turns the Me.109 was put into a steep dive at full throttle with the airscrew pitch coarsened to keep the r.p.m. down. It was found that both the Hurricanes and the Spitfires could keep up with the Me.109 in the dive; the aircraft with constant speed airscrews could do this more readily than those with two-pitch airscrews. The ailerons and elevator of the Me.109 became so heavy in the dive that rapid manceuvring was impossible, while, as explained in section 4.22, banked turns could be done more readily to the right than to the left because of the absence of rudder bias.
Speed is an issue as is the lack of advantage once in a dive. Normally the 109 did have an initial advantage due to the engine cut out.

In most cases this steep climb at low airspeed was the only manceuvre whereby the Me.109 pilot could keep away from the Hurricane or Spitfire. During the general fighting which folIowed the set programme, one other feature of advantage to the Me.109 emerged. If a negative g is put on the aircraft for a short time, the engine does not cut as it is of the direct injection type; whereas on the Spitfire or Hurricane the engine immediately splutters and stops when negative g is applied, because the carburettor quickly ceases to deliver petrol under these conditions.
A steep climb at a low airspeed will work as an evasion but only if you are one to one. If there is another RAF fighter around you are a sitting target, low speed low energy.


During the general fighting, with the Me.109 chasing a Spitfire or Hurricane, some of our pilots escaped by doing a flick half-roll and then quickly pulling up out of the subsequent dive. The Me. 109 pilot found this particularly difficult to counter, for when the Me. 109 rolled after his opponent, the speed built up quickly in the steep dive which followed the half roll, and the elevator became so heavy that a quick pull out was impossible; in addition care had to be taken not to pull out quickly when the speed had decreased, because the aircraft stalled so readily under g. As a result 2,000-3,000 ft. may be lost in the manceuvre, and if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable. Conversation with some of the pilots who had had experience in actual combat with the Me.109 revealed that in several cases a Me.109 had, in fact, been observed to crash in this way without a shot being fired

Clearly high speed control forces is a particular issue with the Me109 as is the danger of stalling under G. Loss of height when the plane stalls is another issue.

The final summary of the turning performance is as follows:-
5.3. Comparative Turning Performance of Me.109 and Spitfire. – During the dog-fights against the Hurricane and Spitfire, it became apparent that our fighters could out-turn the Me.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 Me.109 may be ascribed to its high wing loading, 32.2 lb./sq. ft. compared with 24.8 lb./sq. ft. on the Spitfire. It was thought of interest to go into the matter a little more deeply, and to calculate the relative performances of these aircraft in circling flight, so that the sacrifice of turning performance entailed by the Me. 109's high wing loading could be assessed qualitatively.


In a recent report on the dog-fight12 Gates gives an analysis whereby the performance of an aircraft in steady spiral flight at full throttle can be estimated from its measured full throttle performance in straight flight (partial climbs and top speed) ; the analysis leads to a compact diagram from which the radius and time of turn, and the corresponding rate of ascent or descent can be obtained at any given airspeed and normal g.

Such diagrams have been constructed for the Spitfire and Me.109, and are given in Fig. 17, together with an explanation of their use. The turning performance of the Hurricane is probably little different from that of the Spitfire, these aircraft being roughly similar in wing loading and level performance. The " stall boundary " depends on an estimate of CL max at full throttle. In the case of the Spitfire this has been measured in flight, while the Me.109 figures were based on the Spitfire results; tables of the assumed values of CL max are given in Fig. 17. CL max falls off as g is increased, because the stalling speed increases as g gets larger, thus lessening the slipstream effect.

It will be seen that the minimum radius of turn without height loss is obtained by flying as near the stall as possible at a comparatively small g. For ease of comparison the radius of turn has been plotted against speed for both aeroplanes in Fig. 18, (i) for turns at the stall, and (ii) for turns without height loss. The advantage of the Spitfire over the Me.109 at once becomes apparent, the minimum radius of turn without loss of height being about 696 ft. on the Spitfire as against 885 ft. on the Me.109. The characteristics of these turns are summarised in the following table :-

So read the whole thing

[IvanK]

+1 Glider very well summarised and written.

