Very true, but this has nothing to do with a sustained turn time. Say you're attacking a Spitfire in a Fw 190. You're much faster, he breaks and at that speed difference (him slowish, you very fast), you can turn inside him for long enough to place a burst in front of him. You lose some speed, he loses a wing if you hit, but that's not a sustained turn competitiion. You would never ever even at this theoretical advantage at this particular speeds enter a turn and burn fight and remain in that turn because you would lose the fight.

Not to mention G-load and blackout. Or if you're in a 109 the elevator stiffness at high speed would be (and is) a massive issue, too. In a sustained turn entered from higher speed, you happen to slow down anyway and the best you can do as a pilot is keep your speed at optimum (not to slow down too much) and watch the G load because if you can't see you can't shoot. We're talking pure TnB fight where the sustained turn rate plays a huge role (and pilot's skill is another 50% because). Obviously, this rarely happens in RL (or virtual skies) because you don't want to burn all your Es in a sustained turn, especially so in a 109.

You would be surprised how many 109 pilots still enter TnB fight vs. Spitfires. And they will almost always lose because (surprise surprise) the Spit has got much better sustained turn.

In theory. I would really like to see how a Me 262 outturns a P-51 in a sustained turn even at very high speeds. :o

Yes this is true. For a graph of a hypothetical situation, but if it was actual dogfight, the Cessna would outturn the 747. I understand what you're saying though.

Diagram shows something that did not exist in real life and luckily it does not exist in the sim either. Spitfire can realize the turn performance advantage at almost any moment unless the speed difference is largely in favour of the 109 - at which point the 109 pilot won't try to enter a pure turning competition (and that's what we're talking here about) anyway.

First pilot to reduce the angle of bank is very likely to lose the (turn)fight. If the 109 pilot gains speed and climbs we haven't got pure turnfight anymore and we can't speak of sustained turn either. Of course, in real virtual dogfights this is exactly what happens and both pilots usually fly yo-yos and the turn is egg-shaped rather than a circle etc. There is much more to it in actual combat. Sustained horizontal turn rate is still very important when it comes to TnB and this is where Spitfire beats the 109. (still depending on the pilots of course).

I suggest you start flying these combat flight sims, while you're hangin around on the forums you might as well want to actually try what you're typing in here. It won't work I am telling you now :-P

This is as wrong as it can get mate :grin:

Any pilot can do that. Of course pilot skill plays a huge role in here, too. There are more tricks in how to outturn your opponent and win the edge. This is where the human factor comes in. But speaking strictly of the machines and the sustained turn potential, Spitfire would be the winner at typical TnB speeds. That's why any sane 109 pilot avoids TnB with a Spitfire.

Actually it's the other way around. Average Spitfire pilot will outturn any average 109 pilot hands down when it comes to sustained turn. It requires exceptional 109 pilot (esp. engine management and stall control, very clean rudder) to outturn a decent Spitfire pilot in a proper turnfight.

I understand that you have no experience with virtual dogfight. Your theoretical knoweledge is useful but you would die in combat if you tried to apply it. ;)

:grin: Yes it seems the Z value is the only reliable "gaguge" för speed. My point was that it seems like there is quite a big difference between the speed gauge in the spit and 109. Countless posts on this forum complain about the spit is going too slow in level flight and most of them draw this conclution from the speed gauge alone. I'm not saying they are wrong, but reading the speed gauge gives the impression that a 109 is travelling much faster than a spit, even if they are flying side by side.

Don't forget the inherent display bug on all RAF ASI's .... that is the needle drops rapidly in response to G. You can drive the RAF ASI any way you want with minor applications of G. So any time you are pulling G the RAF ASI bug will result in a grossly low IAS that bears no resemblance to your real IAS. The German ASI's are not "afflicted" by this bug.

The current bug renders the RAF ASI totally useless as a manoeuvre/energy cue. its only useful in 1G flight.

Here's a quote from the Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtis and 109E trial carried out by the Germans at E-Stelle Rechlin.

