omg the meserchmitch i so easy to shoot with the spit i love it

[raaaid]

and what is even better german engineering nostalgics(i include myself since i love that non obsolescence) will ride them to let them be your target :)

not that i believe 109s were so bad in front of spits IN REAL LIFE but tell me a single game in which the 109 excels the spit

as a matter of fact in early games like european air war spit was only superior to 109 in manouberilty but as in real life in game life people soon discovered the key was speed and coms in posterior years you could check how engineering history was revisioned once more and the spit then could even match in speed the 109 and in most games spits would even out run 109 while in the past they just out manouber them

the irony is THIS GAME GOT TURNING RATE BOTH FOR 109 AND SPIT BALANCED AT FIRST, the first thing i did when i got this game was stop watch turning rate and both sides were equal, now its ridiculous biased towards spit, 109 is a brick

my opinion:

theres a conspiracy to make english speaking engineering appear better than north europe one and paying fees to game to make it this way, call it advertisement

theres a big fight on this think of f1 and if you look at economy one would say war just changed field and name of things

edit:

imagine luthier sending emails to rolls royc and wenzler im making THE GAME on wwii whose paying more for his engines being uber ;)

come on think of movies how much do they get so the main charachter drinks cocacola instead of pepsi, i still buy levis strauss because of back to the future :)

[JG52Krupi]

No, the spit has always turned well in this game.

You are thinking of the hurri, when the game was released nobody really flew the spit as it was too slow the hurri was faster but not as manoeuvrable as the spit (and it should be more so) this led to some "balance" with a hurri/109 fight.

Now the hurri is slower than the spit and still doesn't turn better, the 109 has always being fast but turns like a half paralysed dog in this game.

So now we have a 109 and hurri with buggered up manoeuvrability and a fast and highly manoeuvrable spit :rolleyes: only the dive and climb are better in the 109 which is why blues only boom and zoom...

[raaaid]

i dont know before it was a problem fighting tnbers with bnzers thats how i felt flying the hurri but when i tried the spitii bnz on the 109 didnt work unles they had a huge e adavanatge

whats beyond me why people fly 109, even i dont though my dreams makes me supsicious in the past i pilotted one so i would love in the game but turns like a boat and in my dreams I CAN KEEP TURNING WITH A SPIT FOR MINUTES

also tracers are very usefull since i have a 3d perception of them(in dreams) in the game they are pos since you see them flat and all they do is obstruct the view

whats beyond me is that some games like day of defeat or call of duty 5 not the 4 achieve a 3d perception in flat i dont know how they did it

to see what i mean watch this videoclip :)

3d tech on flat vs 2d tech on flat

cod 5 had a 3d effect cod4 didnt:???:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhgXWgJH7hQ

[JG52Krupi]

Annnndddd... here what we have here is a typical raaaid post, he says something incorrect gets proven wrong and then changes the subject LOL

[Fjordmonkey]

Annnndddd... here what we have here is a typical raaaid post, he says something incorrect gets proven wrong and then changes the subject LOL

Did you expect otherwise? :P

[ATAG_Snapper]

Raaid, please join us on the ATAG server. You'll find the 109's real pushovers for your Spitfire. Trust me......:-P

[raaaid]

all im saying is that spit now turns better than the 109 and when i 1st tested with the game brand nw stopwatch in hand it didnt

well if you alway engage with a height advanatge its easy

but this takes us to go higher every time which makes the game boring

ive notice through the years an online tacit agreement to dont go very high, games in which this dint happen just disappeared

going on 3d onmoment of death on many games like cod5 in the moment of death they apply a lens effect which for me increases the 3d perecpetion of it

any clues on what is it?

edit:

ill try to explain better with cod5 and dod while playing i would get to a point in which i percieved the game like if i had 3d glasses on, an enhanced perception better than reality, not only that but using the mouse would get as easy as looking a total inmersion like looking at reality throguh a window with 3d glasses on

noticing this i bought cod4 because low framerate killed this perception and though on cod4 i got a high fps i didnt get this effect

i only got this perception most of the time with cod5 and dod but dont know why

[ParaB]

any clues on what is it?

In Bladru#s Gta 2 I rAelly love Using firreballs. There less c00l in Counnerstraik but with snipr in BoB there rule messrchmirch FAR bttr than spitfirre.

And why no fockewolf in clod? is it becuase of light while Englund unfair?

[swiss]

lol

[raaaid]

point one:

spit turns much better than 109 thing which dint happen in the begining of the game

point two: some games like cod5 use a 3d effect just like this image

http://yaplog.jp/tek_tek/img/70/102168992_d193e10dd0_m.jpg


now theres some tech that gives cod5 and not cod4 have a 3d effect

exactly the same tech that makes that image 3d:


if i move my head looking at that image IT MOVES AS IN PERSPECTIVE , try it ;)

talking of this im reisnatalling cod 5 tried to move my head with the opening installing image and it happens the same which proves its been given a 3d effect, which i have no clue


edit:

here the 3d effect i miss in clod that cod 5 has:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/3d.jpg

edit:

i think all needed to achieve this 3d effect would be a focus effect(as you can see in that cod5 image) which would make easier for bom to spot planes :)

[NaBkin]

109 was very good before the patches (in relation to the spit and hurri). Now not so much, but as Krupi mentioned, it still dives and climbes better. This is at least something. But still, it feels almost like 1944 although its EARLY war.

I fly online a lot on ATAG and it's tons of fun. But if you meet a Spit or even a Hurri not like 1k above but on the same level you better run. How are you suppose to win battles like this? 109 is a defensive plane, you can survive if you really want to. Also you can fight quite well if you stay organised with your squat.

But it's such a bummer, that the biggest advantage, the boom and zoom, is so hard to to since the game has this f*** blind spot (for both blue and red of course) in like 700 - 1300m, where the dot of your enemy just disappears. So you loose your target rather fast and the red plane's gone.

This also happens for red players, but since they turn and burn more often it's not that much of a disadvantage.

Also, it's maybe only me but, I've been flying Il2 ever since the first Demo in 2001 and considered myself as a not so terrible shooter. But riding a 109 I couldn't hit UK by flying over it (yes even with tweaked convergence). If I online hop in a Red plane, what sadly becomes more often (in Il2 I NEVER flew red), I have a lot more kills period. I also can use boom and zoom pretty well as well as turn and burn.

In my 109 I've vulched Calais Marck at Dunkerque pretty often (sorry about that reds ;) and it's fun. But I always have to fly like 1.5k away and re-engage. Then, most of the reds have taken off already.
But dare you the whole ATAG Squad comes over to Estree, you'd better hit the off button and go to sleep because they just turn 100m above the airfield and you don't have a chance to take off whatsoever for like 10 -15 minutes (no bad feelings here, it's war however).

I liked the 109 VERY much in the "early days" it was maybe almost too good in relation to the red planes (or the reds were too bad, I can't say becaus then I didn't actually had to fly them), but 1C didn't only improove the reds (for good) but also gave a pretty gory castration to the blues.

I hope there will be some changes to the fms again, when this whole thing goes free2play with buyable planes. Untill that I only fly 109 if I have to (when my Kommodore gives me the order to do so ;) or fly the beloved and pretty darn well modeled Heinkel 111, or even Red.

[planespotter]

Yeah but try shootings down a Stuka.

That is MY fighter of choicein CloD! Turns like a Hurricane, armoured like a tank. Awesome 3 MG firepower and can shoot backwards too.

[NaBkin]

True, the Stuka is a very nice and well done peace of gear. And so is the 110. For ground attack the blues aren´t badly set up we just lack of fighters...

[*Buzzsaw*]

and what is even better german engineering nostalgics(i include myself since i love that non obsolescence) will ride them to let them be your target :)

not that i believe 109s were so bad in front of spits IN REAL LIFE but tell me a single game in which the 109 excels the spit

as a matter of fact in early games like european air war spit was only superior to 109 in manouberilty but as in real life in game life people soon discovered the key was speed and coms in posterior years you could check how engineering history was revisioned once more and the spit then could even match in speed the 109 and in most games spits would even out run 109 while in the past they just out manouber them

the irony is THIS GAME GOT TURNING RATE BOTH FOR 109 AND SPIT BALANCED AT FIRST, the first thing i did when i got this game was stop watch turning rate and both sides were equal, now its ridiculous biased towards spit, 109 is a brick

my opinion:

theres a conspiracy to make english speaking engineering appear better than north europe one and paying fees to game to make it this way, call it advertisement

theres a big fight on this think of f1 and if you look at economy one would say war just changed field and name of things

edit:

imagine luthier sending emails to rolls royc and wenzler im making THE GAME on wwii whose paying more for his engines being uber ;)

come on think of movies how much do they get so the main charachter drinks cocacola instead of pepsi, i still buy levis strauss because of back to the future :)

Troll needs to work on his grammar skills.

In fact, the 109's haven't changed in their flight modelling since before the most recent patch.

[fruitbat]

raaaids posted garbage again, surprised i am not.

[raaaid]

oh sorry at least that measn i havent for a while

when i was flying the hurricane i had the feeling the 109 was uber when i tried the spit II i had the feeling the 109 was porked

im not the only one who things that FROM THE GAME START the 109 has been progresivily porked with each patch concerning turning rate

arent most games in the end revisionist history?

[FFCW_Urizen]

and another 90° turn by raaaid. if he were a ww2 fighter, he could bloody well turn on a dime.

[JG26_EZ]

I don't normally correct people's spelling... but

Please .....please .....learn how to spell Messerschmitt.

The way you've spelled it, makes me think of a cross between a messerschmitt and a mitchell, with cheese :mrgreen:

[CharveL]

Keep on eating those crayons raaaaid you crazy window licker you.

[Pluto]

.... compared to the Hurri and the Spit, the BF109 in CloD turns like a lame duck. In how far that is "realistic" I dont know, bet in reality it turned much better than in the "simulation".

But I found out that they (Spit & Hurri) are not so hard to shoot down, you just have to practice deflection shooting ( I guess that`s what the german "mit Vorhalt schiessen" translates?). Even on the deck above an enemy airbase it is not impossible to shoot them down.

When you are still flying several hundred meters behind the Spit shoot a short burst at it. Doesent need to hit, just makes the pilot aware there is someone behind him. He will automatically like all the reds start turning into your direction. Just check if he starts turning left or right then bring your nose into a position in front of his turning direction and shoot.
The probability to get a serious hit is high. Once he is hit (not killed) it`s over with his superior maneuverability and you get him.

One factor that is also important, "luck" of course.
:idea:

[raaaid]

the thing is that NOW most people BELIEVE real 109 turned like a duck

history is been revisioned

[Outlaw]

the thing is that NOW most people BELIEVE real 109 turned like a duck

history is been revisioned

You are correct, except for the fact that, compared to a Spitfire or a Hurricane, the 109 DID turn like a duck (especially compared to a Hurricane). So, everything you have said (related to that subject) is totally wrong.

Additionally, as I have said before, there has been no instance EVER, in the history of ALL AIR COMBAT on this planet, where one aircraft out-turned another aircraft. NEVER!!!!

PILOTS have out-turned OTHER PILOTS, but not planes.

The success of the 109s against the British fighters came from the German tactics, not the aircraft. That is why the pilots hated Goering so much when he began requiring them to fly close escort on the bombers. It nullified their advantage against the British aircraft and they suffered the price for it.

--Outlaw.

[raaaid]

marseille could out turn spits

a newbee spit rider will out turn a 109 rider with 15 years experience like me for example in the game

i think turning should be all about who KEEPS THE PLANE CLOSER AT 275 KPH while at full throtle independently of the ride

graphs back up this point

the only real advanatge of the real spit is that under 270 in horizontal turning it stalls while the 109 you can undesterr

[Outlaw]

marseille could out turn spits

a newbee spit rider will out turn a 109 rider with 15 years experience like me for example in the game

i think turning should be all about who KEEPS THE PLANE CLOSER AT 275 KPH while at full throtle independently of the ride

graphs back up this point

the only real advanatge of the real spit is that under 270 in horizontal turning it stalls while the 109 you can undesterr

As usual the entire post above is either completely wrong or irrelevant.

Of course Marseille could out-turn a Spitfire. A fully loaded piloted B-17 could out-turn a Spitfire. Of course that's irrelevant b/c a Spitfire sitting on the ground (or airborne but unpiloted) is ineffective as a combat asset. What Marseille NEVER did was out-turn an airborne piloted Spitfire. What he DID do was out-turn some PILOTs of Spitfires.

Any mention of the game in response to my post is irrelevant since I SPECIFICALLY quoted your post about the, "real" 109.

--Outlaw.

[raaaid]

the thing is that there was some patch which got it right:

the key for a sustained turn duel is not the ride itself but keeping closer to the ideal sustained turning rate speed for that ride

for what i know the only advanatge of the spit concerning turning rate and which the game reflected at certain gone point is that under this speed it stalls warns so the pilot naturally keep ideal sustained turning speed

on the other hand the 109 can fly much slower which is an advantage in scissor fight and the disadvanatge, if you get nervous you can easily go under ideal turning speed

what the game reflects is history rewritten by the louder luftwhiner and spitwon the war whinners

[*Buzzsaw*]

marseille could out turn spits

a newbee spit rider will out turn a 109 rider with 15 years experience like me for example in the game

i think turning should be all about who KEEPS THE PLANE CLOSER AT 275 KPH while at full throtle independently of the ride

graphs back up this point

the only real advanatge of the real spit is that under 270 in horizontal turning it stalls while the 109 you can undesterr

Werner Molders was the leading German pilot of the Battle of Britain era, as well as being the originator of the German tactical doctrine of "Rotte and Schwarm". In August of 1940 he was asked to be a part of an evaluation panel which examined a captured Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtis H-75 and flew them in comparison to 109E's. The report was definitive and clear.

"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 accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."

Now who are we supposed to believe, raaaid or someone who actually flew the planes and knows what he is talking about?

I leave it up to common sense.... ;)

[raaaid]

well thats a common mistake

actually more is less, the most common mistake turning a plane(il246 109 specially) its take to the stall limit

109 turning duels winner is 99% of time the one who pull less the stick

obviously this real life pilot fell at this and notice the obvious advanatge of the spit that is:

stall speed and ideal sustained turning speed are very close

how many people in the game know that the winner of a 109 sustained turn duel the winner is who keeps closer to ideal turning speed not who flies closer to the limit 90% of pilots will turn to the stall limit

very few people i bet this pilot fell for it as well

[badatflyski]

"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 accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."

Now who are we supposed to believe, raaaid or someone who actually flew the planes and knows what he is talking about?

