Your problem, AoA, is that you only accept results that are in accordance with your philosophy. I'd say IL2 1947 came up with results that used anecdotical evidence where hard data was not available and the job was not bad. You refuse this on a categoric basis and that is why we won't get anywhere in this discussion.

I do not convince you obviously.

You don't convince me either because I do think that anecdotical evidence can be used as a support (also because I do not believe your claim that those spit pilots if outturned by a 109 would inevitably have been killed. I am convinced that there would have been sufficient cases of lucky blokes who would have escaped nonetheless to report about them being outturned by a 109. Now even if their number would have been small we have to see that there is just zero accounts on this).

We might continue jousting but this won't lead to anything. So let's agree that we disagree.

Not true

I am willing to accept anything, as I noted, I have an open mind on this..

As a mater of fact, 20 years ago I was making the same argument your making now!

But over the past 20 years I have come to the conclusion that it can not be done (read I and others tried it)!

As noted, I wish someone could prove me wrong on this!

So, who knows, maybe you are the one who can do it?

But up to now you have not provided anything to elevate the concerns I have brought up!

To re-cap, I have brought up two concerns (two of many, but the two I find to be the most important)

1) anecdotical evidence is typically, if not always a one sided story
2) anecdotical evidence is written by those who lived to write about it

For Examples..

WRT item 1) You will be hard pressed to find an after actions report that has input from both the axis and allied pilot with regards to the encounter (say dog fight).
WRT item 2) Using your example of 1,000 Spitfires saying they could out turn a 109, you don't know how many Spitfire pilots were shot down trying to turn with a 109.

Explain to me how you account for these two items in your statistical analysis and than maybe I can start to see it from your point of view..

Because you just saying 'this method worked' wrt IL-2 explains nothing..

And has that used car salesman "trust me" feel to it..

Better yet, give us an example of how you applied this method in IL-2!!

Just one!

Than maybe I can see it from your point of view?

Interesting debate, I thought I'd throw my 2 pence worth in..

You're both right, you need the maths, but you also need the combat reports.

You do the maths, then check to see if what's happening relates to what actually happened.

As far as I know combat reports and pilot's recollections are the only record of the use of these aircraft in the role they were designed for, combat.

I've read literally hundreds of combat reports from the Battle of Britain, both sides. Most of these guys were professionals, and eventually if you read enough, you can build a picture of what happened. OK, there's no numbers, but it's foolish to disregard them.

As Geoffry Wellum P/O 19 squadron BoB said "People ask me how can I remember it all, I just say, how could I forget?"

Read Brian Lanes account of a turning battle with a 109 where he sees the aileron snatch on the 109 , read Gallands stories of diving down onto Spits and being able to engage and disengage at will. Both from men who knew what they were doing.

The truth is a blend, where the math's ends the history helps.

Don't be partisan about it, there's enough people on here from both sides with enough knowledge to make CLoD/BoM the definitive sim.... If everyone would just stop arguing....

There you go, I think they call this "sitting on the fence".. oh well.

+1


(Nothing wrong with fence sitting...or is there? ;) )

Well if we are using anecdotal and pilot accounts lets throw these into the fire:

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

I stongley urge the red fliers especially to read this. Its a shed load of pilot accounts with sources, all about the 109 and what an Uber plane she really is! :-P



I found this:

http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil.html


http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil_html_4785a2b8.gif
I assume these are full throttle speeds.

Höchstgeschwindigkeiten in Steig/Kampfleistung (Tabelle)
I assume this is TAS

0km 460km/h

1km 480km/h

2km 500km/h

3km 520km/h

4km 540km/h

5km 555km/h

6km 555km/h

7km 550km/h

Yes farber the 109 is slower than it should be, i remember seeing this on aonther thread somewhere. I think if they can get the speed, climb rate, turn rate and acceleration of the planes sorted that would go along way to the realistic settings, then add plane specifics after, such as stalling in the spits in hard turns or aerliron snatching in the 109 with the slats etc. We'd be getting there.

Is the basic info available as fact? If so then the basics shouldnt be a problem for the devs to sort out, and in my opinion should have done already.

Yes macro, I think which ever way you look at it people would be happy either way if the figures added up for all aircraft - mathmatically or by accounts.

Thing is the devs dont come here. Only B6. If you want somethign doing you have to do the hard work then submit a bug report. We all know the phantom (ghost) formations were here from the start, people spoke of them on this forum but the devs did nothing because they didnt know, only after I got off my backside and submitted a bug report and evidence (ntrk) did they even know about it. The next patch is supposedly the steam official and after which no more changes specific to clod will be added - as I have read. So its vitally important we get it done now!

POST 19:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32600&page=2

I think the devs and the community would be best served by focusing on modeling the comparative differences between the fighters. Using historical documents, pilot testimonials, and any other sources available to create a flight model that feels historical. Let's ask ourselves some basic questions about the 3 major single seat fighters of BoB. In order how do the aircraft rank in _____ performance:

High Alt Speed:
Low Alt Speed:
Acceleration:
Climb:
Dive:
Roll:
Turn:

Maybe this should be a different thread as we, as a community, might come to some kind of agreement of what we would expect to see without focusing on absolute numbers.

From what iv read in reports and such

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
Spit could catch 109 accell in dive with+12 boost. 109 Elevator very heavy and hard to pull out of dive at high speeds.
Iv read the common tactic of steep but rarher slow climb of 109 was actually used by 109 pilots to get away from spits. Sounds like this is realistic in game.

Turn rate in spit was better that 109 when pushed to the limit, would need some sort of stall characteristic in spit for game balance.

Am i right or well off the mark? Not read enough about hurri to comment my opinion

I read exactly the opposite.

Spit faster at low level, 109 faster at very high altitude.
Spit rolling slower at very low speed, both Spit and 109 ailerons becoming very hard to move at speeds above ~ 600 km/h / 400 mph.

Spits controls overall slightly less heavy at high speed.

I also don't see what the 109 slats have to do with rolling or why the plane would be more stable because of them.