Still not convinced with 4.10 Seafire FM.
 

T.D., anyone who buys a copy of Il2 and patches to 4.10 might be a bit bewildered in the relative performance of the F4F-4 compared with the Seafire LIII. Reading the Aircraft guide, one will be decribed as having poor Maneouverabilty and the other 'excellent'. Be impartial and set up two Pacific Dgen campaigns that feature these ac and compare their maneouverability - go through a few missions for each but start off the deck not in the air- they are now reversed! It doesn't make any sense based on what I have read about the Seafire. I am not a 'winger' but please corrcet me if I am wrong (and BTW, this has nothing to do with the other 4.10 Spifire FM's - that has been well covered in my other thread) but I would like to hear what others say based on an impartial test comparing both these ac in the Pacific theatre against the nimble Zero. The F4F-4 is vastly superior to the Seafire....what do others think?

without tryign to be offtopic, the f4f has been, on 4.09 and 4.10, a relatively good manveareble plane, compared at least with other american planes ( f6f hellcat and the other cats). This is offcourse a subjective opinion

The Seafire outturns, outruns and outclimbs the F4F. It's also far more responsive to control input. It is more manoeuvrable.

Not in my 4.10 patch, otherwise I wouldn't have posted but I hope others will try them and make an impartial comparison. If everyone agrees with you then I bow out gracefully (or hide my F4F-4 and re-model it to look like a Seafire.....:grin:)

You know, you could try the following:

Go to the quick mission builder and set up a 16 vs 16 or even 32 vs 32 dogfight between Seafire and F4F. Make sure the pilot skills are the same for both sides. Hit fly, engage autopilot and watch the show.

I did a 16 vs 16 once, and all F4F got shot down in exchange for 5 Seafires. Not really a manoeuvring contest, more an overall comparison, but still a nice indicator.

And definitely hilarious to watch. :)

I will try that but I have based my post on Pacific Dgen campaigns against the Zeros (1942 circa), the F4's outperforms the Seafire in T&B against the Zero and almost impossible to stall, retains it's energy far better. I tried B&Z with the Seafire and that's about the only way I could maintain any form of repectable energy to deal with the Zero. .....is it me?

Just did another thing for fun. Put me in a Seafire vs. an AI ace A6M2. Got onto its tail, stayed there. It got boring, so I pulled inside, overtook it, and outturned it again.

Check the track and try it in an F4F.

I carried full fuel.

Cheers JtD, I have downloaded the Track and will look at it several times then set up similar with both ac to make a comparison. Out of interest where did you upload that Track so that I could download it from a link in a thread? The Seafire looks fine in that track, I need to find out why mine cannot hold that airspeed when chasing a Zero in a similar turn. I don't have any probs with the F4 and get 3 times the number of kills on full switch (in SP!).......maybe I need to transfer to the USN......:grin:

If given the choice I would pick the Seafire long before I would pick the Wildcat although the Wildcat is a fun aircraft now and again. The Wildcat's poor maneuverability is a bit of a misnomer... compared to European aircraft it's very good but compared to Japanese aircraft of similar date it's not.

What exactly is your method when dealing with the Zeros? Seafire versus Zero my preference would be to use the Seafire as an energy fighter instead of turning and burning which is what the Zero excels at. A notable historical case where this proved true was the RAAF's initial experience with the Zero versus Spitfire Vc at Darwin - the Spitfires suffered badly at least at first because they were trying to turn.

You are probably correct Icefire. I have found in 4.10 that Energy fighting with the Seafire is a better strategy but I suppose I have got so used to 4.09 where the Seafire was excellent in T&B against the Zero.

In QMB the Seafire is definitely fine but did notice that initial airspeed (and energy) is higher than possible in a Seafire DGEN campaigns where the combat is very close to the aircraft carriers and the new FM takes much longer for the Seafire to get anywhere near the combat speed or altitude that was possible in 4.09. In other words, I am attempting T&B with a much reduced airspeed at altitude and it may well be that this is why I have encountered problems even before combat begins. The DGen Pacific campaigns for the F4's have generally much longer flight times and gaining altitude and best combat speed is easier to manage. I still find the F4 a super stable ac in Il2 and enjoy flying it in 4.10 as it doesn't seem to suffer the overheating issue that I encountered in 4.09 (not sure if that was fixed by TD or wether I have learned to manage my engine temp since buying Il1946 lat year). But thanks, it's all very useful to me......

Well, the Seafire does turn worse than in 4.09, however, it is a bit faster and better climbing. So whatever speed you bleed off in a turn, you should get it back quicker when flying straight. And, as said initially, it still beats the F4F.