I leave it up to common sense.... ;)


YOp, indeed, and now if someone told you than a 109 could turn tighter than a spit, you'll ask for manufacter charts, RLM evaluation data, rechecked by other documents from an earlier or later period and verified by NACA and ADFS with some nose-boogey of Churchil on it, otherwise it's worth s**t

The point is: what altitude, what turn start speed, induced,half or full turn, what angle, etc,etc.

but noooo, that would be too much work to find out:rolleyes:

PS Raaid: glad to read you again:grin:

[*Buzzsaw*]

YOp, indeed, and now if someone told you than a 109 could turn tighter than a spit, you'll ask for manufacter charts, RLM evaluation data, rechecked by other documents from an earlier or later period and verified by NACA and ADFS with some nose-boogey of Churchil on it, otherwise it's worth s**t

The point is: what altitude, what turn start speed, induced,half or full turn, what angle, etc,etc.

but noooo, that would be too much work to find out:rolleyes:

PS Raaid: glad to read you again:grin:

Isn't it great to see people put their cards on the table?

Don't confuse me with facts, I just want my special plane to be THE BEST.

I guess some players on the blue side were spoiled with the previous patch to the final, when the 109's could zoom circles around the crippled modelling of Hurris and Spits, now that the Brit planes are only crippled over 10,000 ft, 109 pilots now actually have to worry about flying carefully when down low... Damn don't you hate that! :D

And the hilarious fact is, actually, the 109's are probably turning too well, since they are 125 kgs underweight from their historical figures.... ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I just wish my car got the milage that raaid gets out of these troll topics

[Richie]

Long wide curves.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj0TWEQY&list=UUvwBiY3bhcOmHuZAF2J2fQA&index=58&feature=plcp

[AbortedMan]

What's most amazing to me about this thread is not "why are you people feeding the troll"... but "How are you people feeding the troll?" I seriously can't understand a word this guy types...I'm amazed there are people here that can decipher the garbled mess enough to put together a reply.

...It took me all 3 of Raaaid's posts and a helluva lot of re-reading to figure out that the "3d effect" he was referring to was the depth of field effect.

For some reason, in my head I have a vision of Raaaid excitedly sitting at a computer in a mental hospital, paranoid and biting his nails because he managed to sneak into the doctor's office for the 100th time to use his computer and post on the banana forums before the big guys in white uniforms drag him off back to his cell after sedating him in his straitjacket.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Long wide curves.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj0TWEQY&list=UUvwBiY3bhcOmHuZAF2J2fQA&index=58&feature=plcp

Salute

The documentary is riddled with inaccuracies... 55 seconds of firing for the Germans... :) No. For their MG's maybe, not for cannon. No mention of the mere 7 seconds of cannon ammunition, nor of the cannon's extremely low velocity or poor trajectory, absolutely the worst type of weapon to use for dogfight deflection shooting.

And the comments about "...long wide curves" are in relation to a 109 pilot escaping, as are all the comments about negative G.

I'll post again:

it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.

People have a little trouble with reading it appears.

IN EVERY CASE

The German report says nothing about "long wide curves" or any other method. This is a guide which was issued to all of the 109 Staffel commanders.

The documentary relies entirely on anecdote and not factual, objective tests. As per the excerpt I posted above, there were tests done of the 109E vs Allied planes by the Germans, but also by the French, British, and Russian. Guess what? They all agreed, the 109E did not turn well, it was inferior to French, British and Soviet planes in that regard. Both the British and Soviet tests, indicated a turn time of approx. 25 seconds.

I can provide anecdotes and combat reports which suggest the Hurricane was faster than the 109E, the following details how a Hurricane pilot chased down and shot down a 109E:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-barclay-27sept40.jpg

Here's a link to another report where a Hurricane chased down a 109E

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/605-mckeller-7oct40.pdf

Does that mean the Hurricane was always faster than the 109E? No, they're just anecdotes of a situation which happened in combat.

The British did at least 4 separate different tests of the 109 vs Hurricanes and Spitfires, and all the tests were conclusive. At all speeds and in all types of turn contests, the Spitfires and Hurricanes were superior. Below one with Hurricane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf

Yes, the Germans liked their plane, it had definite advantages, but it also had weaknesses, and turn contests were often fatal.

Yes, any plane can outturn any plane given the most optimum circumstance, ie. full fuel on one, nearly empty on another, one with superior alt or E etc. But in a balanced situation, the 109E was not a good choice to turnfight in. Which is why the German pilots who knew the facts made their recommendations for 109E's not to turn fight.

This is a wonderful example of a wishful thinking thread made up by someone who obviously can't master the skill required to fight in the vertical and is letting his frustration get the better of him rather than working on improving his skills.

[lonewulf]

Long wide curves.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWoj0TWEQY&list=UUvwBiY3bhcOmHuZAF2J2fQA&index=58&feature=plcp

" I want to resolve this once and for all" Hahahah, ... well pal, I don't think you have somehow. These sorts of stories have their place but they don't prove very much. A couple of guys who, in reality, may have had just an hour or two of actual combat flying between them, making sweeping assessments about aircraft they've never flown. If we can take anything at all from this it's maybe that while German fighter tactics (shoot and scoot) may have been difficult for Fighter Command to counter, and allowed the Jagdflieger to notch up impressive victory totals, it didn't win them the Battle. German bombers were shot down in numbers that made the whole exercise an unattractive proposition going forward. As for the comments about armaments, well, we all know that cannon rounds make bigger holes. However, you still have to successfully position your aircraft in order to use them. I personally think agility is a more important factor. As for the totally misleading comment about the 55 seconds of continuous fire, well, for the two cowling mounted MGs maybe, but certainly not for the cannon. And if eight .303 Browning MGs are 'pop guns', how would you describe just two MG 17s, after your 7 seconds of cannon ammo is gone? And finally we have the mysterious reference to "long wide curves". What does that mean exactly and how will this help you defeat a pesky Spit? Anyone know??

[Richie]

I don't really trust anybody. So I'll never be satisfied. You hear so many different stories from so many different sources you don't know witch one to take as truth. I guess fly one yourself is the only way. Anything an allied pilot does when he's flying a 109 the German pilot can do it better and the same with a Spitfire. Molders took a Spitfire for a test and didn't like it at all. He thought it flew like a civil aircraft. An American pilot took a 109 up and couldn't believe it he said his friend should have had 180 109 kills not 18.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Molders took a Spitfire for a test and didn't like it at all. He thought it flew like a civil aircraft.

Actually what he said:

"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."


Notice he refers to the two pitch propellor. This is because the captured aircraft did not have the later Constant speed, which performed much better. His comparison of 109E was against the worst version of the Spitfire.

[Richie]

All Allied aircraft are the whores of the Sunday History Channel as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less how great they are. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Especially a Mustang.

[*Buzzsaw*]

All Allied aircraft are the whores of the Sunday History Channel as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less how great they are. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Especially a Mustang.

Too bad you have that attitude.

All the fighter planes of the era were works of art as far as I'm concerned. You see one up close, sit in the cockpit, see the engine start up and feel the ground shake, you get a real feel for what a thrill it must have been to fly them.

All the old Aces I have talked to, from Germans like Franz Stigler or Canadians or Americans all get that gleam in their eye when they talk about flying the planes.

By the way, Franz Stigler thought the P-51 was hell of an aircraft, he flew a captured one during the war for evaluation purposes, and he flew nearly every German fighter including the 109, 190 and 262.

[Faustnik]

By the way, Franz Stigler thought the P-51 was hell of an aircraft, he flew a captured one during the war for evaluation purposes, and he flew nearly every German fighter including the 109, 190 and 262.

People should read more books for Cpt. Brown. He flew more different aircraft than anyone.

[swift]

" I want to resolve this once and for all" Hahahah, ... well pal, I don't think you have somehow. These sorts of stories have their place but they don't prove very much. A couple of guys who, in reality, may have had just an hour or two of actual combat flying between them, making sweeping assessments about aircraft they've never flown. If we can take anything at all from this it's maybe that while German fighter tactics (shoot and scoot) may have been difficult for Fighter Command to counter, and allowed the Jagdflieger to notch up impressive victory totals, it didn't win them the Battle. German bombers were shot down in numbers that made the whole exercise an unattractive proposition going forward. As for the comments about armaments, well, we all know that cannon rounds make bigger holes. However, you still have to successfully position your aircraft in order to use them. I personally think agility is a more important factor. As for the totally misleading comment about the 55 seconds of continuous fire, well, for the two cowling mounted MGs maybe, but certainly not for the cannon. And if eight .303 Browning MGs are 'pop guns', how would you describe just two MG 17s, after your 7 seconds of cannon ammo is gone? And finally we have the mysterious reference to "long wide curves". What does that mean exactly and how will this help you defeat a pesky Spit? Anyone know??

Uhm, use a bit of imagination *hinthint*

This manoeuvre might have been in many cases a good excape manoeuvre because of a speed advantage of the 109 combined perhaps with a better climb performance when using a slow climb rate. With enough speed advantage there is no way a plance could catch up just by short cutting when the curve is wide enough however nimble the chasing plane was but it allowed to keep an eye on the pursuing aircraft which was likely the reason to fly a wide curve :P

[NaBkin]

Salute

The documentary is riddled with inaccuracies... 55 seconds of firing for the Germans... :) No. For their MG's maybe, not for cannon. No mention of the mere 7 seconds of cannon ammunition, nor of the cannon's extremely low velocity or poor trajectory, absolutely the worst type of weapon to use for dogfight deflection shooting.

And the comments about "...long wide curves" are in relation to a 109 pilot escaping, as are all the comments about negative G.

I'll post again:



People have a little trouble with reading it appears.

IN EVERY CASE

The German report says nothing about "long wide curves" or any other method. This is a guide which was issued to all of the 109 Staffel commanders.

The documentary relies entirely on anecdote and not factual, objective tests. As per the excerpt I posted above, there were tests done of the 109E vs Allied planes by the Germans, but also by the French, British, and Russian. Guess what? They all agreed, the 109E did not turn well, it was inferior to French, British and Soviet planes in that regard. Both the British and Soviet tests, indicated a turn time of approx. 25 seconds.

I can provide anecdotes and combat reports which suggest the Hurricane was faster than the 109E, the following details how a Hurricane pilot chased down and shot down a 109E:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/249-barclay-27sept40.jpg

Here's a link to another report where a Hurricane chased down a 109E

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/605-mckeller-7oct40.pdf

Does that mean the Hurricane was always faster than the 109E? No, they're just anecdotes of a situation which happened in combat.

The British did at least 4 separate different tests of the 109 vs Hurricanes and Spitfires, and all the tests were conclusive. At all speeds and in all types of turn contests, the Spitfires and Hurricanes were superior. Below one with Hurricane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf

Yes, the Germans liked their plane, it had definite advantages, but it also had weaknesses, and turn contests were often fatal.

Yes, any plane can outturn any plane given the most optimum circumstance, ie. full fuel on one, nearly empty on another, one with superior alt or E etc. But in a balanced situation, the 109E was not a good choice to turnfight in. Which is why the German pilots who knew the facts made their recommendations for 109E's not to turn fight.

This is a wonderful example of a wishful thinking thread made up by someone who obviously can't master the skill required to fight in the vertical and is letting his frustration get the better of him rather than working on improving his skills.

So what do you personally think of the CLoD plane's perfomance? Which planes do you fly and do you think they are "historical correct" (if one can say so about a PC Sim).

I think it's common sense, that the 109 turns worse than most of the Red planes. It's well modeled in Clod I think.

But the problem I have with the game is that if I have a Spit on my 6 I have no chances to deal with her whatsoever. You can't outturn it, neither can you outclimb it fast enough (only if you are out of shooting range) nor dive away. It just sticks at your 6, only chance is that you are the better pilot and manage to make it loose you in wild maneuvres.

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

[raaaid]

climbing performance influences turning performance

i would out turn zeros in my spit 25lbs(il246) in a climbing spiral by spit superior climbing ability which in the end means better turning in an upwards spiral

edit:

playing this game i get the feeling british engineering is amazing and german one not so much, like oh yeah now i understand why the war was won and what car ill buy

[*Buzzsaw*]

So what do you personally think of the CLoD plane's perfomance? Which planes do you fly and do you think they are "historical correct" (if one can say so about a PC Sim).

I think it's common sense, that the 109 turns worse than most of the Red planes. It's well modeled in Clod I think.

But the problem I have with the game is that if I have a Spit on my 6 I have no chances to deal with her whatsoever. You can't outturn it, neither can you outclimb it fast enough (only if you are out of shooting range) nor dive away. It just sticks at your 6, only chance is that you are the better pilot and manage to make it loose you in wild maneuvres.

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can see where the advantages and disadvantages lie.

The question is, what altitude do you fight at?

If you are fighting on the deck for any length of time, at some time you are inevitably going to find yourself in the situation you describe, ie. with a Spitfire on your six. If its a Hurricane on your six, then you really have been asleep at the wheel.

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?

On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat. In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical, no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget, there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had, and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts. It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive, and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom. Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri. The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically. And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

What planes are modelled accurately in CoD? None of them. The G50 is probably the closest. The 109 is definitely wrong in any number of ways, some of which I mention above, also it is too slow on the deck, climbs worse than it should over approx. 3000 meters, and should have a ceiling 3000 meters higher than the game plane. But its climb is not as far off as the British planes, which are also slow.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Uhm, use a bit of imagination *hinthint*

This manoeuvre might have been in many cases a good excape manoeuvre because of a speed advantage of the 109 combined perhaps with a better climb performance when using a slow climb rate. With enough speed advantage there is no way a plance could catch up just by short cutting when the curve is wide enough however nimble the chasing plane was but it allowed to keep an eye on the pursuing aircraft which was likely the reason to fly a wide curve :P

"Long wide curves" are not going to allow a 109 to outturn a Spitfire which has decent speed. And they are only going to allow the 109 to keep away from the Spit unless the 109 is carrying more speed, because the Spit can always cut inside the circle.

It's all about speed. 109's simply have to keep their speed up.

[swift]

"Long wide curves" are not going to allow a 109 to outturn a Spitfire which has decent speed. And they are only going to allow the 109 to keep away from the Spit unless the 109 is carrying more speed, because the Spit can always cut inside the circle.

It's all about speed. 109's simply have to keep their speed up.

Please reread and try to understand my post. Where did I say that a wide curve was destined to outturn a Spit? I lol because it is so absurd to believe that a wide curve would help to outturn another plane. Even a B17 could turn with a plane that is going in a wide curve.

What I said is that the wide curve was probably in order to keep an eye on the pursuing plane (going straight would have meant to have the pursuer on one's blind spot) while maintaining high speed. So, presuming a speed and acceleration advantage of the 109 over the spit a wide curve is just the perfect escape manoeuvre against a spit.

[Hood]

Please reread and try to understand my post. Where did I say that a wide curve was destined to outturn a Spit? I lol because it is so absurd to believe that a wide curve would help to outturn another plane. Even a B17 could turn with a plane that is going in a wide curve.

