Spit IIa
 

So, I have read quite a few posts regarding this a/c.

One question. Why do most people think its over modeled/over powered?

After flying it offline to test some (not all) of the speeds at various alts it seems to conform to most if not all the websites I have visited regarding its real life spec's. Some websites being:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf
http://acepilots.com/planes/specs.html.

All spec's from various sites are rather close. I did not find anything to be "Over powered/Over modeled" when comparing in game to these websites.

I only tested the speeds at various alts and nothing else. Using combat and normal operating procedures (by that I mean using it so not to blow an engine) I found it within the stated specs from the websites I visited.

So am I missing something here, have I not found the end all be all of spitfire specs website?

I know there are 2 sides to this debate: "the 109 is superior and should not be out performed by a spit" and the other side "The spit was far superior and could out perform the 109". Both planes had advantages in different areas of combat and normal flight. So, can anyone provide irrefutable proof that the Spit IIa is not modeled properly in game (conforming to real life specifications).

I am neither saying it is or it isn't. I am just trying to get your facts (not an opinion) to either prove it is or it isn't over modeled.

Cheers

Whiskey

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23994

&

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25956


Have a good read, the search function is your friend too.

Not most of the people but most of those who fly for the blue side primarily ;)

Lol, Well that would be the most obvious statement of the year then ;) what you mean the side that doesn't fly it?

:rolleyes:

Could either mean the 'those' who fly red are not honest or that the Spit II is indeed correct.

I don't really care at this point, we like to fly more historical minded missions and the Spit II doesn't show up in those all that much, if not at all.

Simple its not over modelled the other aircraft are under modelled..

(Blue) guys: Don't take it (yourself) so seriously ;)

Read my post again, fact is what I am looking for, various websites giving specs to compare in game performance to either prove or disprove its current modeled state. But thanks for your input.

Whiskey

It's mostly those that fly German ONLY and always outbalance the teams. :rolleyes:

MkII Spit is a bit later version and it's slightly better than the available German planes. So this guys that are used to easilly get away from the earlier versions of the spit, without any kind of effort, get their panties in a bunch when they have to actually work hard for a kill, or even for survival.:rolleyes:

"Grass is allways greener on the other side of the fence" type of atitude.

There is your answer. Move on to new ground, this horse has suffered enough.

May have been beaten to death but still not proven to be over modeled. Nor have the 109's been proven to be under modeled. Have they been tested using specs gained from a well known sources with results to back either claim?


Whiskey

Blue guys, I am just teasing you ;) Of course the Spit IIA is overmodelled by all means (überflugzeug) 'cause we would had no chance else. And Bf-109 is undermodelled (thanks God, well done luthier).

But it is a challenge for you, isn't it? You can beat reds flying much worse planes any time (or shall we switch to gladiators)? ;)

It was. By the Blues ;)

Question that arises in that context for me: Did the historical Spit IIa had a better climbing rate than the 109 E-4 ? Can´t find any proper info on that in wiki. It just says that the IIa had a better climb rate than the Mk I but was it better in the end than the 109 concernign climbing rate ??

Quite simple: Many, too many people in these forums think of themselves as a unique snowflake and are completely convinced that they have something to contribute or to prove that the rest of the world seems to conspire on to keep it secret. Thus, non-existent issues will be taken up and defended, and promoted, even if contradicted repeatedly - (objective) truth is of no concern to those people.
Its something like an OCD, really.

see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

Absolutely!

Not sure which engine the Mark IIa in the available servers are fitted with but there's no sign of 4 kft/min in the website, but in the game you can get to such vertical speed.
I was expecting about 3 kft/min, not sure which is the realistic one for this Mark.
It climbs very fast at 170 mph.

Yesterday on Atag server I had a hurri on my tail which pursued me over the whole channel flying low (so not a hurri with energy advantage). I could not loose it in my 109 even though I was at its ingame max speed of something between 450-460 kph (at least my extensive offline tests yielded this as the implemented max speed for the 109 whatever type). Sorry, but this is definitely not historic right now.

But to my knowledge they will anyhow overhaul the FM completely so we simply have to wait with what they come up with in the future and then see again.