[winny]

I thought I'd add a translation of the German trials of the 109e, 110c, Hurricane, Curtiss and Spitfire.

Quote:

In the following performance and air combat comparison that has been performed at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Me 109E and Me 110C and the captured enemy fighters Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss, shall be brought to notice. The results of the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd and Zestorer units to guarantee appropriate air combat behaviour in the engagements on the basis of technical conditions.

The Me109 clearly out-performs all foreign aircraft.

Speed : the Spitfire is at 0m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4km by ca. 10 km/h. Hurricane and Curtiss at 0m and 4km altitude by ca. 60km/h. A similar superiority of the Me 109E exists in climb performance too.

Climb times to 4 km.
Me109E - 4.4 mins
Spitfire - 5 mins
Hurricane - 5.6 mins
Curtiss - 5.2 mins

The Me110C is inferior speed wise to the Spitfire, superior to the Hurricane and Curtiss. Regarding climb performance the Curtiss is equal at ground level, up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to an altitude of 2 km then superior up to 6.5 km. the Spitfire is equal at ground level but otherwise superior.

The best climb for the Me 109E and Me 110C is achieved with shallow climb angle and higher speeds than the enemy fighters.

It is wrong to climb away steeply or climb behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

Before turning fights with the Me 109E, it must be noted that in every case, that all 3 foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

The following suggestions are made:

The Spitfire and Hurricane have 2 pitch propellers. Climbing away with the Me109 and Me 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or even higher speeds of about 280-300 km/h. On aircraft with 2 pitch propellers with low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, on the other hand a high blade angle, high boost pressure - therefore, in other words, performance loss.

On a sudden push forward on the stick to dive, the carburettor cuts out due to negative acceleration. This evasive measure, diving, is also recommended.

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Me 109. Quick changes of trajectory along the vertical axis cause, especially with the Spitfire, load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momentum, and significantly disturbing aiming.

In summary it can be said that all three enemy types are inferior to the German planes regarding flying qualities. The Spitfire has bad elevator and rudder stability on the target approach. In addition, wing-mounted weapons have known shooting technique disadvantages.

A bit more on the subject.

On the 11th July 1940 Wing Commander George Stainforth - of Schneider trophy fame flew the 109 in a seris of comparative trials concerning the turning circles of the 109, Spitfire and Hurricane. Stainforths subsequent report concluded that the Hurricane out-turned the 109 'within about 1 complete turn' and that 'The Messerschmitt appears to be only slightly faster than the Hurricane.' 'The Spitfire out turned the 109 almost as easily as the Hurricane'
(unlike the Rechlin tests this Spitfire had a CSP). 'The Spitfire pilot reported that he had no difficulty in sitting on the 109s tail, and could, in fact have tightened his turn quite a lot more and got well on the inside, he was at +5 boost, almost full throttle'

[6S.Manu]

This is the full quote as posted by Kurfurst:-

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

It clearly has two part

a) When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. So when two deteremined pilots fly the aircraft to the full the RAF fighters easily turned inside the Me109

b) In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning
Where the Me109 pilot is the most determined the Me109 can stay with the RAF fighters

From this it seems that with pilots of equal ability the RAF fighters will turn tighter.

All I am saying is read the whole quote.

The world is not white and black.

Let's talk about flying skill of the pilot: there is the general skill and I agree that the 109 pilot was really skilled, if not he would not be chosen as enemy for the test. But being a skilled pilot in some kind of plane does not mean that your as skilled in another one. For accuracy I asked to my teammate, the military pilot, and he agree with me... you need experience in THAT plane to reach the best performance. The document states that he fled it until he was used to it (how many hours? can't read by now)... but how can we know that he could push the plane at its limit like the determined pilots did in their Spitfires?

This "H + Sp > H + Bf > L + Sp" (H is a High skilled pilot, L is Low skilled pilot) as many of you want to use as proof is wrong. We don't know if the L pilots are really inexperienced... they could be expert Hurricanes' pilots flying in a Spitfire!!
So it's "H + Sp > H + Bf > (?) + Sp"

But, again, H and L can't be the pilot general skill... they must be the personal skill in those planes.
Lets add the new variable (there A means that pilot is really accustomed to the plane, and B means that the pilot is not used to fly it)...