What I said is that the wide curve was probably in order to keep an eye on the pursuing plane (going straight would have meant to have the pursuer on one's blind spot) while maintaining high speed. So, presuming a speed and acceleration advantage of the 109 over the spit a wide curve is just the perfect escape manoeuvre against a spit.

Plus there was the egg-shaped turn - a long curve followed by a sharp turn, then a long curve to get energy again.

Hood

[swift]

Yes, I read about this kind of manoeuvre that helped seasoned pilots in 109 to keep on the tail of a spit - at least in some circumstances. I believe that this kind of manoeuvre is only possible for a less well turning plane, that is one that looses energy quickly in turns, when the acceleration is high enough in order to regain quickly the speed lost in the previous tight turn. Helas, I do think that the acceleration as modelled in the game is too bad for the 109. Since the old IL2 and the discussion I always found that too little focus was put on acceleration. Heated discussions were always running on max speed and turning performance. But rarely to never about acceleration which is imho as important. Too be honest I do think that the 109 accelerates like a heavy truck rather than a decent limousine.

[lonewulf]

Uhm, use a bit of imagination *hinthint*

This manoeuvre might have been in many cases a good excape manoeuvre because of a speed advantage of the 109 combined perhaps with a better climb performance when using a slow climb rate. With enough speed advantage there is no way a plance could catch up just by short cutting when the curve is wide enough however nimble the chasing plane was but it allowed to keep an eye on the pursuing aircraft which was likely the reason to fly a wide curve :P

Hahahah...."use a bit of imagination". Funny one. Actually I did use my imagination and that's where the problem starts. I imagined using 'long wide curves' in combat with Spitfires and on every occasion that I did, I ended up burning to death in my cockpit. Most Red or Blue players probably employ 'long wide curves' as a precautionary measure to avoid unpleasant surprises developing behind them. I certainly do - particularly at altitude. But with all due deference to the shot down German airman, this won't save you once you're actually in a fight. Once you're in a fight, and you have a Spit or Hurricane looming up behind you, a 'long wide curve' will simply reduce the amount of time required for the Red pilot gets into gun range. You can use your 'long wide curve' approach to salvation if you wish but, for me, having already applied my imagination to the proposition, I feel compelled to look elsewhere.

[WTE_Galway]

It's kinda lucky development of the sim has stopped and we never got a 190.

Historically nothing the British had could catch the 190 on the deck except the Tiffy which was in the process of being cancelled as surplus to current requirements :D

[lonewulf]

...the problem I have with the game is that if I have a Spit on my 6 I have no chances to deal with her whatsoever. You can't outturn it, neither can you outclimb it fast enough (only if you are out of shooting range) nor dive away. It just sticks at your 6, only chance is that you are the better pilot and manage to make it loose you in wild maneuvres.

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

I think in a way you've answered your own question. Typically, the Luftwaffe (like most air forces) took, or came to the view, that the smallest viable unit in air combat is two. Flying on your own usually has just one outcome - particularly if you are engaged by multiple bad guys at the same time. Sure you can do well on some trips but over time the balance sheet is unlikely to be very healthy - this is certainly my own experience. If you want to do well your best bet is to get on coms and fly as a team. Having said that, I think there are a couple of things you can do to increase your chances of survival in a 109 when flying alone, but you will always be at a serious disadvantage, especially when flying against Spits and Hurricanes that perform at least as well as you in most respects and in some respects far better.
First and foremost, fly and fight at altitude. My rule, which I unfortunately break all the time, is to fly above 3k at all times and preferably much higher. Do not allow a situation to develop (low alt) where an ability to turn can become decisive. Stay high and only engage aircraft that are at a tactical disadvantage - ie, below you. If you are taken by surprise by a Spit or Hurricane that is higher or is co-alt but has greater speed; dive away and keep diving (the 109 dives well but a Spit is almost as good so keep it right on the edge). Do not attempt to re-engage. If you happen to engage an aircraft that attempts to take the fight down near the deck, break-off and return to altitude. Avoid sustained fighting wherever possible. It's far too easy to be taken unaware by an unseen bandit. If your initial attacks fail, (say 2-3 passes) break-off and look for another target. Always assume that the target aircraft has a wingman.
Finally, what should you do do if you find yourself well below 3k and in a situation where an enemy attack is imminent, ie, where diving away isn't a viable solution and you have an enemy behind you in a co-alt and possibly co-E state, ready to attack? What can be done to escape and possibly regain the initiative? Sometimes the answer is that very little can be done but there are two things that help. Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack.

[NaBkin]

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can see where the advantages and disadvantages lie.

The question is, what altitude do you fight at?

If you are fighting on the deck for any length of time, at some time you are inevitably going to find yourself in the situation you describe, ie. with a Spitfire on your six. If its a Hurricane on your six, then you really have been asleep at the wheel.

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?


I hope so, I fly il2 ever since the demo in 2001, mostly in online squads, so in theory I know how to fly the 109 :)


On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat. In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical, no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget, there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had, and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts. It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive, and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom. Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri. The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically. And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

What planes are modelled accurately in CoD? None of them. The G50 is probably the closest. The 109 is definitely wrong in any number of ways, some of which I mention above, also it is too slow on the deck, climbs worse than it should over approx. 3000 meters, and should have a ceiling 3000 meters higher than the game plane. But its climb is not as far off as the British planes, which are also slow.

I agree with most of your points. And since I want historical correct FM, I neither like the 1.45 ata issue which gives blues an advantage, nor do I like the too low ceiling of course.
I'm not quite with you with the trim, because I have to adjust it quite often, but this is something minor I suppose.

Maybe the problem we have is also a bit that as a 109 pilot, you have to stay very disciplined and if you don't you'll loose. As oppose to a Spit Pilot who has to "just" outturn and wait for his opponent to make a mistake and take the advantage over it.

So what you say is that as a german pilot, you only are able to actually win/shoot down the enemy if you are in better position. If you are at same alt and you've been spotted which means "equal starting position" you'll loose. We just don't know if this is what the reality was back then.
Maybe it's true and it's an issue considering the impossibility to "simulate" other important issues like better trained pilots, better tactics, coms, leadership and stuff. Which would mean a todays "pc ww2 simulation limitations" do favour the red flying style. Or just the FM of CLoD's a mess. I guess we will never know, but I'm almost sure that it is a combination of the two.
Sorry about my strange english but I have a hard time thinking in english at the moment... ;)

[NaBkin]

I think in a way you've answered your own question. Typically, the Luftwaffe (like most air forces) took, or came to the view, that the smallest viable unit in air combat is two. Flying on your own usually has just one outcome - particularly if you are engaged by multiple bad guys at the same time. Sure you can do well on some trips but over time the balance sheet is unlikely to be very healthy - this is certainly my own experience. If you want to do well your best bet is to get on coms and fly as a team. Having said that, I think there are a couple of things you can do to increase your chances of survival in a 109 when flying alone, but you will always be at a serious disadvantage, especially when flying against Spits and Hurricanes that perform at least as well as you in most respects and in some respects far better.
First and foremost, fly and fight at altitude. My rule, which I unfortunately break all the time, is to fly above 3k at all times and preferably much higher. Do not allow a situation to develop (low alt) where an ability to turn can become decisive. Stay high and only engage aircraft that are at a tactical disadvantage - ie, below you. If you are taken by surprise by a Spit or Hurricane that is higher or is co-alt but has greater speed; dive away and keep diving (the 109 dives well but a Spit is almost as good so keep it right on the edge). Do not attempt to re-engage. If you happen to engage an aircraft that attempts to take the fight down near the deck, break-off and return to altitude. Avoid sustained fighting wherever possible. It's far too easy to be taken unaware by an unseen bandit. If your initial attacks fail, (say 2-3 passes) break-off and look for another target. Always assume that the target aircraft has a wingman.
Finally, what should you do do if you find yourself well below 3k and in a situation where an enemy attack is imminent, ie, where diving away isn't a viable solution and you have an enemy behind you in a co-alt and possibly co-E state, ready to attack? What can be done to escape and possibly regain the initiative? Sometimes the answer is that very little can be done but there are two things that help. Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack.

Good post, thank you.

Do you also have the data for this style of flying?
Say for this:

"Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack."

"prop for climb" or "pitch for acceleration" - do you fly the 109 by the book or do you have data you've made yourself which work better in CloD? My 109 E manual for example says 250 is the best climbing speed, 2400rpm. Which I use to try to escape the reds.

Does this work for you, or are these theories from a red pilot? For me, sometimes it works, sometimes not, and I'm not sure if it is me or the FM.
I'm just not so sure if this really works, becaus if I fly the spit the same way (BnZ) I feel like I don't have any disatvantages to the 109 (BnZ).

[JG14_Josf]

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

To whom it may concern:

The forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately, and so this will be my last try at using this forum to communicate accurately with anyone else who cares to communicate accurately on the Topic of this game that is for sale, and a game that I have purchased with my own earnings.

If the forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately again, then there will no longer be any more sense, at all, in my expending the effort to use this forum to communicate accurately with other people who have also purchased this game with their own earnings.

The person quoted above has a legitimate and interesting concern and I may be able to help that person with that specific concern because that specific concern is a concern that I share.

Every single World War II Air Combat Simulator since Air Warrior, that I have purchased, fits on a scale of which World War II Air Combat Simulator does the best job of simulating World War II Air Combat.

This game is currently the best I've seen, however it suffers from what I will call the Spitfire Lobby effect.

There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Allied planes relative to the Axis planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions.

Sometimes the moderators on these game forums aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported, sometimes the forum moderators do not aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported.

What will it be this time?

Last time I tried to communicate accurate information on this forum was a test case that proved the rule that confirms the fact that the forum moderators aid the people whose obvious goal is to censor the accurate information being reported on World War II Air Combat Simulation Forums, and this is not news. The odds are that accurate discussion of the game, we paid for, and we share an interest in, will not be possible on this forum.

We shall see.

Back to the point:

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

In almost every book I've read on relative combat performance there is one very important performance variable that is measurable as Specific Excess Power and to understand that measure of that performance variable you don't need to know all the information contained in the following sources:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c4.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c5.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c7.pdf

The important point to realize, in my opinion, is to know which plane accelerates faster than the other plane, and if you know that fact, then you know which plane has that advantage, and that is a very important advantage.

Like the English Fighter Pilot in the video linked earlier in this topic says the following words:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game then the following may be the case:

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

Now, the person who has an interest, a concern, and an accurate message quoted above, a concern I share, he may be a person who has purchased the game with his own earnings too, and he may want to know what I know, and if the moderators censor my attempts to communicate what I know, then that will happen again.

Too bad for me. I will try this one more time.

There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion from any other person who may have also purchased the game with their own earnings and who may be reporting information on this forum, accurate or inaccurate information.

If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test, then see which plane does this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

I can speak about the importance of having a small plane (less drag) and a weighty engine (sectional density) and why a small plane (less drag) with high sectional density (a weighty engine) tends to accelerate faster in a dive, and tends to decelerate slower in a zoom climb, but I think it may be better to avoid my opinion on such things and call upon the writings of someone who actually flew 109s, Spitfires, 190s, and many World War II Air Combat Fighter Planes during World War II, since he was one of those Fighter Pilots who was also testing captured planes to test relative performance of those planes.

The quote I am going to pick out concerns an evaluation of a 190 which was also a small plane with a weighty engine but before doing that it may be a good idea to make sure that the reader understands that the point being accurately communicated is the point concerning the advantage of a higher rate of acceleration, which is a measure of Specific Excess Power under the conditions of flight specified, a dive, which is an unloaded dive, and conversely could also be an unloaded zoom climb advantage.

The point is to point out the meaning of the term B and Z, or BnZ, or Energy Fighting which is not the same thing as Hit and Run and not the same thing as Turn and Burn.

Energy Fighting is a term used by Robert Shaw in his book titled Fighter Combat. BnZ is a term used by people who play a game.

Here is the source of a relevant measure of performance advantages used in Air Combat for World War II:

http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaffe-Capt-E-Brown/dp/1853104132

Here is a quote that may help anyone if anyone wants to understand game performance relative to actual performance where a dive and zoom advantage was used in World War II, how it was used, and the source of the information is a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot, who aught to know more than someone playing a game.

It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

If the 109 does not accelerate faster in a dive, in the game, then there is an obvious lack of performance advantage required to Energy Fight in the vertical.

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

That would not have happened that way if the 109 was only marginally faster or not at all faster in unloaded acceleration.

There are many examples of captured aircraft test flown by the British and in each case where I've read the results of those tests the 109 has been proven, by the British, to have that dive acceleration advantage.

If that dive acceleration advantage is not modeled into the game, then it isn't modeled into the game.

There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions.

As to the question of turning there were tests done by British pilots and they concluded, in their own test reports, that the 109 "had no tendency to spin" and that is not modeled into the game.

The British pilots, in their own reports, were unable to turn with the 109 when the British pilots were not flying close to their stall because their planes tended to spin.

That is not modeled into the game.

The 109 has a nasty stall in the game, it tends to stall in the game.

The actual rate of relative acceleration difference between the 109 and the Spitfire can be measured side by side in level flight too, in the game, to see which plane has the faster rate of acceleration in level flight, in the game, which is also a specific way to measure Specific Excess Power, which is the most significant performance advantage needed when employing Energy Fighting Tactics, or vertical maneuvering, in Air Combat, according to more than one source.

If the game models the Spitfire with a smaller turn radius in a sustained level flight turn and the 109 has a nasty stall flying a larger turn radius, then the 109 is considered to be Single Inferior according to the information provided by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat.

If there is no significant advantage in acceleration modeled into the 109 over the Spitfire or Hurricane then there is no Single Advantage, or none of this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

Which leaves Hit and Run tactics, or team tactics, to be used by the inferior plane if the inferior plane has both a sustained turn disadvantage and no significant advantage in unloaded, or dive, acceleration.

Then there is the matter of climb angle. It was noted by the British that both the 109 and the 190 had climb angle advantages over their Spitfires and Hurricanes, whereas the rate of climb may have been roughly equal or slightly more of an advantage for the German planes, in reality, the climb angle was steeper on the German planes, for some reason.

If there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game, then there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game.

Back to this:

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

There is one other very important measure of relative combat performance and this measure of relative combat performance has to be understood by the player of the game if the player of the game has a concern on this topic of relative performance.

That measure of relative performance is termed Corner Speed.

Here is my first try at communicating the accurate information that concerns these relative performance topics:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792

Corner Speed can be easily tested in the game, and it may help to know which plane has that advantage too, in the game.

This topic may be censored by the moderators when the Spitfire Lobby people begin to break the forum rules, attack me personally, and twist the information offered into some false version of it.