I just want historic performance. Old IL2 was not that bad - at least it got the overall tendencies right.

Yeah, I realized that too that the Hurricane Rotol ahs almost the same climbing rate, dive speed and max speed at sea level as the 109. Also I accelerates as fast as the 109 from my observations in the Rotol. However, the turning rate is only slightly better than the 109 meaning that the King of turning is still the spitfire.

I think the Hurri and 109 situation makes the problem more noticeable in the FM's wether it be the 109 to slow or the rotol to fast

Two threads of opinions started by incredibly well balanced and tempered posts?

Sorry lads this is not accurate at all. The 109's (E4 Especially) have a much better climb rate than the rotol in this game, and they are faster at sealevel.

All you Blue drivers didnt evolve the dive and run strategy that you are all so fond of because it didnt work. Oh and lets not forget your cannons.

I fly hurries all the time and the 109 is slightly faster at sea level - just enough so that while you might not loose us completely, you can quite easily draw away out of gun range. It also climbs much better - in a boom and zoom situation the 109 will be able to hold energy and EASILY out climb a hurri everytime.

That may well be historically accurate, so its fine, but it is a little rich when the 109 drivers who are so used to having the advantage and the ability to always run away, then moan like little girls when they come up against a correctly modelled SpitII - which is supposed to be a better aircraft than the 109.

Plus as you would expect a hurri with E can outpace a 109 of course for as long as the E advantage is relevant.

The one good thing though, the current advantage to Blue is forcing us red pilots to evolve better tactics and improve our skill levels. When the devs finally come out and clear up this debate once and for all by stating that the planes are correctly modelled, we will be well placed to make the most our our better aircraft.

Ya, Oleg also said that the FM's for the IL2 aircraft were correct-didn't make it true. It took the mod community to create FM's that were even close to achieving the tested performance of the modeled aircraft.

And I'm sure the same is true here. Sorry, but a 109E topping out at 440-450 kph at sea level is about 50kph to slow.
See here: performance at 1.3ata demonstrated to be 498kph at sea level and 572 at 4800 meters.
And this was done with an E-1 prototype which did not have the later style, more efficient air intake and thus the performance of production E series types would probably be higher.
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html
Even better, here:
http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html
Quite a bit more than we get currently.
So complain all you want but the hard data backs that the 109E is substantially under modeled, as are just about all aircraft in game, with the obvious exception of the Spit IIa.

498 kph :):):):)

Bf E3 0m=467 max speed 4440m=552

Woahhh hang on a minute CWMV.. Since when do hard facts and historical data have any place in this arguement?? That's no fair! :-P

Seems I might have to rethink my postion on the whole 109's are modelled correctly stance...



I still think 109's are way better than Hurries and all Blue drivers who run away are little girls. :cool:

ReconNZ N.1 :)

So you're after little girls? :o

Hi. What is relatively accurately be measured, is the speed at sea level. (mph) (RL datas from Spitperformance):

Hurri D-5-20. In the game 240 instead of 262. -8,4%
Hurri Rotol. In the game 260 instead of 265. -1,8%
Spit I. In the game 240 instead of 283. -15,9%
Spit Ia. In the game 240 instead of 283*. -15,9%
Spit IIa. In the game 300 instead of 290. +3,4%

Fiat G.50. In the game 223 instead of 248. -9,9%
Messer E-1. In the game 273 instead of 302**. -9,4%
Messer E-3, E-4. In the game 273 instead of 290***. -5,7%

* If I am wrong in this, then I apologize. I do not know well the Spit subtypes.
** (edit) The measurement of this ratio does not matter, but it's good to know: this is not the 109's top speed, is only 1.35 ata boost pressure, instead of 1.45 (this is called the "start und notleistung"). That would be 200 PS power (~ 20%), which increases the speed only 10 kph (~ 2%) in the game.
*** Performance tests in RL are possible margin of error of ±5%. Maybe this is why measure at slower than the E-1, despite the fact that the E-3 is more powerful engines were built. Or the E-1 graph is bad. Who knows?)

That is the most concise description of what is going on with the FM’s with regards to sea level speeds yet. Nice Tom.