H + Sp + (A) > H + Bf + (?) > (?) + Sp + (?)

So we don't know the overall skill of the outturned Spitfire's pilots.... we don't know if the 109 pilot could push it to its limit.... the only thing we can know is that the determined pilots who actually outturned the 109 were experienced pilots but for sure more used to fly Spitfires than the 109's pilot was used to fly the german plane.

Now can they outturn a "Marseille"? Probably... but how can we be so sure?

[TomcatViP]

So now it's normal to think that the SPit outurned the Hurri ?

Regarding all you have posted Seadog, it's sad that you keep posting things that have been alrdy discussed heavily. It show what I am saying since long now : some of you don't care at all of what others can says and keep posting the same extract, the same curves, the same "document" even if those are questionable.

That's boring. We push arguments frwrd and you keep putting wall of this in every post.

Boring.

Did you ever see that we have no prob saying that the Spit will outurn a 109 in what was the condition of the test? You didn't even read that. Convinced that the truth can't be other that what you did build in your own mind.

Dogfighting is a difficult exercise. It's not acrobatic work. But that you can not understand and keep holding the point of view that the best turner have to be British and rules the fight.

Before pasting bellow another hundreds of copied lines from another thread, take the time to re-read what we have said. Otherwise, ONCE MORE, there is no point arguing with some of you.

Operational results during BoB shows that the Hurri has been the best fighter, just followed by the 109 (I put logically the Hurri frwd as it did won BoB when the 109 just loose). But that you don't care. You and others can't admits that point and still push forward the SPit, mixing it's perf with latter model just to ensure you have your Tie-Fighter ride online. Of course that a thing that you can't do with the Hurri as the theSidney Cam fighter did reach nearly all it's potential during BoB.

Moreover, anyone with an ounce of flying experience flying the SPit we have in game see immediately how ridiculous it behave. This has been pointed by many others before but still we have to ear your ridiculous discussions about frwd speed, mean tide height for "accurate" perf assessment (Oh G. forgive us for our sins), and many hair raising theorizing idea.

Enough is enough. I want myself to be able to fly a SPitfire in CoD without feeling ashamed of myself. That's how a proud Brit should spend his time on an aviation forum !

Why does it hve to be a Frenchman writing that ?

[Glider]

I think we agree on most things.

There is a difference between skill and experience on that I think we agree. It is quite possible to have a lot of experience on an aircraft but still not be skilled enough to takie it to the limit. It is also possible to be very skilled and not a lot of experience in an aircraft.

The Me109 was flown by an RAE pilot who we can assume is a very skilled pilot used to flying a variety of different types of aircraft. As you say he wouldn't have been given the job without that extra something. Test flying is by definition the art of taking the plane to the limit, to push the envelope to see what it does.
You are correct, we don't know how many hours he had on the Me109 but that is of lesser important than his experience as a test pilot.
From the test we know that he was confident to fly the Me 109 past the deployment of the slats which is something a number of German pilots didn't do. We know that from other quotes from other german pilots. We also know that he flew it past the stall in a tight turn until he had to recover it which means that he did push the envelope until the plane stalled.
The intresting thing is the combat with the RAF pilots. Some clearly did fly their aircraft until the shudder and those did turn inside the Me109 whatever the 109 pilot did, even until the Me109 stalled. However, others didn't and they found the Me109 when flown to the limit, stayed with them.
Those RAF would have been experienced but the skill level differed. I say they would have been experienced because if a Sqdn Leader was asked to send some pilots to fly mock dogfights against an Me109, I am willing to bet a pound to a penny they would go themselves and say the flight leaders. They wouldn't send someone inexperienced

|I know my experience was in gliders but I flew a number of different types and it didn't take that long to get the hang of something. The only real issues were if the glider had a new feature which I had no experience in, how to use that feature took a little time but you got there within a few days, not weeks.

Edit - I should add that using the new feature was fairly easy, getting the bewst use of it was something else. In my case it was when I started to fly high performance gliders with water ballast. Using it was easy, knowing when to use it was tricky

[Crumpp]

The Stability and Control characteristics of the early marque Spitfires are well defined and measureable across multiple sources, the RAE, NACA, and post war stability and control engineering text's.