If that happens again, I won't respond again.

Dive acceleration is a real advantage for the 109 in reality, according to many documented tests for that specific performance advantage.

That was an advantage that was significant enough to inspire that British Fighter pilot to say this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

What gamers call Boom and Zoom may be, I don't know what any specific person playing this game may think, at any given moment, but that game term, Boom and Zoom, may be the actual tactic described by Robert Shaw as Energy Fighting, which is a tactic also described by a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot named Eric Brown in his own published words here:

It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

If this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target.

[NaBkin]

Wow, this is some sophisticated stuff right there. I wish the devs would read this and treat it as what it is: a very valuable contribution of a comitted customer!

Also I hope it's treated from the red pilot as a basis for discussion as oppose to the beginning a flame war.

Me for myself I don't have this much of a clue considering WW2 aircraft data but this post seems pretty legit for me, not only because it backs up my own experience that I have been having with the Sim so far but also because it the Luftwaffe wasn't been defeated in every single sortie they've made back then.
But if you fly on ATAG it's hard to imagine the Luftwaffe could've had a technical advantage at all at that time.
If this is for reasons a game can't simulate (like better coms, leadership, tactics etc.) or just wrong FM I can't say, but I have the feeling that something is wrong, especially that every single patch the reds had gotten better and better. So I think the man has a point!

Keep up the gread discussion!

[JG14_Josf]

NaBkin,

There are very specific and accurate methods by which relative combat performance can be measured and those methods are described in great detail on the Navair links.

In particular, for purposes of your specific concern, a side by side test for level flight acceleration will show you, or anyone, which plane has an advantage.

If there is no advantage in level flight acceleration then there is little room to make any claims about the 109 having any advantages, since the 109 with the nasty stall and the significantly larger sustained turn radius and the significantly larger turn rate is modeled as a target in this game.

The historical record describes something described by Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat called Single Superior performance advantage held by both as the 109 had a superior Energy Fighting (BnZ in game terms) envelope and the Spitfire had a superior Angles Fighting (TnB in game terms) envelope.

The advantages either way were not as significant as the advantage held by the FW190A-3 once the Germans entered that plane into combat against the Spitfire V, and the early Spitfire IX, so the "better" fighter between the Spitfire and 109 during The Battle of Britain was marginal at best, where the Pilot was the determining factor not the plane since the Spitfire had only a slight sustained turn advantage and the 109 had only a slight acceleration advantage, so the Spitfire was slightly better in Angles Fighting, if the pilot knew how to fly close to the stall, and avoid spinning the plane, and the 109 pilot has a slightly better Energy Fighting advantage if the 109 Pilot knew how to avoid entering a fight with a better Spitfire pilot who starts the fight with an Energy Advantage (such as a better Spitfire pilot attacking from a higher and faster position in the rear hemisphere of the 109).

If you care to know about a very good test that can be done to measure relative combat effectiveness between two planes then I can describe Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique in detail, and you can try that out in the game, to see what you find out when you use that technique.

You can also read the book yourself.

It is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599

I can explain the technique with words, and I have used the technique in games. I had an IL2 Training Track File posted on the internet once too. It is a very valuable maneuver to know and understand, and it will show you, without a doubt, which plane is Double Superior. It is an Energy Fighting maneuver, which may not be indicated by the title of the maneuver, but that is what it is, an Energy Fighting Maneuver called The Sustained Turn Technique.

[swift]

Hahahah...."use a bit of imagination". Funny one. Actually I did use my imagination and that's where the problem starts. I imagined using 'long wide curves' in combat with Spitfires and on every occasion that I did, I ended up burning to death in my cockpit. Most Red or Blue players probably employ 'long wide curves' as a precautionary measure to avoid unpleasant surprises developing behind them. I certainly do - particularly at altitude. But with all due deference to the shot down German airman, this won't save you once you're actually in a fight. Once you're in a fight, and you have a Spit or Hurricane looming up behind you, a 'long wide curve' will simply reduce the amount of time required for the Red pilot gets into gun range. You can use your 'long wide curve' approach to salvation if you wish but, for me, having already applied my imagination to the proposition, I feel compelled to look elsewhere.


Please reread my posts concerning wide curves again thoroughly or go back to reading class. I was clearly mentioning that wide curves are a good ESCAPE manoeuvre when having a decent speed advantage. Of course if there is no speed advantage or just a tiny lil bit wide curves won't save one's buttocks. So please do not treat others as stupid if your misunderstanding derives from your misreading. You may just end up looking like a big mouthed fool.

[Al Schlageter]

fixed

There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Axis planes relative to the Allied planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions.

[Robo.]

If this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target.

It is modeled rather well. Since the last patch, every plane in this sim is portrayed reasonable close to its r/l counterpart, so the 109 is perfect energy fighter, spitfire is an excellent turn fighter etc. - just as you would expect. Of course it very much depends on the individual pilot skill, tactics and teamwork. If the 109 pilot is experienced enough in this game and good at energy fighting and deflection shooting, he will usually succeed. If you speak of an aicraft modeled in the game as target, you probably mean Hawker Hurricane :grin: - and that's a reason I like and prefer it as it's more difficult to be successful in it. In capable hands, it can still be surprisingly nasty opponent, but overall, you have to work harder for your kills and for survival. Good pilot is good no matter what he flies.

[JG14_Josf]

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

How is that perfection measured exactly?

If the answer is ambiguous then the opinion is just an opinion. If there is an interest by anyone, at any time, to get past opinion, and reach for facts instead, then there are very specific ways to do that, if there is an interest of course.

[Robo.]

But if you fly on ATAG it's hard to imagine the Luftwaffe could've had a technical advantage at all at that time.

This very much depends how and with whom you fly. There are some fantastic Bf 109 pilots on ATAG and they're joy to fight against - they are in command of the plane and they know how to use it to their advantage, they cooperate and they shoot very well - they simply use the potential of the 109 as a fighter plane 100% ly. I do have great respect for their skill and I have to do my best to beat them or even survive. I am not sure what is your nick on ATAG, but I can name you a few excellent 109 pilots - many of them from ACG (5./JG27, 6./JG26), many Russian pilots, some ATAG squad 109 chaps, I./JG1 pilots recently and many many more. 109 is not easy to master, but if once you get there you will find that you can have upper hand unless you make some obvious mistake.

If this is for reasons a game can't simulate (like better coms, leadership, tactics etc.) or just wrong FM I can't say, but I have the feeling that something is wrong, especially that every single patch the reds had gotten better and better.

Yes, but to be fair, the RAF planes were portrayed very badly to start with. The effort in last few patches fixed lots of issues and what we have now is much closer to the R/L specifications, although there are obviously still some issues left to be resolved... I suggest you fly for the other side for a month or so, you will see the things from different perspective.

[Robo.]

How is that perfection measured exactly?

If the answer is ambiguous then the opinion is just an opinion. If there is an interest by anyone, at any time, to get past opinion, and reach for facts instead, then there are very specific ways to do that, if there is an interest of course.

Sorry Josf, I ment perfect for me - in my opinion of a frequent 109 pilot. I hope it makes sense now.

You go ahead and measure it for us - after all you were banned from the forums only, not from playing the game and flying say on ATAG. I am looking forward for any facts you provide.

[raaaid]

i like duels

shooting a 109 with a spit in a duel too easy

going for a duel agains a spit in a 109 pointless

i rememebr how excited i got when i read in the manual machines were so close in performance it was up to the man not the machine

but i have xperience enough to know history recreated in games is rewritten by forum whinners

hey i have my deal of influence with the game when i made that thread in ubi saying the console should say a pilot got murdered not roasted extracrispy i was called troll but i was just shaping the game as all forumites

[Robo.]

i like duels

shooting a 109 with a spit in a duel too easy

going for a duel agains a spit in a 109 pointless

i rememebr how excited i got when i read in the manual machines were so close in performance it was up to the man not the machine

but i have xperience enough to know history recreated in games is rewritten by forum whinners

hey i have my deal of influence with the game when i made that thread in ubi saying the console should say a pilot got murdered not roasted extracrispy i was called troll but i was just shaping the game as all forumites

Try a 'duel' with some good 109 pilot who won't turn with you. :-P

[raaaid]

Try a 'duel' with some good 109 pilot who won't turn with you. :-P

every duel is a turning contest as i see it

the old times of the sims where every fight was a turning duel followed by a salute were like wwi and were fun

modern sim times are wwii all about caughting a busy unaware prey with bnz

no wonder there are no more salutes

with a turning duel my heartbeat gets to 120 caughting an unware busy prey with a 190 my heartbeat is 70


but whose so stupid to get in a turning duel with all those air vultures around with a porked plane that cant do other thing to score that to be ungentelmanlike by not having a duel but only attacking with adavantage

how can you justify a vrtual killingin in which your foe had no chance

thats what the game promotes there CAN NOT BE FAIR DUELS

either you have e adavantage not fair

either your coE not fair for the 109

either you have e disadavantage not fair

a game to be fun has to be fair

i miss what the manual said what was true in the begining of the game:

machines SO CLOSE IN PERFORMANCE is up to the pilot

edit:

maybe this doesnt make any sense:

but i would like TO RISK MY LIFE FOR MY FOOD climb high to get fruits where i can fall and die and kill animals to eat them who can defend and kill me

as a matter of fact if i made brade id shape with the mass hornes and spines so it can hurt you if you mistreat it

modern times is like flying an eurofighter against camels im sure some would love it but not my style

[JG14_Josf]

Sorry Josf, I ment perfect for me - in my opinion of a frequent 109 pilot. I hope it makes sense now.

Anyone,

I do not know why the attitude expressed above is chosen or perhaps it is just a reaction to what I wrote.

Opinions are one thing, facts are another thing, and when opinions support the facts, then that is what can happen too.

If someone says plane A is perfect for Energy Fighting, then that is an opinion.

What, someone else may ask, measures this condition of perfection, since someone may be curious to know what is being used to form that opinion.

Why the answer isn't the answer requested is entirely up to the person with the opinion.

I hope it makes sense now.

What is meant by the words " the 109 is perfect energy fighter "?

I hope that the question makes sense now.

You go ahead and measure it for us

Why does my writing inspire someone to give me permission to do something I already do, as if I need someone's permission?

after all you were banned from the forums only

If that is factual then I'd like to know as much, as far as I know I was not banned from this forum. Can I take your word on that fact?

"not from playing the game and flying say on ATAG"

I was on last night with 2 in our squad. Why do you assume so much, and why do you feel that your interest in my activities are worthy of mention on this topic?

Why is the topic turning into my personal life, according to you?

"I am looking forward for any facts you provide."

Which facts?

1.
As far as I know I was not banned on this forum.
2.
I fly the ATAG server regularly with other members of the squad I joined.
3.
My question to you had to do with how "the 109 is perfect energy fighter" and you responded by ignoring the question, and then turning the "discussion" into my personal activities.
4.
You are giving me permission to do things that I do not need your permission to do, nor do I want your permission.

Those facts?

How about a measure for unloaded (dive) acceleration between a Spitfire and a 109 in the game?

If there is no significant difference then the Spitfire is as perfect an energy fighter as is the 109 and the same cannot be said for angles fighting since the Spitfire is significantly better at angles fighting, more along the lines of "perfect" since the 109 is more along the lines of "imperfect" in relative sustained turn performance in level flight.

How about a measure of corner velocity compared between the Spitfire and 109?

How about an actual answer to the actual question asked instead of diversion from the question asked, and diversion onto me personally?

How about that fact?

How is that perfection measured exactly?

That was the topic question asked after the following subjective opinion was made:

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

If people buying the game are finding the game being constantly adjusted to suit the wishes of a select few forum members, as documented on this forum, and they are then asking questions concerning the legitimacy of those viewpoints, as is documented on this forum, then it is my opinion that those people deserve an accurate answer, and they do not deserve to have their persons attacked in this manner.

How about that fact?

[Robo.]

Hi Josf, it is indeed an opinion of mine and I said so. I am looking forward to see you on ATAG then, I am not sure what time zone you're in, I fly main GMT during the day and sometimes in the evenings. I assumed you don't fly this sim at all because of what you're saying about FMs, but if you do, that's very good.

If you're interested in measuring the parameters you keep mentioning, I hope you will do so one day and will share your results. I am not entirely sure why you feel I get personal, I simply wonder why don't you spend the time you're asking questions on this forums by actually testing the stuff you want to know (measure the FM parameters I suppose). Good luck with that.

*edit* - just found a way of measuring your performance o ATAG - 58 sorties, 12 kills (0.21 kps), 14 deaths, only 19 landings - not very impressive for a 109 pilot. Just my opinion of course. ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Why does my writing inspire someone to give me permission to do something I already do, as if I need someone's permission?
So you are allready doing 'it'?

Well than it should be a simply mater for you to share your findings.. right?

Assuming that is the case, would/could you be so kind as to provide a link to your test results that you claim you have allready done and didn't need permission to do?

In the mean time I will share what I have done in the way of testing the FMs

www.flightsimtesting.com

Just click on the CoD tab at the top

[SlipBall]

Well in my opinion both sides are guilty of taking a great sim, and reducing it to a dumbed down plane on rails when piloting. In fact it is so bad that I can not bring myself to fly it, unless I am on-line, and thats never.:-P...all the charm of flying that vintage 1930's technology is gone, it's really a bore now. I fly everyday the older release, and it is so much enjoyment for me. If only the radio commands worked I would have it made. :cool:

[*Buzzsaw*]

every duel is a turning contest as i see it

That's the clearest indication you don't know how to fly your aircraft correctly.


the old times of the sims where every fight was a turning duel followed by a salute were like wwi and were fun

Suggest you go fly RISE OF FLIGHT if you like WWI. The German also generally have the better turning aircraft there.


but i would like TO RISK MY LIFE FOR MY FOOD climb high to get fruits where i can fall and die and kill animals to eat them who can defend and kill me

:D :D :D

Ahh... No exactly sure what you are talking about here... However its been a long time since we were monkey's in the trees, we have evolved to the point we do most of our climbing in aircraft.

[JG14_Josf]

Hi Josf, it is indeed an opinion of mine and I said so.

What is the purpose of repeating the same thing over and over again?

The statement was made that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter.

How do you measure that perfection?

Is that impossible to answer?

I am looking forward to see you on ATAG then, I am not sure what time zone you're in, I fly main GMT during the day and sometimes in the evenings.

What would be the point of you looking forward to seeing me in ATAG when your version of discussion is to turn topic questions into personal matters?

I assumed you don't fly this sim at all because of what you're saying about FMs, but if you do, that's very good.