I had that track uploaded to my webspace.

And sorry for the markings. :D

Maybe its the style of flying...in this patch more than ever it is better not to pull too hard but to smoothly manage the energy. It is better to turn greater radius on greater speed n spitfire, although i dont fly seafire usually, so maybe i´m wrong

If I compare taking off from a Carrier in 4.10 then repeat in 4.09 I get the opposite - 4.10 = slower, poor rate of climb and acceleration in level flight. But you are right in that setting up various scenarios in QMB shows the Seafire to be better than the F4 other than I can throw the latter about the sky without due care and consideration to the possibility of stalling.......:grin:

I didn't realize it was worse in the turn versus the last version... Hrmm. I would say historically speaking and my experience over the last several patches that Zero vs Seafire should always be fought energy from the Seafire perspective. The Zero is the superior turn fighter through and through.

ICefire, I really suck at B&Z - pressing the trigger at high speed at a precise moment within an ever diminishing time frame usually ends up in a complete waste of ammo! I guess I am going to have to practice that skill, but, if all fails.....I can load my 4.09 install! :grin:

The Seafire should NOT out turn a Zero at mid to low speed ever. In 1943 pilots went to Darwin from Europe to help with air raids from Timor. They were told by the experianced RAAF pilots not to turn with Zeros, but they did anyways since that was their reaction from fighting the luftwaffe with a more maneuverable aircraft. They got staved on, hard, until they switched tactics and BnZ'd the Zekes. They were the last group of allied pilots to learn this the hard knock way. The Seafire is faster then the Wildcat, climbs better then the wildcat, but will not out turn it. The wildcat was closer to the Zeke then any other western aircraft in terms of turn performance, but not better then the Zeke by any means. 'More maneuverable' does not translate into 'turns better', it encompases all maneuver, both vertical and horizontal. I think the Seafire is spot on personally.

Based on that it is suprising to see that The F4 is described in the AC guide has having 'poor maneouverability' and the Seafire as having 'excellent'. I am no expert so my judgements were based on flying these ac based on the guide and in the Dgen Pacific campaigns. I have taken on board the advice and changed tactics with the 4.10 Seafire with better results - thanks guys!

two words

Got Track?

You mean Headtracking? If so, too damned right I have! :grin:

No a recorded track file of your 'testing' so others can review your methods to see if any errors were made during said 'test'

I see, :rolleyes:, dumbass me! As in IL NT Tracks but where can I upload them for the experts to look at or do you mean using something like FRAPPS?

Any webspace will do. Record a NTRK file and then upload it wherever you have space. If you have a Hotmail account you have space (30GB of it actually). Or Rapidshare or whatever :)

RE: Your previous comment the energy fighting style doesn't require reaction times any quicker than turn fighting. In fact I've shrugged off turn fighting as it's too twitchy and I'm finding that I'm not reacting as fast as I used to. Also it's not as survivable... energy fighting is by far the best way to go unless the plane you fly prohibits it. The Spitfire is pretty good both ways but against the Zero and Oscar energy fight is the only way to go.

Reaction time isn't as important as precise and well calculated deflection shooting. My suggestion is to setup the QMB with a dozen C-47 transports and practice shooting them. The rule is that you have to be diving from a superior altitude or attacking from an angle. No sitting behind and chewing them up. You will positively suck at first but then you will get better. The C-47 is perfect because it's big, slow and the AI usually flies a straight line.

The raw track file would be better in that one could than use one of the many DeviceLink utilities to ouput/log the flight data (altitude, IAS speed, engine temp, elevator deflection, throttle setting, etc) to a file.. Than we can not only see your test but your corsponding inputs and the planes outputs

I'd be curious to read the definition of "maneuverable" as defined by people in this thread.

Not a condemnation, just wondering if we are all talking about the same thing.

I don't think anyone has defined it as such but an interesting question that I would have to really think hard about before attempting to answer. At the most basic defintion I suppose 'how easy (or the reluctance) to move into various or different positions'. Pretty sure there may be very different interpretations from flying enthusiasts, particularly from an 'acrobatic' perspective which combines pilot skill with 'maneouverabilty'.

I have recorded a few track files so will find a webspace and get them uploaded asap.

SEE, don't take the descriptions in the aircraft viewer as the gospel truth.

The F4F was the tightest turning aircraft fielded in numbers by the United States in WW2, closely followed by the P40, which was far and away the most maneuverable aircraft fielded by the USAAF in WW2.