JD
AKA_MattE

Agreed, but I'm interested in where you get your data on the 109's? All the original docs Ive read indicate the E-1 was +/- 310 at sea level, and subsequent tests indicated that there was no appreciable difference between wing cannon armed aircraft and those without.
Links please? Always interested in new data.

L.Dv.556/3 for the E-1, -3

Max speed @

0km - 460kph
1km - 480kph
2km - 500kph
3km - 520kph
4km - 540kph
5km - 555kph
6km - 555kph
7km - 550kph

Now what were you saying about 50kph to slow?

Wow, when I see these numbers and compare it to the ingame perfomance of all the planes, I ask myself why the developers haven´t implemented that kind of data to the planes of the game ?

That its 50kph too slow.
Ive already posted it, but here goes again...
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...chreibung.html

LOOK

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/bf109e1.shtml http://www.aviation-history.com/mess...itt/bf109.html

CWM Yes but see if you can find another source for E models getting 500Kmh at sea level, that is imo an exceptional event. Just about every ref I have seen is in the 460Kmh or so sea level area.

Even here the Swiss tests show 460-470 at sea level:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...109E_J347.html

And the French tests only get 500Kmh (clapped out E I can here some saying :) at around 3000m, though the other numbers compare quiet well with the L.Dv.556/3 for the E-1, -3 stuff quoted in this thread.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8659/61187376.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6868/92145029.jpg

This all becomes a circular tail chase depending on the references you choose and or trust. The majority are in the L.Dv.556/3 type performance area.

perhaps we have to know if these speedtests were made with DB601A-1 or DB601Aa...and wich engines drives the CoD 109s :D

You cant have enough Graphs :)

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5341/109espeed.jpg

The chart below I have no idea on its origin/provenance but post for further info.
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9...imbmap109e.jpg

Indeed.
My only problem with the french numbers is that they had to run the low altitude tests with rads open due to cooling issues from not using the correct fluids. Especially when you look at the 5000M+ (Where the rads were closed) numbers that are well within 5% of the German numbers I posted.
Do I think that the rads being full open could take 40kph off the top end-you bet!

British tests with the same aircraft mirror those of the French, off the top of my head 16000ft was 355mph=571kph.

So weve got an aircraft that performs the same as German tests when you close the rads, and then is slower when you open them..seems logical to me lol.

And the Swiss tests were of an aircraft that had already gone through a third of its operational lifespan (if I recall 111 hours at test, retired at 350ish). In addition to this Kurfurst has summed up my thoughts on J-347 fairly well:

"Comparison of the speed results with Bf 109E prototype V15a's test report show remarkable similarity in the top speed achieved at altitude with the original VDM propeller of J-347 (572 vs. 564 km/h at rated altitude), especially when taking into account that J-347 already saw considerably use. However the low level speeds diverge greatly (498 vs 464 km/h at 0m altitude). However the low-level performance of V15a with the Höhenlader (high altitude supercharger speed, or 'F.S gear' in British terms) shows good agreement with J-347 at both high- and low altitudes.
This would suggest that J-347`s level speed results were achieved with the Höhenlader in operation, and the appropriate Bodenlader (low-altitude supercharger speeds, or 'M.S. gear' in British terms) was not used to record the results, therefore full performance of the aircraft was not reached below ca. 3500 meter altitude."

Regardless, the numbers call for a +/- 5%, so really Id be happy with anything from 470-500.
Ideally, to me anyway, 490 would be taken as a base, and a random power fluctuation within 5% would be applied to every 109, but I'm not sure the sim is there yet...

And yes, we all have our favored sources, but at least in this thread they were posted, and we can argue about the numbers rather than what we think the aircraft should do.

I suppose that's better...lol.

wondering about these supercharger comments having the DB601's automatic variable supercharger system in mind ?!

Some more data we must include the TSAGI stuff for balance :) ... though I think its a bit skewed to the slow side ... differrent time and place... got to make the local product look good perhaps :)

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7933/...038image00.jpg

And another that looks good with all sorts of detail but no idea on its provenance so caution on its use. Looks like some engineers calculations and extrapolations rather than actual test data ... just another of the countless snippets on my HD :)

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1253/61178879.jpg

this thread is quite interesting and provides a lot of source for the arguments taken.
but i have a question,...did luthier ever post a statement about their FMs?...whether they think they should rework them, or if they are happy with the current state?
can we expect them to be finetuned?