What exactly do you mean when you say that I have said something about FMs? How is this, again, turned from a discussion about measurable performance variables, such as corner speed, level acceleration, dive acceleration, zoom climb deceleration, and other relative performance variables known by the professionals to be variables that determine which plane is the better Energy Fighter and which plane is not the better energy fighter, turned from that to something personal about me, and what you think my words might tell you about what I do personally?

If you're interested in measuring the parameters you keep mentioning, I hope you will do so one day and will share your results.

Level flight acceleration tests happen all the time in the game, in combat, or in formation flying, and corner speed tests are similarly tested all the time, in the game, during combat, with relative results, along with dive acceleration tests, zoom tests, and when two planes dive and one gets away from the other there are test results, one gets away from the other, and when one catches the other, there are test results, one catches the other.

That is done by the players many times while using the game software and if the track files work, then those types of combat tests and those results are recorded that way, on track files, when those tests, done those ways, are recorded on those track files.

No opinion involved, the game records the actual test results for anyone to see at any time on any track file showing exactly what happens when it happens the way it happens.

This can happen:

"the 109 is perfect energy fighter"

How does that happen?

To be able to communicate why it happens the way it happens, one plane catching another plane, in a dive, or in a zoom, or in a turn at corner, or in a sustained turn, the specific TEST where planes, pilots, and software are TESTED has to be evaluated and known as to what was done by who and when, in combat, or a controlled experiment can be conducted.

In the actual tests performed according to the methods refined by the professional pilots, such as the Naviar test methods, or the test methods used by the British in World War II when they tested relative performance between the planes they captured and their own planes, those methods are well spelled out, and more than one person doing the tests, and more than one test result, improves the accuracy of the tests.

I have done a corner speed test for the 109 so far, my result is a corner speed of less than 350 km/h and the pilot g limit, not the plane g limit, limits the g load for that test result of 350 km/h (less than) for the 109.

I did that test with the last patch, not this new patch.

That is an individual test, and it could be plotted out on an Energy Maneuverability Chart, which would be one plot on the accelerated stall line.

If there is a Spitfire corner speed number then the better plane could be known, assuming that both numbers are accurate.

Side by side tests leave less room for error, one plane turns a tighter turn at maximum g, and that can be recorded on a track file, and both pilots can switch planes, which works as a control on the experiment.

Corner Speed is a vital number in determining which plane is the superior fighter plane and Corner Speed tests add more information that can be very useful in determining which tactics work best for which plane. Which plane at corner speed in a diving turn will turn the tighter turn, at a faster rate, and lose less altitude compared to the opposition?

The methods used by the British in determining which captured plane they had flying in their tests by their own pilots side by side against their own planes included dive and zoom tests and those results of those tests, at least for the 190 are well publicized in several books. Those types of professional relative combat performance tests require a number of pilots performing the tests cooperatively - side by side - to see which plane actually performs better in which vital area, such as which plane can accelerate and get away from the other plane in a dive.

What makes one plane a perfect energy fighter compared to another plane?

I have not done controlled, side by side, experiments as yet. If I do that, I can certainly report the findings right here.

The real time combat simulation tests, or uncontrolled experiments, happen all the time, on the servers, it is fun too.

One pilot in one plane tests to see if that plane can get away from another plane, and one pilot in another plane tests to see if that plane can catch the other plane.

What is meant by the words " the 109 is perfect energy fighter "?

I'd like to know.

"I am not entirely sure why you feel I get personal, I simply wonder why don't you spend the time you're asking questions on this forums by actually testing the stuff you want to know (measure the FM parameters I suppose)."

You are getting personal in that example right there, so the reason why you don't know why you do the things you do are not within my power to know. When you get personal, that is what you do, exemplified with the example you provide in the words just quoted, and my feelings about what you do are my feelings about what you do; the fact that you do what you do is a fact, which is separate from my feelings of anything, which are my personal business.

1.
What you do is you get personal.
2.
What you do not do is answer the question asked.
3.
I may or may not feel this or that, as you may assume I feel, even if I tell you that I do not feel the way you think I feel.
4.
What you do and what I feel are two different things.

why you feel I get personal

You get personal.

Why are you turning what you do into me feeling something?

"I simply wonder why don't you spend the time you're asking questions on this forums by actually testing the stuff..."

You are, again, turning a discussion on relative combat performance into what I do with my time.

Why do you continue to do that even while you claim that your willful actions are my feelings?

You do what you do, my feelings are my feelings, that is two things, not one, your actions are not the same thing as my feelings.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with my feelings? Good luck with trying to get a simple answer to a simple question on this forum? Good luck with having fun with the game I enjoy because it is the best simulation of World War II combat flight simulation despite the fact that the 109 is modeled without the historical advantages it did have according to so many sources documenting those facts, where those FACTS are noncontroversial, such as dive speed acceleration where this happens:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that does not happen in the game then how is the 109 any more perfect of an energy fighter than the Spitfire in the game, in your opinion?

Is that on topic? Does that have anything to do with yours or my personal life?

I think the question is valid, in my opinion. I don't think that I need any luck in getting the answer. The answer is easy to find, easy to know.

A perfect Energy Fighter was well explained in the quote by Eric Brown, and there are many more perfectly good explanations provided in the book by Robert Shaw, and there are many very good methods of finding out exactly which plane has better Energy Maneuverability as documented by the modern professionals whose job is to find out that vital information, as shown in the Naviar links.

*edit* - just found a way of measuring your performance o ATAG - 58 sorties, 12 kills (0.21 kps), 14 deaths, only 19 landings - not very impressive for a 109 pilot. Just my opinion of course.

You claim this:

I am not entirely sure why you feel I get personal

How about answering a question that is on-topic instead of repeatedly turning the discussion into my personal life?

You claim this:

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

That is, so far, a baseless statement of ambiguous opinion.

What, if there are any actual facts to back up that opinion, backs up that opinion?

Am I attacking your personal life, your personal score, your personal use of your personal time, or asking you for your personal time zone, or what you feel at any given moment?

Now someone who may want to join in on this forum is encourage to do so by the fact that their personal score may be published by someone seeking to gain some nebulous advantage in an argument of their sole creation?

Is that the point?

How about answering a simple question?

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

How is that measured?

[lonewulf]

Please reread my posts concerning wide curves again thoroughly or go back to reading class. I was clearly mentioning that wide curves are a good ESCAPE manoeuvre when having a decent speed advantage. Of course if there is no speed advantage or just a tiny lil bit wide curves won't save one's buttocks. So please do not treat others as stupid if your misunderstanding derives from your misreading. You may just end up looking like a big mouthed fool.

Thanks for that Swift. Good to know that there are still a few people around who can conduct a conversation online without resorting to personal abuse. Great stuff...

[*Buzzsaw*]

To whom it may concern:

The forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately, and so this will be my last try at using this forum to communicate accurately with anyone else who cares to communicate accurately on the Topic of this game that is for sale, and a game that I have purchased with my own earnings.

If the forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately again, then there will no longer be any more sense, at all, in my expending the effort to use this forum to communicate accurately with other people who have also purchased this game with their own earnings.

The person quoted above has a legitimate and interesting concern and I may be able to help that person with that specific concern because that specific concern is a concern that I share.

Every single World War II Air Combat Simulator since Air Warrior, that I have purchased, fits on a scale of which World War II Air Combat Simulator does the best job of simulating World War II Air Combat.

This game is currently the best I've seen, however it suffers from what I will call the Spitfire Lobby effect.

There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Allied planes relative to the Axis planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions.

Sometimes the moderators on these game forums aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported, sometimes the forum moderators do not aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported.

What will it be this time?

Last time I tried to communicate accurate information on this forum was a test case that proved the rule that confirms the fact that the forum moderators aid the people whose obvious goal is to censor the accurate information being reported on World War II Air Combat Simulation Forums, and this is not news. The odds are that accurate discussion of the game, we paid for, and we share an interest in, will not be possible on this forum.

We shall see.

Back to the point:



In almost every book I've read on relative combat performance there is one very important performance variable that is measurable as Specific Excess Power and to understand that measure of that performance variable you don't need to know all the information contained in the following sources:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c4.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c5.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c7.pdf

The important point to realize, in my opinion, is to know which plane accelerates faster than the other plane, and if you know that fact, then you know which plane has that advantage, and that is a very important advantage.

Like the English Fighter Pilot in the video linked earlier in this topic says the following words:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game then the following may be the case:



Now, the person who has an interest, a concern, and an accurate message quoted above, a concern I share, he may be a person who has purchased the game with his own earnings too, and he may want to know what I know, and if the moderators censor my attempts to communicate what I know, then that will happen again.

Too bad for me. I will try this one more time.

There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion from any other person who may have also purchased the game with their own earnings and who may be reporting information on this forum, accurate or inaccurate information.

If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test, then see which plane does this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

I can speak about the importance of having a small plane (less drag) and a weighty engine (sectional density) and why a small plane (less drag) with high sectional density (a weighty engine) tends to accelerate faster in a dive, and tends to decelerate slower in a zoom climb, but I think it may be better to avoid my opinion on such things and call upon the writings of someone who actually flew 109s, Spitfires, 190s, and many World War II Air Combat Fighter Planes during World War II, since he was one of those Fighter Pilots who was also testing captured planes to test relative performance of those planes.

The quote I am going to pick out concerns an evaluation of a 190 which was also a small plane with a weighty engine but before doing that it may be a good idea to make sure that the reader understands that the point being accurately communicated is the point concerning the advantage of a higher rate of acceleration, which is a measure of Specific Excess Power under the conditions of flight specified, a dive, which is an unloaded dive, and conversely could also be an unloaded zoom climb advantage.

The point is to point out the meaning of the term B and Z, or BnZ, or Energy Fighting which is not the same thing as Hit and Run and not the same thing as Turn and Burn.

Energy Fighting is a term used by Robert Shaw in his book titled Fighter Combat. BnZ is a term used by people who play a game.

Here is the source of a relevant measure of performance advantages used in Air Combat for World War II:

http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaffe-Capt-E-Brown/dp/1853104132

Here is a quote that may help anyone if anyone wants to understand game performance relative to actual performance where a dive and zoom advantage was used in World War II, how it was used, and the source of the information is a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot, who aught to know more than someone playing a game.



If the 109 does not accelerate faster in a dive, in the game, then there is an obvious lack of performance advantage required to Energy Fight in the vertical.

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

That would not have happened that way if the 109 was only marginally faster or not at all faster in unloaded acceleration.

There are many examples of captured aircraft test flown by the British and in each case where I've read the results of those tests the 109 has been proven, by the British, to have that dive acceleration advantage.

If that dive acceleration advantage is not modeled into the game, then it isn't modeled into the game.

There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions.

As to the question of turning there were tests done by British pilots and they concluded, in their own test reports, that the 109 "had no tendency to spin" and that is not modeled into the game.

The British pilots, in their own reports, were unable to turn with the 109 when the British pilots were not flying close to their stall because their planes tended to spin.

That is not modeled into the game.

The 109 has a nasty stall in the game, it tends to stall in the game.

The actual rate of relative acceleration difference between the 109 and the Spitfire can be measured side by side in level flight too, in the game, to see which plane has the faster rate of acceleration in level flight, in the game, which is also a specific way to measure Specific Excess Power, which is the most significant performance advantage needed when employing Energy Fighting Tactics, or vertical maneuvering, in Air Combat, according to more than one source.

If the game models the Spitfire with a smaller turn radius in a sustained level flight turn and the 109 has a nasty stall flying a larger turn radius, then the 109 is considered to be Single Inferior according to the information provided by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat.

If there is no significant advantage in acceleration modeled into the 109 over the Spitfire or Hurricane then there is no Single Advantage, or none of this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

Which leaves Hit and Run tactics, or team tactics, to be used by the inferior plane if the inferior plane has both a sustained turn disadvantage and no significant advantage in unloaded, or dive, acceleration.

Then there is the matter of climb angle. It was noted by the British that both the 109 and the 190 had climb angle advantages over their Spitfires and Hurricanes, whereas the rate of climb may have been roughly equal or slightly more of an advantage for the German planes, in reality, the climb angle was steeper on the German planes, for some reason.

If there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game, then there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game.

Back to this:



There is one other very important measure of relative combat performance and this measure of relative combat performance has to be understood by the player of the game if the player of the game has a concern on this topic of relative performance.

That measure of relative performance is termed Corner Speed.

Here is my first try at communicating the accurate information that concerns these relative performance topics:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792

Corner Speed can be easily tested in the game, and it may help to know which plane has that advantage too, in the game.

This topic may be censored by the moderators when the Spitfire Lobby people begin to break the forum rules, attack me personally, and twist the information offered into some false version of it.

If that happens again, I won't respond again.

Dive acceleration is a real advantage for the 109 in reality, according to many documented tests for that specific performance advantage.

That was an advantage that was significant enough to inspire that British Fighter pilot to say this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

What gamers call Boom and Zoom may be, I don't know what any specific person playing this game may think, at any given moment, but that game term, Boom and Zoom, may be the actual tactic described by Robert Shaw as Energy Fighting, which is a tactic also described by a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot named Eric Brown in his own published words here:



If this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target.

Salute Josef

You have quoted a lot of generalities, and linked sites with general aeronautic theory above, all fine, but provided nothing which specifically relates to the 109.

You do mention the dive acceleration of the 109 seems to be off, not sure this is the case, but I suggest you do some testing to determine this and post the result.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

To be able to communicate why it happens the way it happens, one plane catching another plane, in a dive, or in a zoom, or in a turn at corner, or in a sustained turn, the specific TEST where planes, pilots, and software are TESTED has to be evaluated and known as to what was done by who and when, in combat, or a controlled experiment can be conducted.
Agreed

Now you keep making references to these tests that you say you have done..

Yet I can not find any posting of and/or link to the data you collected during those tests, let alone your analysis methods and results..

The only way others can evaluate the data you collected during those test, along with your analysis methods and results is if you provide us with the data you collected during those tests, along with your analysis methods and results.

So would you be so kind as to provide us a copy of the data you collected during those test, along with your analysis methods and results ?

Thanks in advance

[lonewulf]

Good post, thank you.

Do you also have the data for this style of flying?
Say for this:

"Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack."

"prop for climb" or "pitch for acceleration" - do you fly the 109 by the book or do you have data you've made yourself which work better in CloD? My 109 E manual for example says 250 is the best climbing speed, 2400rpm. Which I use to try to escape the reds.

Does this work for you, or are these theories from a red pilot? For me, sometimes it works, sometimes not, and I'm not sure if it is me or the FM.
I'm just not so sure if this really works, becaus if I fly the spit the same way (BnZ) I feel like I don't have any disatvantages to the 109 (BnZ).


No, I don't really have any specific data to speak of. My comments are based on my own experience with the 109, which I fly exclusively.