Yet both aircraft get a bad rap as being poor in maneuverability by "historians" that only compare them to the A6M or the Ki-43. Remember that a real life P40 will out turn a Spitfire below 15,000 ft, and out roll it at any altitude or speed, but neither of these planes can out turn a Zeke or Oscar at low dogfight speeds. It would take a biplane to do that, or an earlier Japanese monoplane fighter. (Ki-27 or A5M)

Fighting Japanese aircraft is all about keeping your speed up, which is how the Flying Tigers were so successful against the Ki-27 and Ki-43 over China, and how the Spits beat the Zekes in the Pacific, and why the F4F was replaced with the F6F and Corsair.

Speed is life.

Both statements are contradicting real life data. Please link references to support them.

Here are two Tracks from last nights session in my Seafire Pacific Dgen camapaign. Rather than being offered on a 'test' basis I prefer to think of them as - ' has the poster listened to any of the advice given to him?'...............I hope so but feel free to say otherwise and I appreciate that AI are not anywhere near the same as MP !

The first track is pretty mundane as the enemy seem to be focussed on the Ground Attack F4's. Towards the end, I found difficulty matching the climb/speed of a fighter attacking the F4's and was pretty much flat out.

The second track I found my self simply trying to survive.

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/xH4TzZDN/...Gen1.ntrk.html

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/y08fLwp9/...Gen2.ntrk.html

Please do so for your statement.

Also the Hawk 75 could do the same.

The Hawk 75, 81 and 87 could out roll any British fighter. Only the FW 190 was faster in the roll. Of course the P47 was better at high altitude, but the Hawks could not get there anyway.

You have touched on the MAIN problem with ALL comments on flight model accuracy

Some folks comments are based on what they read in a book, be it historic or comic
Some folks comments are based on what they saw on TV, be it documentary or Hollywood
Some folks comments are based on what they have heard over the years and is now a miss mashed jumble of info that has no origin

Which is why I always stick with the number.. They may not be perfect, nothing is, but they are a lot closer to the truth than anything someone read in a book or saw in a movie or heard some where

And by numbers I mean real world test documents that were performed by test flight engineers and test pilots

Anything less than that is just opinion and nifty stories :grin:

I'm not aware of the RAF carrying out comparative trial between the P40 and Spitfire, but I have little doubt the P40 has a higher roll rate. The P40's roll rate is well regarded, while the Spitfire was somewhat poor in this regard, particularly when compared with late war fighters.

On the other hand, the P40 (both Hawk 81 and 87) should not even come close to the Spitfire's turn rate and radius. Wing loading is significantly higher, no Spitfire until the MkXIV exceeds it, and the power to weight ratio is lower than any Spitfire (some of the higher power late model P40s have a slightly higher power to weight ratio than the Spitfire MkI and MkII).

I consider it a pretty poor response to respond to a question with another question instead of with an answer. But I did not expect anything else from you.

Soviet VVS turning tests show the Spitfire and P-40 turning to be on par, Spitfire models at 17.5 to 18.8 seconds, P-40 models at 18 to 19.2 seconds. Can't provide a link to an actual test report.

NACA 868 roll rate chart has the Spitfire with a higher rate of roll at low speeds.
NACA wartime reports have the Spitfire achieve higher roll rate at low speeds.
Both refer to full span wing, and likely metal ailerons for the Spitfire.
You can download all NACA wartime reports from here.
You can also order this study from the UK National Archives, it has a direct comparison. It's also available here as a pdf. It again shows the Spitfire to achieve a superior rate of roll at low speeds.

And now? You want to back up your claims for once? Or will you be defaulting back to your usual insult and denial routines? I'm expecting no less, please disappoint me.

El... was it not the Hawk/P-36 that had the fantastic sustained turn rate and the P-40 had some degradation of this capability?

Clearly someting is amiss here.

Hawk 81s had a roll rate of 135 degrees per second at 360mph IAS.

The Hawk 87s (test done on P40F) were down to 95.

Data from Amercia's Hundred Thousand by Francis H. Dean.

This may be correct, as the Hawk 75 was considerably lighter than the Hawk 81.

One number on one plane is all you got?

That's insufficient to make a statement about the relative performance of two aspects of two planes.

Sorry JTD, but it's been years, decades even, since I've read some of this stuff.

I do know that the Curtiss Hawks, 75, 81, and 87 were very maneuverable aircraft. Much more so than they are portrayed in the current popular aviation culture.

And I stopped being a rivet counting chart monkey a long time ago. It just got old.

Nothing personal JTD. Life is contentious enough without instigating slag fests on internet forums.

Then why don't you state just that:
There'd be nothing to argue about.