You can expect them to be fine tuned ... that I know for a fact .

Yes somewhere he states that they want to get the game basics working right (performance etc) before dealing with FM issues. Annoying yes, but it makes sense.

If you ask me, all data is from the Spitperformance.com:
Here is the E-1 Chart: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-1774chart.jpg

BF109V15 in that chart I think being V15 means its a pre production prototype ?

Yes
109 versions

(Edit. It was a test-aircraft in Rechlin)

the V15a was the second pre production 'prototype' of the 109E series, yes.
And as you see in the chart. the DB601 engine lacked power - around 200PS were 'missing' (hence the graph 'Geschwindigktn. bei garantierter Motorleistung')
Daimler Benz pointed different reasons for it - different test were made to overcome the proplems. Unfortunatly 'Radinger & Schick' 109 Book does not know the results of these tests and the choosen solution to solve the proplem.

good to know....the FMs definitely need to be tuned.
i think that there is a major consensus that all of the planes are undermodeled except the spitII.at least the majority of the community seems to be of that opinion, including myself.

one interesting situation i had today on atag server....i flew one sortie which lasted over more than one hour with the E1.it was really immersive...i took of with max fuel and flew pretty careful, knowing that im pretty heavy with that load.at the time when i left France and headed to England, i spottet a Wellington.it was a single plane and the gunners didnt shoot at me when i began a shallow dive on it...so i assumed it to be flown by a human.at the right distance i gave a 2 to 3seconds burst on the right wing and the engine caught fire.it also took a few hits on the rudder and finally it spiraled down from 2k straight into the channel in front of the french shoreline

....then i continued my flight to england.over the airfield west of dover i saw a spit approaching slightly above my alt directly towards me(so its heading was exact the opposite of mine)...i decided not to climb immediately, with the result that my oponent didnt see me.i stayed a little longer in level flight until we passed each other. i watched the spit, and it stayed on its course, so i proceeded a really slow immelmann, to gain as much altitude as possible while changing direction....i climbed until a stall, which was recovered quickly.then the hunt began.
the first burst hit its wings and didnt really damage it.i was expecting to see a really hard turn so i zoomed away, but realised that my oponent didnt really want to survive and only pulled turns, which i was sure that i could follow.so i dived again, and this time stayed on his six.looking at his behaviour, i gained confidence to win the fight, so my hand remained calm while i shot really well-aimed bursts at his engine and cockpit, until he went down in flames....i almost smelled the other spit which gained vicinity on me...i knew i was down low and lost speed as well due to the turns i made, so i hit the Notleistung, closed the rads as much as possible without overheating and focused on my rpms only adjusting with the pp...the spit couldnt follow my slight climb at 400kph, but it managed to damage my left aileron.when i realised that i was out of immediate danger, i took a short look at the left and right, to see if i was loosing any liquid.i was happy that my crate seemed to be leakproof and the gauges showed its normal values...so i turned slightly to the right, to gain sight on my pursuer, staying in a shallow climb.when i considered myself to be in the better energie condition, i began a really steep climb and turned right, pulling my nose slowly towards the hunter....but at that point the tables were already turned, and the hunter was suddenly the prey.this spit turned hard so i boomed and zoomed and finally i had my revenge when he bailed out....
at this time i decided to fly home, considering that my aileron was damaged and that i shot the wingpositioned mgs empty at my second fight of the sortie.so i crossed the channel at 3k.when i was half way home, i saw a black silhouette heading from france to england, certainly 500meters above me.it was far away and i couldnt identify the UFO, so i zoomed in....it was a hurri.
first i thought it didnt spot me, so i banked right and began to climb, when i suddenly saw that it began to loop,followed by half a roll.it did spot me, and now it had the advantage.i immediately pushed the stick as hard as possible to dive,but that wasnt enough.he gained on me although i already had 700kph and feared to loose my wings(i heard that with this beta beta patch it is indeed possible to loose wings, but didnt encounter it myself yet), so i slowly pulled the stick and hit the Notleistung while listening to the scary noises my plane made at this state(love the new sounds!) when i leveled out, i could see that the hurri was at a greater distance again but still at higher alt, and after a few seconds it came closer and took a few hits at my rads...he really wanted me to go down.and everytime i tried to gain only a little altitude,he came closer.so it was a row of slight climbs and dives and really wide turns trying to escape his rounds.this pursuit lastet certainly 10 minutes, and i feared that my engine could stop every second until i finally managed to be at the same height and same speed.i then pulled the stick until i climbed vertically and focused on my rpms, to get the most out of it(seems to be a successful manouver against british fighters except the spitII) until the nose tilted towards the ground again.now i had the advantage again, but i had to make a decision...going home safely or hunt that bastard and letting him know that i wasnt easy meat.