I can tell you that 'step-climbing' seldom fails me. However, success will depend to a considerable extent on how quickly you detect and react to the presence of a threatening enemy. If he is co-E or better and already shooting at you it's probably too late. However, if the situation is at all retrievable, it's very important to get level and accelerating just as quickly as possible. To achieve good acceleration I adjust the p/pitch so that RPM stays at a constant 2200-2300 (or there about) and maintain that setting until I've built sufficient speed to begin the climb. The exact timing of the climb depends on the proximity of the enemy. When I conclude that I have enough speed I then adjust the p/pitch to the point where my RPM increases to about 2600 and then I lift the nose and continue to adjust p/pitch as I climb. Exact climb speed doesn't really matter because you aren't attempting a sustained climb. The important thing is to ensure that airspeed doesn't drop too much because it will slow your acceleration when you level-out. As I understand it, 260kph is about the best sustained climb speed for the 109. That, IMO, is far too slow for successful 'step climbing'. As mentioned previously, after the climb phase, I want to be doing around 300kph+ to achieve a rapid transition to good level flight acceleration. Once you have achieved a good measure of separation between you and your enemy following a succession of 'step climbs' you can revert to more conventional climbing techniques should you wish.

[Kurfürst]

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?

Its difficult to have those skills. Yes, scissors would be effective, but the 109E has some sort of stall bug that resembles that of the old Il-2's horrendous G-6 FM at its worst state. The CLOD 109E seem to stall randomly and with no warning, making a manoeuvre like scissors very hard to execute.

On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat.

In short the fight usually develop along the current disadvantages of the FM. The 109s stall is nerfed, so nobody in good sense goes down to engage in manouvering combat, as we all know that the Spit is practically impossible to stall and has no stability issues at all (as opposed to the real thing). OTOH the Reds can't come up to altitude because of their even more flawed altitude FM. So it's isn't that much of a surprise that 109 stay high where they are untouchable and Spits/Hurris wait down below where they are untouchable.

In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

Except that in my experience its next to impossible to shake of even the Hurricane in level flight by extending in the 109 that is supposedly much faster in both dive and level flight - either the Hurricane is too fast, or the 109E is too slow, or both.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical,

Nope. The stall characteristics of the 109E are horrendous, it stalls and enters a flat spin all the time as opposed to the real thing, which was next to impossible to be put into a flat spin. Even the British emphasized the mild stall characteristics of the 109E which enabled it to be taken easier and closer to the edge of its performance envelope than British fighters. The Spitfire

no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget,

Perhaps that's better than the current overheat model than British planes, but let's not forget that the real 109 did not overheat even at 1/4 radiator open during level flight. Our one does, however, and it forces Blue pilots to open the radiators more and as a result fly with reduced airspeed, ie. effectively taking away the advantage in performance the 109 should have.

there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had,

I agree that loops are still not modelled, which is a shame. The 109 should be more prone to this, but than again, neither the Hurricane or the Spit does groundloop.. as for landing its average, the Hurricane for example is childishly easy to land because it flies at much slower speeds.

and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts.

No the engine does over- and underrevs all the time as speed and altitude changes, and on the manual prop pitch models you have to keep an eye on it all the time. Performance suffers accordingly. OTOH even in real life there was not much of a consequence of slight under or overevving, since the DB 601A could tolerate even 3000 rpm (instead of the normal 2400) for 30 secs.

It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive,

As it should. It is the highest wing loading plane with the highest power to weight ratio and lowest drag, remember?

and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom.

As it should.

Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri.

Again, as it should.

The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically.

There was nothing preventing the use of 1.35ata, apart from oil/coolant temperatures (which the cooling system could easily handle) , fuel consumption (modelled) and increased wear of the engine (which is not a concern for any Blue/Red player).

There was no limit on how often the 1-minute rating could be used and you are wrong that it's possible to use for longer than 1-min since it disengages automatically after 60 secs.

In the end neither should be that much of a concern since the 109 cannot reach it's 1.35/1.45ata performance at all and it's slower by 40 km/h than it should be at those ratings.

And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

The 109 does fly out of trim all the time and with a yaw as the ball clearly shows. It needs rudder adjustments for perfect flying. It's mildly annoying but not much of a practical concern, neither it was in real life - and neither it is for Red planes.


Currently the 109s have the following issues:

- auto prop pitch bug on the E-4
- cannot reach historical level speeds and is slower by ca. 40 km/h
- altitude FM bug (common to all planes)
- lack of armor
- stall modelling, with unpredictable and violent stalls, flat spins
- it overheat model is much worse than the real thing, which could sustain allowable temperatures at 1/4 radiator open (or 3/4 closed) in level flight
- the weight of E-1, E-3, E-4 is slightly off (though I do not think this is that much of an issue, since turn times are hard coded and it should only effect behaviour)
- ground handling model is simplistic (common to all planes)
- best climbing speed is off, it's 270 km/h instead of 250 kph, which may seem unimportant, but it has an effect on the turn/climb envelope, curve and related tactics, low speed flight etc.
- tailwheel lock is present in 3d cocpit model (it was present on E-7 onwards)
- speaking of which there's no E-7 :D
- no E-4/N either :p
- manual prop pitch lacks feathering option

[Robo.]

What is the purpose of repeating the same thing over and over again?

Yes Josf, exactly. If you're so very much interested in measuring E-M in this sim please do actually measure it. If you share your results, that would be great.

Everything depends on the abilities of the pilot, doesn't matter what fighter aircraft in the game you fly. You keep mentioning Boyd, Shaw, anything theoretical (which is great), but what you really need is actual experience and skill if you want to succeed in this game. It seemed at first that you were interested in talking about F-M theory and this game, but now it looks you only come in here to complain about the flight models and alleged red agenda and you happen to claim things like '109 is modeled as target in the game'. Depends on who's the pilot I suppose, just like with any other fighter aircraft.

So to answer your question - 109 is a perfect energy fighter... in capable hands. It certainly has got the potential and it's fun to fly. If you stall it too often, you're doing something wrong. I never stall my 109 (except when I make a mistake) and I don't see any good 109 pilots stalling either.

[Robo.]

Its difficult to have those skills. Yes, scissors would be effective, but the 109E has some sort of stall bug that resembles that of the old Il-2's horrendous G-6 FM at its worst state. The CLOD 109E seem to stall randomly and with no warning, making a manoeuvre like scissors very hard to execute.

It is supposed to be difficult. Emil is not an easy plane to fly and / or master ;) Regarding the stalls you mention, I often use scissors as a maneuveur and I never stall the plane - that includes rolling scissors, vertical, horizontal combined with aggressive hammerheads - the problem is not in the aircraft. I see many other pilots being in perfect command of the 109...

In short the fight usually develop along the current disadvantages of the FM. The 109s stall is nerfed, so nobody in good sense goes down to engage in manouvering combat, as we all know that the Spit is practically impossible to stall and has no stability issues at all (as opposed to the real thing). OTOH the Reds can't come up to altitude because of their even more flawed altitude FM. So it's isn't that much of a surprise that 109 stay high where they are untouchable and Spits/Hurris wait down below where they are untouchable.

Interesting, this is in exact opposite of what many RAF pilots are doing - you have much better chances higher up as the performance gap closes the higher you go. 109 up high are not untouchable, they're actually more vulnerable.

I am not sure if you ever flew the Spitfire in the current patch, but I can tell you it is very much possible to stall her if you're not careful. Same for the 109. The most difficult in my experience is the Hurricane, she likes to drop her wing if you're not precise with the rudder.

Except that in my experience its next to impossible to shake of even the Hurricane in level flight by extending in the 109 that is supposedly much faster in both dive and level flight - either the Hurricane is too fast, or the 109E is too slow, or both.

The difference is perhaps not as big as it used to be, Spitfire and even the Hurricane can be dangerous of course when the pilot keeps the speed up and you don't. But the 109 is faster than anything in the game if flown right. I see many 109 pilots have no problem to shake me even if I fly my Spitfire on the edge. Even worse in the Hurricane.

Nope. The stall characteristics of the 109E are horrendous, it stalls and enters a flat spin all the time as opposed to the real thing, which was next to impossible to be put into a flat spin. Even the British emphasized the mild stall characteristics of the 109E which enabled it to be taken easier and closer to the edge of its performance envelope than British fighters.

Not entirely true, you had to be better pilot in order to get the 109 on the edge, Spitfire was generally easier to fly. I repeat I believe this stall experience of yours is not a 109 problem.


Currently the 109s have the following issues:

Some of the issues (top speed, top ceiling, ground handling) is equally present in all planes in the game.

I agree with most and I would add wings too fragile and stock rudder trim being wrong (maybe making the plane less stable, it was OK in on of the previous patches then changed back). Main issue is the engine modeling - Aa and A-1 mixup with FTH and power ratings - this actuly favours the Emil in the game. I don't think the real life pilots were flying at 1,45 ata during the whole flight with no consequences like we do ;)

[swift]

Thanks for that Swift. Good to know that there are still a few people around who can conduct a conversation online without resorting to personal abuse. Great stuff...

well, a conversation requires that both parties actually listen to what the other has to say with sufficient care. You denied me this basic respect by reading only 50% of my message (which were not excessively long) on two occasions. You should not be surprised that I do not take kindly to you putting words in my mouth that I never said because you did only listen to 50% of what I said.

[JG14_Josf]

So to answer your question - 109 is a perfect energy fighter... in capable hands. It certainly has got the potential and it's fun to fly. If you stall it too often, you're doing something wrong. I never stall my 109 (except when I make a mistake) and I don't see any good 109 pilots stalling either.

Anyone,

The customary, rational, reasonable, and obvious solution to the pissing contest tactic done by the forum member quoted above is to put their money where their mouth is, and commence a method by which the person puts up or shuts up.

The 109 is no better or no worse of an Energy Fighter than any other plane if the answer to the question avoids the question and moves from a discussion about the plane to claims concerning the capabilities of the pilot.

The claim that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter (because the pilot is better) works for the Stuka, the Spitfire, the Wellington, or the paper airplane.

The paper airplane is the perfect energy fighter (fine print: so long as the better pilot is flying the paper airplane).

What is it, precisely, about the performance of the 109, that is unique to the 109, and is not something unique to the opposition, by which the 109 is superior or a "perfect" energy fighter?

If there were an operating Dueling Ladder, for example, where controlled engagements of duels, or jousts, or one on one Simulated Ar Combat Fights, scored and documented, track files recorded, then the concept of dodging the question with an ambiguous answer would be meaningless, because the facts would be documented, and the opinions would be meaning-less, as meaning-less, as opinions concerning which pilot is better reported now, on this forum, since the actual answers would be provided in the results of the documented employments of each plane and each pilot over time as the best pilots flying the best planes using the best tactics PROVE which plane is the best Energy Fighter and which plane is the best Angles Fighter.

Which plane, in the track file, performs which maneuver against which other plane, right there on track files, leaving no room for subjective opinion.

What cannot be said, without resort to complete fabrication, is that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, so no one dares make such an obvious false statement.

But to say that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better is no different that saying the Spitfire is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better.

So why not say that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, turner and burner, b because the pilot is better?

Because that would be an obvious fabrication of deception?

What is the point of the deceptions?

The characteristics that make a plane better at energy fighting are spelled out in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, and in all the work done by John Boyd that is well recorded on the Naviar site, which is not "theory". Peak acceleration, which is higher Specific Excess Power, is the performance variable that makes one fighter plane better than another plane, and under which conditions the advantage of having more power to move the airplane from where you are to where you prefer to be, again not "theory", is the ability, the power, to win the fight.

Why call the application of science used to discover the accurate measure of relative combat performance a "theory"?

What is the point of such deception?

If a person purchases the game and is then interested in finding out which plane (not pilot) is better than the other plane, then it may be a good idea to let that person know how the professionals have figured out exactly how to measure that performance advantage, without question.

Not theory.

Is it a racket?

"If you want to know which plane is better, you have to ask me, because all those other false authorities on the subject are only offering theory?"

Is that the game being played here?

"I know, but they... those people who are or were professional fighter pilots in the business of Air Combat, in reality, are mere "theorists", so ask me, and don't listen to their crack pot theories?"

Is that the game being played?

"The 109 is, because I say so, a perfect energy fighter."

That is fact?

Then:

"It is the pilot, not the plane, that makes for the perfect energy fighter."

Does that work for the perfect angles fighter too? The 109 is the perfect Angles Fighter, because the pilot is better?

Is that a form of musical chairs?

It is a fabrication of deception to call the Energy Maneuverability application of Science a "theory", when the product of that employment of that work is well documented and proven to accomplish the intended goal of measuring which Fighter Plane has exactly which performance capabilities, such as level flight acceleration, Specific Excess Power, dive acceleration, zoom climb acceleration, corner speed (maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius), and sustained turn performance.

To return to a logical, reasonable, precise, and accurate perspective on the matter at hand, the topic, there can be in "theory", people talking shop on a forum is a "theory", or instead of that "talk", there can be "walking", in actual reality, a duel to employ as an example of which plane (not pilot), is, in fact, the perfect energy fighter, and which plane is, in fact, modeled as a target.

Both planes in question, are tested, in a mock combat, simulated combat, controlled tests, and pilots are switched from one plane to the other as a "CONTROL" on the test to remove the factor of which pilot is the better pilot.

If the fight turns into only a contest of turning and burning, known in the professional Fighter Combat terminology and Angles Fighting, then the claim being made is a baseless claim:

This claim:

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

If there is no energy fighting, in any test, anywhere, anytime, then the claim is baseless.

If on the other hand, in actual fact, or in theory (so as to explain what the person doing the claim actually means), the 109 is employed as a perfect energy fighter against an imperfect energy fighter, then that can be described, as it works in theory, on a forum, and that can be proven, bypassing theory, it can be demonstrated in actual fact, with a controlled use of the game in fact.

Again the book Fighter Combat, which is not a theoretical book, offers many examples of exactly what is, or is not, Energy Fighting.

So the claimant who makes the claim about the perfection of the 109 Energy Fighting capability can then, in theory, demonstrate how perfection in energy fighting is done, having made the claim, with that 109.

Or not.

Which brings up a possible problem encountered by anyone who purchases the game, who is then seeking advice as to which plane is better, and in which ways which plane is better, and then having nothing but baseless claims, that never materialize, such as the 109 being a perfect energy fighter, and finally a confession is made that "it is the pilot" not the machine, which is logically a retraction of the original claim.

The 109 is not a perfect energy fighter after all, since the claimant of that baseless claim retracts that claim, and replaces that claim with a new claim, where the new claim is that the pilot is the perfect energy fighter, not the plane.

Back to square one?

Which plane is better, not which pilot is better, but which plane is better, and the obvious answer remains obvious, as the Spitfire can turn and burn inside any 109 anytime.