[Glider]

The Stability and Control characteristics of the early marque Spitfires are well defined and measureable across multiple sources, the RAE, NACA, and post war stability and control engineering text's.

As are the views of those who flew it

[Crumpp]

As are the views of those who flew it


Subjective opinion, unmeasureable, and without definition...

[Glider]

Subjective opinion, unmeasureable, and without definition...

Possibly, quite possibly, but the problem with post war studies are precisely that, they are post war. The benchmarks that apply post war are often not the same benchmarks that apply during a war. Even during a war, there are sometimes differences between what the engineers believe to be acceptable and what the people on the front line believe to be acceptable.

This is probably the main difference between us.

[Crumpp]

the problem with post war studies are precisely that, they are post war.

The NACA study was not post war....

The RAE Operating Notes warnings were not post war.....

Gates attempts to get the RAE on a measureable standard were not post war.....

He wrote over 130 papers during his career on stability and control. A significant portion of them were written during the war attempting to convince his colleagues at the Air Ministry to adopt measureable standards.

In fact, Gates stability margin criteria were part of the NACA's standards!!! Gates developed the "Aerodynamic Center" which would replace the obsolete "center of pressure".

All of Gates findings agreed with the NACA's conclusions!

He and Gilruth were good friends. In his 1942 visit to the NACA, Gilruth hosted Gates.

One of his sources for the development of the following table is the basis of the NACA standards!!

Gilruth . .Requirements for Satisfactory Flying Qualities of Airplanes•
N.A.C.A. Advance Report A.R'.C. 5543.

Just as a chart of speed or climb performance shows us how the aircraft should perform, the plots of acceleration forces over velocity tell us how the aircraft performs in abrupt maneuvers.

For satisfactory stability and control, a pilot is able to precisely control the accelerations on the aircraft.

This is not what the plots show for the Spitfire. The accelerations vary wildly as the pilot is unable to precisely control them.

[Crumpp]

This is probably the main difference between us.



It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

[Glider]

For satisfactory stability and control, a pilot is able to precisely control the accelerations on the aircraft.

This is not what the plots show for the Spitfire. The accelerations vary wildly as the pilot is unable to precisely control them.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.


Re this statement
It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

Its rubbish, I can think of a half dozen examples where the rules that apply in war did not apply in peace and / or where the theorists during the war were at odds wiith the people in the front line.
You are firmly in the theorists area,

[TomcatViP]

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

Did you really read many of them talking specifically about the production model mk I & II ? because that's what we are talking abt here.

You'd certainly read it everywhere about the Hurri an the 109.

Just remind the heavy losses young Spit pilots did have to suffer compared to their Hurri colleagues.

[Igo kyu]

Re this statement
It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

Its rubbish, I can think of a half dozen examples where the rules that apply in war did not apply in peace and / or where the theorists during the war were at odds wiith the people in the front line.
You are firmly in the theorists area,
There are rules, which are made by people, and there are physical laws which come with the universe (what or who made that being an unknown), you are talking about rules being broken in war, which happens, what does not happen is the universe being bent out of shape just for the wars of puny humans on a microscopic planet.

[Crumpp]

all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

Light forces and small stick travel is very pleasant to cruise about on nice day.

[Crumpp]

You are firmly in the theorists area,


My DD214 says something different, what does yours say!!

:grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

Did you really read many of them talking specifically about the production model mk I & II ? because that's what we are talking abt here.

You'd certainly read it everywhere about the Hurri an the 109.

Just remind the heavy losses young Spit pilots did have to suffer compared to their Hurri colleagues.

This is getting silly.

EVERY account by Battle of Britain pilots flying the Spitfire for the first time -- including the 2-speed Spitfire Mark I -- extolled their praises of its handling characteristics and performance capabilities. Start with Al Deere's "Nine Lives", which I read back in '63, and there are dozens more accounts all of which are glowing in their initial and subsequent impressions of the early Spits. I've never read a negative report on the Spitfire's handling -- not a one.