i looked again at my rads, and they stopped leaking(do the tanks and other systems which carry liquid have the ability of self-sealing?) and also the gauges still showed an healthy engine, so i decided to earn another kill marking.meanwhile we both have drifted to the far west of the map near the english coast.when he realised that he lost his advantage, he headed back east to the airfield near Dover in a shallow dive.i was expecting to catch him, but that didnt happen.slowly but continuously he became harder to spot....he outdived me,... i have to confess slowly, but nevertheless he managed to do so.
he finally crashlanded on the airfield, because he approached too fast and lost his landing gear....normally i dont do that, but in this situation i decided to give him a short burst, just to let him know that he didnt win that fight.so i hit his fuselage with a few bullets and then finally went home to france.

after i landed safely, i thought that this sortie was certainly the best flightsim expirience i have ever had.really immersive, full of tension,fear and relief.
i lighted a cigarette and thanked my oponent for that really hard fight.unfortunately he didnt answer, propably because he doesnt have the chatbar opened.after the sortie it would have been really cool to be able to have a look at my plane from an outside view.

what im trying to say with this really long post, is that the FMs really need to be reworked.while i had no problem to outrun the spits, the hurri was as fast as me.in real level flight, without loosing any alt,and without WEP i can get the E1 and E3 to 460kph(since the latest beta beta patch i dont use the E4 anymore because of its bugged pp)
i dont claim to be an ace, but im confident with the handling of the bfs.i know how to get the most out of them, and manage to slowly outrun most of my comrades up in the air due to correct rpm,oil and water rads and pp settings.
it doesnt happen often, but this sortie was the second time, that a hurri gained on me while i tried to escape.
it is definitely possible that a good hurri pilot can get as fast as one in a bf.

Nice details, but... broken off on the right wing. I flew home and landed. :rolleyes:

i dont know on what you are exactly refering to, but if its a gramar mistake, i have to apologize.
english isnt my mothertongue and i expect mistakes in this long post of mine.

Indeed some really good info here. If I am correct in my interpretation, it would seem the Spit IIa conforms within the +/- 5% with regard to speed at alt. The 109 seems to be out of range regarding speed and falls short of its proper maximum limits at various altitudes.

Would that be a correct analogy? If so, I agree that having a correctly modeled a/c flying against ones that are currently not modeled correctly, inappropriate and unnecessary. Unnecessary because there are great virtual pilots among us who can fight extremely well with what planes they have available, be it at a disadvantage or not, and still come out with victory, or in a defeat, a hard fought battle that both victor and vanquished can say "good fight mate, white knuckle all the way".

I am looking forward to having the a/c fine tuned for performance. In the mean time, flying the 109, Spit variants and the Hurricane with a great bunch of people, I am still having fun and learning quite a bit about each a/c's pro's and con's.

Keep the info coming gents, I love reading and learning about these era fighters and the men who flew them.

Cheers

Whiskey

Auszüge aus Flugzeugdatenblatt Bf 109 E-1, E-3 nach L.Dv.556/3
http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil.html

Official documentation for production 109Es is trash. Right, got you.

1.) V0 = 467 km/h
2.) V0 = 467 km/h Werte graphisch
3.) V0 = 467 km/h auf 0 m bezogen!
4.) V0 = 466 km/h

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...MP16feb39.html

Strange that you would ignore other data on Barbi's site.