Both planes have comparable rates of acceleration, apparently, since those who claim that one plane is perfect at energy fighting retract such baseless claims when challenged to put up or shut up.

Fabrications of dubious claims of "theory" contained in the information linked, Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, for example, or Navair web pages, for another example, may misdirect a new player away from those sources of accurate information that can help answer the question asked, the topic question, if that does happen, in fact, someone here on this forum being misdirected by fabrications of nonsense.

The fact remains a fact that there are easy ways to find out which plane is better and find out exactly how much one plane is better, and with an easy to manage CONTROL, the factor of the pilot is rendered to be a CONSTANT if two pilots fly both planes in mock combat to see, for themselves, exactly, without doubt, which planes do which maneuvers better according to the GAME CODE that has been "adjusted" to suit whichever opinion has sway over those adjustments.

The challenge then, for any new player purchasing the game, and asking the topic question, is to find someone willing to do controlled tests, to eliminate the Pilot variable, to render the Pilot variable to be a CONSTANT, not a variable, and in those controlled tests the person asking the question can get the accurate answer that way.

Which way?

Side by side level flight acceleration tests can show which plane can get away from which plane or both planes are equal. Either one is superior in level flight acceleration or not.

Level flight sustained turn tests, one behind the other, can show which plane can turn inside the other. That is already well known, without controversy.

The Spitfire is superior, and the 109 is modeled with a very bad tendency to spin, which is opposite of the actual well documented facts.

The two pilots can switch planes to remove the Pilot variable, to make that variable no longer a variable.

More than 2 pilots can improve the accuracy of the scientific method of making variables into constants.

Corner speed tests offer significant information concerning which plane is better at burning energy, converting that energy into advantageous position, and which plane gains more position with less loss of energy, and those corner speed tests can also be done side by side, and the pilot variable can also be rendered constant by switching pilots and planes.

An additional benefit for the new player interested enough in the game to a point where the new player is actually wanting to know the precise advantages one plane is modeled in the game better than another plane, having that interest reaching that point of intensity, to that point of finding another player willing do perform these types of comparative performance tests, is the possibility of finding a wingman, someone other than the lone player, to combine forces, and use the game to then begin to explore the many advantages of teamwork.

Team tactics are also well covered in great detail in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw.

So...no need to rely upon "experts" who never actually answer any questions, when the facts of the matter are actually modeled in the game, and with one other player to help the new player to show exactly which plane does which maneuver better, the game can thereby become a much richer experience instead of a struggle against seemingly impossible odds.

[NaBkin]

This very much depends how and with whom you fly. There are some fantastic Bf 109 pilots on ATAG and they're joy to fight against - they are in command of the plane and they know how to use it to their advantage, they cooperate and they shoot very well - they simply use the potential of the 109 as a fighter plane 100% ly. I do have great respect for their skill and I have to do my best to beat them or even survive. I am not sure what is your nick on ATAG, but I can name you a few excellent 109 pilots - many of them from ACG (5./JG27, 6./JG26), many Russian pilots, some ATAG squad 109 chaps, I./JG1 pilots recently and many many more. 109 is not easy to master, but if once you get there you will find that you can have upper hand unless you make some obvious mistake.


Well, it's not wrong what you say. But maybe lets put it that way: it probably needs a too experienced pilot to tap the full potential of the 109. I also agree that in the JG27 there are some of the best pilots, but even they do complain about their plane's performance. Go on TS with them and ask themselves ;)


Yes, but to be fair, the RAF planes were portrayed very badly to start with. The effort in last few ptches fixed lots of issues and what we have now is much closer to the R/L specifications, although there are obviously still some issues left to be resolved... I suggest you fly for the other side for a month or so, you will see the things from different perspective.

I can't really tell since I didn't fly red back then. It was too much fun to fly my 109 against the red fighters ;) but I can imagine that it is true because it really was too easy to compete against them. And since I want historical correct FM on both sides I'm glad that the devs did correct this issues.

By the way, I found a good way to test and sort of measure the fighting performance of the planes: REPKA Server. I never tried ict because Of the map end icons and everything. But today I flew like 2h on it just to find out if I can climb out a Spit (I couldnt try it with my squad members because nobody was on tonight but I will do it for sure to gather better info soon).

So what I've found out for me personally (this isnt very accurate and 100% scientific but it it what I did experience tonight in like 20+ sorties):

- I CAN out climb avery other plane in my 109 BUT rather slowly. it seems that 300 kmh +-20 and 2400rpm is a good performance to gain as much distance as fast as possible (because icons and outside view are on you can see how fast you gain distance, very cool).
BUT can I escape from shooting range to a non shooting range fast enough? It don't seems so, unless maybe the red pilot is a very bad shooter. You gain distance just too slowly.

- If I sit in a Spit and a 109 does a rather slow BnZ on me, I easily can do a 180 turn and still be able to deal a few hits or even shot the 109 down. Sometimes I almost didn't believe how fast I could make that single turn and still being able to maintain the speed. I feel that the spit looses a bit too less energy in tight turns.

- If you don't want to die in a 109 you don't have to (at least on Repka). If you fly perfectly and savely you'll stay alive, but its pretty hard to shoot enemys down then. You have to be a excelent shooter and very disciplined (which either I'm just partially;))

- Its very hard to survive in a Hurry though. if you do the right thing like a very tight turn just at the right time and let the 109 pass you, its very unlikely to get shot down, but also you neither can make progress and fly home, you have to wait for help, unless the 109 pilot looses sight on you (which on Repka dont happen because of the icons. But on ATAG it happens all the time, as well because of the blind LOD spot in about 700 to 1k meters)

These are the main things I found out today and I really can encourrage you to go on repka yourself to try it out and test your plane. I think the Sim is on a good way but stll has some annoying flaws.

Some things I want to test as well are diving speeds. I couldnt do it properly without my teammates but I will do it for sure.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The customary, rational, reasonable, and obvious solution to the pissing contest tactic done by the forum member quoted above is to put their money where their mouth is, and commence a method by which the person puts up or shuts up.
Are you refering to yourself?

I assume that you are in that you are the one that said you have done such and such test.. And you even went as far as to say tests are meaningless unless they can be evaluated.. But you have yet to post the data you collected during said test(s), let alone your analysis methods and results.

If so, don't be so hard on yourself! I realise it takes time to pull the data togther to put it in a presentable format.. So instead spending time beating yourself up and talking to yourself in the 3rd person, spend that time pulling your data togther and puting it into a presentable format and post it here for all to see!

If you need help with the EM and or Ps charts, feel free to PM me in that I have done those types of tests and the presentation of such data for IL-2 years ago! See attachements for examples

[Robo.]

Well, it's not wrong what you say. But maybe lets put it that way: it probably needs a too experienced pilot to tap the full potential of the 109. I also agree that in the JG27 there are some of the best pilots, but even they do complain about their plane's performance. Go on TS with them and ask themselves ;)

Well I don't know. You need to be very experienced in any aircraft to tap its full potential, even Hurricane or Spitfire. And everybody complains, no matter what :) About own plane, about 'their' plane, about anything. The main problem is that most people usually stick to one side only and they simply don't understand what the 'other' side is talking about.

I can't really tell since I didn't fly red back then. It was too much fun to fly my 109 against the red fighters ;) but I can imagine that it is true because it really was too easy to compete against them. And since I want historical correct FM on both sides I'm glad that the devs did correct this issues.

Well there you go. Flying for the RAF prior to the latest FM reissue patch was pure masochim :-P I wouldn't mind at all if that had some historical reason, but the gap simply was not as huge in RL as it was portrayed in the game. Difficult to explain if you didn't fly it back then. Some people still see that 'FM fix' by the devs as listening to the red agenda etc. Fair enough, as long as we have more realistic game.

By the way, I found a good way to test and sort of measure the fighting performance of the planes: REPKA Server. I never tried ict because Of the map end icons and everything. But today I flew like 2h on it just to find out if I can climb out a Spit (I couldnt try it with my squad members because nobody was on tonight but I will do it for sure to gather better info soon).

I agree, I spent hours on Repka 4 practicing shooting and maneuvres, you will find that most of the guys in there fly the 109s on boths sides. Guess why ;) Of course you can be successful in a Spitfire, but you have to be good. Even with the models as they are presented now, you can still outperform the RAF planes in your 109 - but your speed and climb is not as superior as it used to be and you can't afford as many mistakes as before. Flying for the RAF, you are still competetive if you fly well and smart, no huge complaints on my end.

- I CAN out climb avery other plane in my 109 BUT rather slowly. it seems that 300 kmh +-20 and 2400rpm is a good performance to gain as much distance as fast as possible (because icons and outside view are on you can see how fast you gain distance, very cool).

BUT can I escape from shooting range to a non shooting range fast enough? It don't seems so, unless maybe the red pilot is a very bad shooter. You gain distance just too slowly.

So the first bit is pretty much historical and just as expected in the game - and I agree, this is correct. You can often get the 109 using good tactics and flying clean, keeping your E and chosing good trajectory. Some 109 pilots just keep climbing in front your guns because they 'know' 109 is a better climber. They are actually right, it is a objectively better climber and faster, just not in that particular moment.

The second bit implies that if you happen to have a Spitfire on your 6 you expect to extend from his guns before he shoots you down. Why would you expect anything like that, you did a mistake already if you let him that close, you still have some options, some neg G maneuveurs, barel roll or scissors. But if he's good you're dead, simple as that. But not because of the 109 but because of you.

Mind you Repka 4 has got overheating effects OFF so the RAF can fly full power no matter what (3000rpm) - you would wreck your engine on ATAG by flying like that or it would splutter if you go above 2600 rpm at certain altitudes. You can fly the 109 just like on Repka enywhere else. You still outperform any RAF in there, even on 3000 rpm yet on full real servers you're obvously limited to slightly lower performance. ;)

- If I sit in a Spit and a 109 does a rather slow BnZ on me, I easily can do a 180 turn and still be able to deal a few hits or even shot the 109 down. Sometimes I almost didn't believe how fast I could make that single turn and still being able to maintain the speed. I feel that the spit looses a bit too less energy in tight turns.

I hear this very often from 109 pilots who often underestimate Spitfires E-state (or the Spitfire pilot makes them underestimate it) or fly in front of its nose and climb in a nice linear curve. I often have Spitfires Mk.II turning 180 after the BnZ pass but they can't touch me unless I allow them that by making some mistake. I've heard one extremely capable 109 pilot saying thet Spitfire in a headon merge will do a 180 high G - turn and catch the 109 flying straight past him. I'd like to see that one day, we'll certainly meet on Repka and I'd like you to show me how Spitfire doesn't bleed E in tight turns because my Spit certainly does, that's why I am usually sticking to flying it as energy fighter :o

- If you don't want to die in a 109 you don't have to (at least on Repka). If you fly perfectly and savely you'll stay alive, but its pretty hard to shoot enemys down then. You have to be a excelent shooter and very disciplined (which either I'm just partially;))

I agree. Some pilots on that server are extremely good shots, they will get you if you blink too slow. Deflection shooting is an art to master, that's why I also keep practicing almost every day and you're right there, Repka is perfect playground for that.

- Its very hard to survive in a Hurry though.


Tell me about it. :grin: But that's why it is my favourite ride, it is actually pretty good fighter, not as good as Spitfire or 109, you have to work harder, but is not too bad either. The good thing about flying her (even on Repka) is that you have to be really better pilot than the other guy, no mistakes, solid shooting, solid flying... bleeds E like crazy... Very rewarding for me. All imho of course.

[JG14_Josf]

Are you refering to yourself?

Ace of Aces, or Tagart or whoever you are, please stop dragging the discussion down into some personal pissing match. Leave my personal character out of this discussion or you will be ignored - eventually - when it becomes abundantly clear that you offer only personal attacks to a "discussion" that you create by your choices to do so.

Are you refering to yourself?

I am not referring to myself. I am referring to anyone who does not offer a new player, who my have purchased this fine game, information on how THAT PERSON can find out for themselves, without having to rely upon "experts" who troll forums, which plane is the better plane and for what maneuvers the better plane is better.

I took a look at the attached zip and pdf file and your work is missing the Energy Maneuverability fan plot where turn rate is on the vertical left and airspeed is on the horizontal bottom, or I missed it in my brief look at those files.

Like this:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Bf109fan2.jpg

This:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Spit1fan.jpg

And this:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBo1.jpg

You have linked for download a zipped .pdf file that includes a Specific Excess Power chart for the P-51, apparently, and also for the P-51 there is an acceleration chart, which is curiously producing remarkably different curves for Ps and Acceleration, and the cause of those differences could help in understanding relative performance, which is the topic.

Thanks for that, it is interesting to me.

The topic is relative performance, because that is what new players find out when presented with a game that models one plane to be far superior than another plane, whereby, each new player can succeed measurably better with the better plane and each new player fails more often with the worse plane, and so the new player asks, and then tries to answer, WHY?

When the professionals finally figured out which attributes made which plane better, the result was Energy Maneuverability, which started as a Scientific Study, or Theory, during the days when John Boyd was working in the United States Air Force, and the obvious "fruit of that labor" is well documented on the Naviar site, where modern measures of relative performance is mathematically precise.

The new player of the game asks WHY?

The modern military professionals ask WHY?

The same question is answered with the same answer.

Which information answers which specific question best?

If there is only one chart to use, to know which plane is better, then the EM chart shown above, with one plane superimposed over another plane, showing the Accelerated Stall line, showing the Sustained Turn Stall line, Showing Corner Speed, showing level flight minimum speed and maximum speed for that altitude, and the person, professional fighter pilot or person playing a game, can then compare and know which plane, not pilot, which plane is obviously superior to the other and WHY one plane is obviously superior to the other plane.

The F-86 versus the Mig-15 INFORMATION, plotted on that one chart, and most likely based upon actual flight test data, such as the flight tests described in the Navair site, to find that specific flight test data, is a very good Study for this topic in particular.

If the only tests being done are climb tests, for example, then the Mig-15 shines as the better plane.

If the only tests being done are Corner Speed tests, then the F-86 is the far superior plane.

If the only tests being done are Top Speed tests, then again the F-86 is the far superior plane.

In fact, and before the scientific methods of measuring relative performance precisely were applied to the F-86 versus the Mig-15, the claim at the time was that the Mig-15, on paper, should be the superior fighter, since the Mig-15 could out climb, out turn in sustained turns, and was capable of much higher altitude than the F-86, but, as happened, the F-86, for many reasons, including the tactics used, the teamwork used, the training, the pilots, and other things, many reasons, the F-86 was dominating the overall tally of victories in the total number of combat sorties at that time.

So the question then, before that work was done, was the same question here, now, as to why one plane is better than the other precisely, and in that case the F-86 was so much more successful than the better turning (sustained turn) Mig-15, the same Mig-15, with the faster climb rate.