"Before tuning fights with the ME109E, it must be noted that in every case, that all 3 foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times"


Just thought I'd throw that in..

Thank you MusseMus, that is very interesting!

In previous speed tests I put in the phrase that these comparisons were only valid if a 109 and Spit flying side by side showed the same speeds on their gauges. From your tests it looks like the answer is no! From flying in ATAG it is clear that 109s show a large speed advantage at all alts but perhaps not as much as the gayges suggest :(

camber

Thank you Camber!

My test was not very scientific because I only ran it 3 times and maybe the distance was a little short :) I would like to see if others get similar results.
It would also be interesting if 2 pilots could run side by side online and compare their speed gauget readings.
It would be good news if the speed difference between the COD spit & 109 is smaller than we thought :grin:

You may like to know that (deep breath):

Z values for IAS, TAS are given in 'world co-ordinates' units, e.g. 130.5 means 130.5 world co-ordinate units. I did some tests of distances on the CoD map versus Google Earth and to cut a long story short 'world co-ordinates' are effectively in meters, e.g. if you subtract one from another (using pythagoras unless you travelled perfectly east or west) the distance is in metres.

In one set of Spitfire tests I did I registered 249.83mph (402.06kph) on the IAS gauge at 10,000 feet (thats a scripted-out value that is fed to the gauge graphic, the needle can't be read that accurately and the tooltip rounds to whole numbers). Using rough conversion 2% per 000 feet that's 299.79mph TAS or 482.47kph TAS. More accurately using Density altitude that calculates as 290.72mph TAS or 467.87kph TAS.

The Z values were 132.09 IAS and 134.92 TAS. Assuming these to be metres per second (nothing else fits) that's 475.52kph Z_IAS, 485.71kph Z_TAS.

More confusion because I understood the rough conversion to TAS is 2% per thousand feet which should put the Z_TAS at 475.52 * 1.2 = 570.62kph not 485.71. OR... Z_TAS should put Z_IAS at 485.71 / 1.2 = 404.76. If we trust Z_TAS the IAS begins to look right and Z_IAS wrong. If we trust Z_IAS the IAS gauge and Z_TAS are wrong. Conclusion? Who knows but Z_TAS and IAS gauge have more going for it, after all the IAS value has to come from somewhere.

so at 10,000ft
IAS mph....IAS kph.....Z_IAS kph......IAS kph (from Z_TAS) ...Z_TAS(kph).....TAS@D.A.(kph from IAS)
249.83......402.06........475.52.........404.76......................485.71.....................4 67.86 (remember TS@D.A. will be different because its calculated for a standard day)

Now you could argue that according to the Z_IAS value the Spitfire is travelling 18% faster than the IAS gauge says. Alternatively..... Z_TAS converted to IAS says the IAS gauge is near enough correct. If that's right then the small difference between IAS gauge and IAS from Z_TAS could be caused by atmosphere factors (standard day to CoD day).

We have to be sure we're testing these aircraft properly. With respect, "I tested it at 10,000 feet and it isn't as fast as it should be" is very subjective because:
1. It was being tested using the IAS gauge which now falls under suspicion (for ALL aircraft). Or does it?
2. It "isn't the same top speed as the historical" data because it isn't being tested at or converted to a 'standard day' which is how historical data is published. How many of you know that the default SL pressure for CoD on line is 995mb, not 1013.25 as on a standard day? And that doesn't take account of CoD's SL temperature which is never the standard day 15C.
3. We don't really know if/which IAS, Z_data or whatever is truly accurate but I'm more inclined to trust the Z data and particularly Z_TAS.

I have never tested the 109 but I will after the patch although it would be nice to have some other guys help.

The diagram is accurate and uses industry norms for determining aircraft performance. Its does not fit any aerodynamic science that the Spitfire shoudl realize a turn performance advantage under all conditions.

I admit I have limited knowledge about virtual airplanes. My expertise lies with the real ones.