Here we go again...done and done and done to death

Please OP use the search function m8 your find all the info you need because as you can see this thread will now turn into a flame war on whos right and whos wrong

i just made another test with the E1.
i really focused that i stay in real level flight without loosing or gaining alt.
first test was at 3k:i stayed for ten minutes at 3k as close as i could get, only variying about +/-5meters in height.
the E1 reached its max speed at 440-445kph without WEP.

second test at 500m:again for ten minutes as close as possible in level flight.
max speed at 450-455kph

so that the E1 is faster at low alt which shouldnt be the case.

IAS to TAS.

top speeds are measured in TAS, are you going by the instruments in the cockpit, if so, you've got IAS

at SL IAS and TAS are roughly equal depending in atmospheric pressure, at 3K TAS will be higher than IAS.

PS, i love how all the Blues are going on about how the 109 is nerfed, don't see much mention of the spit1 and 1a from the same folks, despite them being even more nerfed, lol. Give the spit1a is proper prop, its a bob sim not battle of france.

See june 25 entry.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...conversion.gif

I am the original poster, and if you had read this thread carefully, you would have noticed I asked for factual, documented information regarding this issue for comparison, the search function did not provide such information (as stated before as well) just opinions and virtual simulation experiences. Now, this thread contains some great documentation to back up performance issues for all a/c within the game (from various sources).

I did not ask for a flame war, fact only backed up with information. A flame war would be beyond my control and request.

Whiskey

All this speeds are not max. speeds!

Those speeds are measured with 1.3 ata, Steig/Kampfleistung.

Max. speed is reached with 1.4 ata, Notleistung f. 1min. to get separation from a enemy.

Where are the measurements for the real max.speed when flying 460 at sea level and then starting to use WEP?

Also on the rolfwolf site it says: max. allowed horizontal velocity 485 km/h! Is that a joke?

yes i measure by the instruments, cause i dont know another way in this game.
well i only fly "blue" planes in this game, so i dont really know how to fly a spit or the hurri correctly, therefore the outcome wouldnt reflect the reality of the game.but why dont you do it by yourself and let us know the result.

btw i never stated that the other planes are modeled correctly.if you read my post on the last page, you would know that im of the opinion that all planes except the spitII are undermodeled.

i wasn't talking about you mate.

Don't know if its the same as in il2, cause i've never flown with cockpit off in Clod, but in the old il2 flying wonderwomen use to give you a TAS readout.

for the record i fly both sides evenly, cause i don't see the point in depriving myself half the game. never understood that mentality, but thats me.

dont know either because of the same reason.
Edit:
well i tried both sides in 1946, and began flying with spits.
i played with the spitIX 25lbs and became successful pretty fast...until someone said that this plane is a "noobplane" which is extremely overmodeled and a kill therefore is nothing to be proud of.
so i decided to try the "dark" side.i realised really fast that it was almost impossible to fight that plane in a g2, but although i got killed many many times, when i actually killed someone in this spit, the kill was really rewarding...so i stayed in the g2 whenever it was available and tried to learn the ropes of it.
i began to love this plane and the way you have to fight with it.

as cliffs of dover was released i expected accurate flightmodels and therefore really hard fights with those different planes of both sides, but supposedly pretty equally dangerous.so i decided to stay on the dark side and learn all the tactics which lead to success against the beautiful british planes.
unfortunately all the planes are undermodeled...except the spitII
and they arent undermodeled equally....the spitI is slower than the hurri which is really strange.

pah, i love the 109 up to and including the f4 (my fav ride in il2), then its Fw190 all the way for the dark side, lol!

although that siad, i do have a soft spot for the G10.

anyway re Clod, I agree that all of the fighters to some degree are undermodelled except the SpitII, and would like to see this rectified.

at the moment its the Spit MkI thats the most undermodelled imo, save for Dunkirk the 2 stage pitch is just plain wrong, and then there's the boost/fuel.....

Anyway, i guess we should all wait to see what 1c do, as has been pointed out that they are aware of the situation.

I want them to all be modelled correctly (both sides), and it should then be a really close match for either side where the pilot will determine the result, not pure plane advantage.

Trouble is, some will never be quite satisfied, because there are reports for both sides that are slightly out of the ordinary that people will cherry pick to push there own agenda.