The most obvious result of the tests plotted on the graph is the superior Corner Speed, far superior Corner Speed, held by the F-86.

Why might that be significant?

You may not have any interest in knowing the answer, and you may only want to turn this discussion into some nebulous pissing match, but there may be other people, in fact I know there are other people, because other people contact me in private and express interest, in knowing these answers to these questions.

Examples of which tactics work in the better Energy Fighter, where in this case the better Energy Fighter is plotted on a graph with a better Corner Speed and this better Energy Fighter is plotted on the same graph with a much worse Sustained Turn Performance, so the Angles Fighter can Angles Fight the wings off the Energy Fighter on that Graph, but what actually happened in combat, where are the examples of actual combat?

Examples:

http://stephenesherman.com/discussions/mig_vs_sabre.html

John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre.

http://acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

It depends on the circumstances of the combat. On several occasions, I dogfought, like World War I, with a MiG. Once we started fighting about 37,000 feet, went around and around down to the ground and back up to about 26,000, before I shot him down. So that hadn’t changed much since World Wars One and Two. It was very exciting and a lot of fun. On a couple of other occasions, we caught them when they didn’t know we were there. That was just a matter of going in and shooting down an unaware pilot. But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. We didn’t try to climb with them, because they could climb higher than we could. We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.

If there were those same EM charts, made accurately, made by way of actually plotting the actual performance of the planes in the game, then all this fluff in these forums would be relatively meaning-less.

A plane with both a better Corner Speed and a better Sustained Turn time would obviously be Double Superior, meaning that the Double Superior plane would be more capable of employing Angles AND Energy tactics over the poorly performing opponent PLANE since the poorly performing opponent plane is modeled with a poor Sustained Performance and a poor Instantaneous Performance - shown uncontroversially on one chart.

Your Specific Excess Power chart and your level flight acceleration chart, one chart for one plane, which may be calculated, or may actually be representative of actual flight test data, performed in a controlled environment, repeated for validity, employing more than one pilot to remove the pilot factor, to make the pilot variable into a pilot constant, is ONE plane on the single chart, it is not a superimposed illustration of which plane is capable of greater acceleration or higher Specific Excess Power compared to the other.

So...if less work and more benefit is the goal, then the EM chart, rather than the Specific Excess Power chart, and the Level Flight Acceleration Chart is preferable and an EM chart with superimposed Accelerated Stall lines and Sustained Turn lines are preferable to having two separate charts for each plane, because that is how the professionals did it, when they asked the same questions asked by the new players, or the curious Combat Flight Simulator Enthusiasts, where the idea is to know, precisely, which PLANE, not which pilot, is the better performing plane.

As to actually putting up or shutting up, my level of interest is well past the need to use your advice, or anyone else's advice, in how I can best know which plane works best in which situations, since I evaluate each combat situation, finding out what I can do, and what I cannot do, each time. My interest has moved from the classic "Duel" into team tactics and that has continued to be a work in progress for over 25 years.

If someone wanted to put up or shut up, concerning the claim made by the person making the claim that the 109 is a "perfect" energy fighter, then that person could put up, and that person could describe, or demonstrate, how the 109 is a "perfect" energy fighter, instead of dodging the question and resorting to the diversion from that "put up or shut up" challenge and diverting the "discussion" onto which pilot is better.

Then you step in with the chip on your shoulder, for some reason.

I appreciate the .pdf files, and that is why I respond to you.

As explained above, there seems to be missing in your work those EM charts that work so well in comparing which planes have which advantages (sustained and/or accelerated turn performance) side by side on the same chart.

The professionals, such as John Boyd, Eric Brown, Robert Shaw, and others have asked these questions and have provided much in the way of usable answers.

If, on the other hand, there was a need for a pissing match, then why not start a Ladder, and start putting up or shutting up, with the game, and have fun with the game, instead of resorting to insulting me on a forum?

So instead spending time beating yourself up and talking to yourself in the 3rd person, spend that time pulling your data togther and puting it into a presentable format and post it here for all to see!

No, you may fail to understand the concept of me being an individual person who has personal goals that have nothing to do with you. I engage my time and effort onto these forums to offer the information that I have found along the way where I share an interest with anyone who wants to find out which plane is better than another plane and why that plane is better and how that performance advantage can be used in simulated air combat.

I have my ways of reaching the goals I set, and attacking someone else's character on a forum is not on the list.

If you want to begin, with my help, plotting EM charts on a graph, then that can be arranged, but Track Files may work better, in my opinion.

Two people on two computers hooked up through the internet and one is in a Spitfire and one is in a 109 and Sustained Turn Performance is tested.

That would show the Sustained Turn Performance LINE on the EM chart, and it would be illustrated on the track file, not on an EM chart, so new players would not have to look at and decipher what the Sustained Turn Performance Line is on an EM chart.

New players could load up the track file, and see for themselves which plane has the much better Sustained Turn Performance, and by how much the Spitfire can turn right around from being in front of the 109 to shooting at the 109.

No more room for subjective opinions and if someone claims to be a better 109 pilot, then they can join in on the fun and produce the track file that proves their claim.

You don't want to do that?

You do?

Let me know.

Then both players begin at altitude one plane right behind the other, and both planes find Corner Speed in a diving spiral turn.

Again a track file is recorded.

That information from that test will prove, without any lingering doubt, which plane is the better Energy Fighter. It will prove to be true when performing those tests, one plane will be either superior to the other or both planes will be the same. If one plane blacks out in a much larger turn radius, there will no longer be any more room to make false claims about one plane being a "perfect" energy fighter.

You don't want to do that?

No track files for you?

You do want to do that, so you will let me know, and we can begin to arrange for that to be done.

Next is unloaded dive performance, side by side, from a specific altitude, and then pulling out on the deck, for one test, both planes side by side, level flight, then pitching over into a dive, or rolling into a dive if the Spitfire carburetor is a problem, both planes rolled upside down, level flight, side by side, then pulled into an unloaded dive straight down, then pulled out of the dive, both planes working to pull out at the deck, not one plane sooner than the other, and then unloaded zoom climb, to see which plane tops out higher than the other.

Track files.

Which plane is the perfect Energy Fighter?

Or, start a duel ladder, you, me, whomever, not me, since I'm such a poor pilot according to my personal character assassin, and if such a thing as a Dueling Ladder does take off, with many new challengers vying to be all that they can be, the evidence mounts, without any further controversy as to which plane keeps on winning against which plane regardless of which pilot is flying it.

No, you don't want to start a dueling ladder?

You do, and you prefer that over the side by side tests that we will both be doing soon on our calenders?

I have not been banned and this thread isn't locked yet, so make my day, whoever you are.

[fruitbat]

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBo1.jpg



omg, how many times are you going to post this chart?

have you got some sort of rights deal, where you make money off every forum you post it in?

[Al Schlageter]

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBo1.jpg


When are you going to post a graphic like the above for the Bf109s, Hurricanes and Spitfires in the game for the new player, and even the so called trolls.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I am referring to anyone who does not offer a new player, who my have purchased this fine game, information on how THAT PERSON can find out for themselves, without having to rely upon "experts" who troll forums, which plane is the better plane and for what maneuvers the better plane is better.
Oh the irony!

In that by your own definition above, you were referring to yourself!

Only question left is whether you realize it or not.. Based on your reply you don’t seem to realize it, or, your just pretending to not realize it..

But that is neither here nor there and not worth the time to figure it out

So back on topic

That being can you post the data you collected during the tests you said you performed such that it can be evaluated like you said it should be.

Thanks in advance!

[Crumpp]

we have more realistic game

You mean with a statically and dynamically longitudinally stable "Spitfire" FM"?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You mean with a statically and dynamically longitudinally stable "Spitfire" FM"?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H6XgTdHSJ64/T_ahuYW0z5I/AAAAAAAABKE/6YFT1lmKDKs/s1600/Dead-Horse-Theory.jpg

[Crumpp]

It is only a "dead horse" to those who don't understand the significance.

Try checking out Chapter 19 of Stick and Rudder, it explains the social dynamics of this community very well.

[Robo.]

You mean with a statically and dynamically longitudinally stable "Spitfire" FM"?

There are many compromises in the sim, concerning all types. But despite that i would say yes, it is more realistic now.

[JG14_Josf]

When are you going to post a graphic like the above for the Bf109s, Hurricanes and Spitfires in the game for the new player, and even the so called trolls.

I have no interest in obeying the orders of trolls. Why would I?

My interest is in helping people find out, for themselves, which plane is better.

If you do not have any interest in that, then why bother replying to my posts?

Someone who does have an interest as I have, as we share the interest, may be someone, who knows, I don't, someone who reads my post, then says, hey, that sounds like a good idea, how about setting a time and a day, and we make a track file of a few of those tests you keep repeating.

What tests?

You know those tests that you keep repeating.

Oh?

These:

1.
Side by side Spitfire and 109, online, with a replay recording to record the test. 2 or more pilots switch planes during subsequent tests to test repeatability of the tests and to make the pilot variable into a controlled constant instead of a variable.

a.
Level acceleration to see which plane can get away from, or catch, the other plane in level acceleration.

b.
Unloaded dive (minimum induced drag) and zoom to see which plane can get away from, or catch, the other plane in vertical dives and zooms where induced drag is minimized.

c.
Sustained turns in level flight to see which plane can turn inside the other plane in level flight where altitude loss is not a factor.

d.
Corner Speed tests, where one plane starts a diving spiral turn to maintain the smallest turn radius and maintain the fastest turn rate possible while maintaining the most altitude compared to the other plane.

Since I have my interests and you have your interests and those interests are not the same, the obvious result of that, it seems to me, is that you have no business speaking to me, and I have no business speaking to you, unless by doing so, there is in that effort, a sharing of interests.

Such as:

Having those track files made that way, those tests in those track files could, conceivably, contain enough information to plot out those plots that are required to make one of the Energy Maneuverability Charts, if not precisely, at least relatively accurate, as one plane would be conclusively better than another plane, in specific performance proven during the tests.

But what would be the need for a Chart if the Track File proves exactly what my interest is, in fact?

Which plane accelerates faster in level flight and by how much - exactly?

Which plane can dive faster and zoom higher in vertical maneuvering and by how much - exactly?

Which plane can sustain altitude in level flight and turn inside the other plane?

Which plane has the lower corner speed and at that lower corner speed which plane dumps more energy and by how much does one plane dump more energy at corner speed - exactly?

At corner speed, which plane has the absolute tightest turn radius and the absolute fastest turn rate, and by how much is the inferior plane inferior in absolute turn radius and turn rate?

So, again, those are my interests, as I see them, and while I do enjoy the game very much, while friends of mine share the game on-line, our work is more along the lines of teamwork.

last night, for example, we managed an effective half split, and it was very much a good investment of my time and energy, TO ME.

Perhaps not to you, but why would you think that your interests have anything to do with me?

[Al Schlageter]

I have no interest in obeying the orders of trolls. Why would I?


LOL. When is a question an order?

[JG14_Josf]

LOL. When is a question an order?

What is funny?

There are people on this forum who publish words that appear to suggest that their viewpoint of what I should or should not do with my time is somehow authoritative.

Do you understand what I am saying, or do you laugh more at what I am saying?

When I make an Energy Maneuverability chart is your question.

My answer is to say that I have no interest in your question, and your question sounds a lot like the trolls on this forum as they publish replies that appear to suggest that I am somehow supposed to do what they say I should do, as if they have this magical power to order me around, making me abide by their sense of some nebulous authority over my interests, my time, my energy, or my goals.

When I make an Energy Maneuverability chart may be never, or it may be as soon as someone else decides that it is worth doing too.

So..LOL, if that is what you are doing, your question is not an order, and therefore a question, in this case, as far as I know, isn't an order, so, LOL, why do you ask that question?

Had someone with a common interest in finding out which plane is better answered any of my posts, they might have suggested doing so, themselves, or they might have just done so, finding someone they know, and then setting a time, and a day, to begin testing.

1.
Side by side level flight acceleration tests. Which one is superior and by how much, right there in the game, right in front of each player deciding to do so, without bothering another minute with trolls on forums.

2.
Side by side unloaded dive and zoom tests. Same process, same accurate results, same concept of not having to listen to any more fabrications of nonsense on a forum.

3.
Side by side Sustained turn tests in level flight, and everyone already knows which plane is superior, but by how much one is superior may be enlightening, and again, no more validity concerning forum talk.

4.
Side by Side diving spiral Corner Speed tests, which will turn out to be one plane either handily turning inside the other, and one plane easily maintaining more altitude (burning less energy at Corner Speed) or both will be the same, or the differences will be insignificant. No need to ask any forum person why he might think that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter.

If no one wants to do that, lacking interest, then I can do that in my own time, in my own way, and of what interest is it to me to take the trouble to document the facts I find the way I find them here?

So that I can be laughed at in public?

People I know know how to contact me if they care to discuss things with me, or share the latest, and best, World War II combat flight sim.

People who troll forums, leave their mark.

[Crumpp]

it is more realistic now

I am sure the Hurricane Mk I is the most common RAF fighter encountered in the game and the workhorse of Cliffs of Dover as in reality.

[Robo.]

I am sure the Hurricane Mk I is the most common RAF fighter encountered in the game and the workhorse of Cliffs of Dover as in reality.

Yes it is actually - http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35351

All this depends on the mission creators as you know.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It is only a "dead horse" to those who don't understand the significance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8smKtru6w

[ACE-OF-ACES]

What tests?
The tests you said were easy to do, i.e.

There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion

and

There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions.

You claim these tests are easy to do..

So it is safe to assume that you have done them..

Yet you refuse to post your data from these test let alone your analysis of these tests..

Thus all you do do is contine to post your 'opinions' of how the Spit and 109 are or are not simulated correctly.

The very thing you condem others of doing!

Providing basless opinions!

Odd to say the least that you would think no one would notice that

If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test,
Your making it harder than it needs to be..

You don't need two people online.. All you need is one person offline making use of one of the many C# script files to log your data during your test. In essance the C# script file is anagolas to an instruemted aircraft (see sig) that collects all the pertanat data you will need for analysis post test. And it also provides the ability to display a HUD that can focus on any instrument values you desire. For example in a dive test you can have the pitch value displayed such that you don't have to try and read the guage during flight. This data collection is a must if you wish to ploat the Ps curves from a level acceleration test.

Here is a link to one of the C# script examples

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27552

If you need any help feel free to PM me.

[Kurfürst]

Yes it is actually - http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35351

All this depends on the mission creators as you know.

Cool.

[Crumpp]

All this depends on the mission creators as you know.


Right

[veskunapietari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&list=PLB641BC2D16C2CE57

[SlipBall]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&list=PLB641BC2D16C2CE57


Thanks, very cool!...and Skip should know what is :)