EDIT: Oops, I lied: No one was keen on the Merlin cutting out with negative g's. Granted, that has nothing to do with the stability of the Spitfires, but IS a handling characteristic no one liked.

Unfortunately, those who flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' theoretical insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

[Crumpp]

theoretical insights

There is no theory to it. It is measured, quantified, and the performance plotted.

[ATAG_Snapper]

There is no theory to it. It is measured, quantified, and the performance plotted.

I stand corrected. Please allow me to correct my earlier statement:

FORTUNATELY, those who ACTUALLY flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' PROVEN IRONCLAD insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

Better?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

rotfl

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

:lol:...........Snapper you'da man.

[Glider]

Crumpp

In your reply you seem to have forgotten to address the main outstanding question which I repeat here.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.

I await your reply

PS its important to remember that the German pilots also thought highly of the handling of the Spitfire and Hurricane

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

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

As I said earlier I await your explanation as to why Molders as well as the RAF and other pilots had it so wrong

[Glider]

There are rules, which are made by people, and there are physical laws which come with the universe (what or who made that being an unknown), you are talking about rules being broken in war, which happens, what does not happen is the universe being bent out of shape just for the wars of puny humans on a microscopic planet.

Once again I agree with you. The rules differ in war vs peace as the risk element differs so much. I also agree the point is reached where the rules of nature cannot be broken. Its a question as to how close to that point do the rules apply.

[Glider]

My DD214 says something different, what does yours say!!

:grin:

Frankly I don't give a damn about what your piece of paper may or may not say.

I worked in IT as a Programme Manager on some good sized projects such as making the group systems Euro compliant, installing and testing new networks in all the prisons in the UK and Satellite Latency projects for the Home office. I represented all UK Insurance brokers in discussions over IT standards for European and USA networks etc

I have never had any training in IT, I never went to University and I never sat any A levels. I joined the RN at 16 did my time as an Airframes and Engines Articifer and didn't start in IT at the age of 35.
However I was the one who got the projects that had gone wrong, or were at serious risk. I promise you that the PM's I took over from had lots of pieces of paper from some of the best Universities in the UK including Oxford, Cambridge and they were IT pieces of paper.

What I looked for was how people applied what they knew, how they replied to questions and issues, how practical problems were addressed. People who would not reply to questions didn't last long.

[Ernst]

Crumpp

In your reply you seem to have forgotten to address the main outstanding question which I repeat here.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.

I await your reply

PS its important to remember that the German pilots also thought highly of the handling of the Spitfire and Hurricane

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

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

As I said earlier I await your explanation as to why Molders as well as the RAF and other pilots had it so wrong

Easy to fly in what situation? Just take off, land and fly around is one thing, fly it on the edge or combat is another. Some non desirable or vicious caracteristcs only became clear when the aircraft is flown to its limits.

The 109 for example had very desirable caracteristic for a fighter when flown to the edge. The slats granted very forgiving stall caracteristics that allowed the pilots confidence to fly the aircraft to its limits. The same time slats could cause the less experienced pilots to miss their target.

[TomcatViP]

Every modern fighter hve wing leading flaps or slats and none hve elliptical wings. But that they don't understand.

As they pretend not to understand the diff btw sustained turns, and turns with excess of energy even when we are lucky to get excellent account here on this forum. Those guys are boring.

[Glider]

Easy to fly in what situation? Just take off, land and fly around is one thing, fly it on the edge or combat is another. Some non desirable or vicious caracteristcs only became clear when the aircraft is flown to its limits.

The 109 for example had very desirable caracteristic for a fighter when flown to the edge. The slats granted very forgiving stall caracteristics that allowed the pilots confidence to fly the aircraft to its limits. The same time slats could cause the less experienced pilots to miss their target.

Clearly I don't know no one does, only Molders really knows, but I am willing to bet that he did more than circuits and bumps in them. Its equally wrong to assume that he didn't wring the aircraft out.

[FS~Phat]

Not to be rude as I think there is a lot of interesting debate and conversation going on here but could a few of you, (you know who you are) please make another thread to have these pages and pages of conversation in.

Call it something like.... "the great debate - 109 vs Spit" Im sure you get my drift. ;)