G2 is an awesome plane is Il2 m8

Spoilsport

:popcorn:

Oh, nothing wrong with what you wrote, i agree with it. The FMs really need to be reworked. I just wrote, because the cooling water is interesting, but until a broken wing is not a fatal damage, what can we expect at all the other damage :rolleyes:? Maybe not a big deal, but I was stunned :(

looking a few pages back at the figures posted for in game speeds and percentage they are off from r/l, is this something that is reproduced by a wide number of competent pilots, as in what's the sample size? anyone got figures/speeds outside those ranges posted?

no, it's surely not, considering I made just a quick test a few months ago in a Spit Ia and it behaved exactly as advertised in a real performance graph. That was at a time where those people here had a major rant about why they couldn't reproduce the plane's max speed (as in absolute max) at sea level resp. "at about 1000 feet". Well, they've got that figured out as of now but I wouldn't exactly think of them as test pilots...

109s must be banned on all the servers as they outturn even Hurri. Proved now.
(the gunsight is a track recording bug and I am not the driver)

What is the historical 109 turnrate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G5Be...layer_embedded

/trolling mode off :)

Yes, track recording works online now.

Where can I find these figures for 109-E4 please?

"What is the historical 109 turnrate?" .... same problem as always it depends whose data you believe !. It also depends on how the turn is being flown in each aircraft. You after Sustained or instantaneous ?

These charts are reasonable for sustained turn performance:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

Spit V 109 Turn times.

Hi. Who was the pilot of a Hurricane? He said what? Which systems is damaged, when he got the first hit? After that the speed at which he could turn to? He was able to keep the corner speed? Does it make sense to compare after that?

When we practicing on own server, the Hurricane does not seem a bad aircraft. It would be nice, if these "proofs" repeated under controlled conditions, for example on a 1v1 map...? It is possible...? :rolleyes:

That is an interesting chart, IvanK, but a bit difficult to read as the time scale is logarithmic.

The tendency is that in terms of turn rates full circle both planes were quite close with perhaps a very small advantage for the spit (perhaps 2s as absolut max generously estimated optically. Would have to print it out and measure it to be more precise) at medium velocities. The spit will rule at slow speeds. For high velocities theres a minor advantage for the 109 in terms of turn rate.

Far from ignored, just not relevant. That info does nothing more than prove that the difference between cannon and mg wing guns is negligible, and that the max speed at 1.3 ata is around 470kph.
So what is it at 1.35, or even better the MAX speed using the 1.42 emergency setting...Ill bet its closer to 490, unless you believe that the max speed wouldn't change with more power.
We are talking about MAX speed, right?

But I find your attitude even stranger.
See, this is the part of this site that I thought we were going to avoid in this thread. You act like you've got a dog in this fight, when were doing nothing more than comparing notes.
IvanK got on here and posted the same info, and more of it, but wasn't a snide little troll when he did it. In that way he came off as a professional and someone worth listening to.
You, not so much. I'm sorry to see that civil discussion is something you have not mastered.

And hypocritical to boot, you would chide me for ignoring information that you (erroneously) believe supports your point, while dismissing what I bring to the fore.

Now, perhaps we can continue this discussion in less derisive manner?

Id also like to add that I am amazed that with this exception the discussion here has been as informative and civil as it has been, lets hope it catches on around here! :grin:

Truely Id like to see them all modeled correctly. No point in a sim if they aren't!

Have you got a good IAS to TAS converter link? On the phone now, cant search...

Kudos to you on flying both sides, I'm simply not interested in any British aircraft prior to the tempest.

well when my left aileron was hit, it lost maybe about a third of its surface(only of the aileron), and i immediately could feel the decreased rollrate,so that is modeled correctly i think....regarding the damaged rads....im not really sure what was hit,...but i lost liquid for a short period.it didnt last long until my plane seemed to be leakproof again.

regarding the turn rate of the bf...i know that is no evidence and im not an expert on these matters, but i recently watched an interesting docu on history channel where a former german fighter pilot states that the early bfs were really agile planes which could follow a turn of the spits in certain conditions for a certain time.he also stated that the spits were overall better turners, but that expierenced pilots knew how and when they were able to follow a turn and shoot the enemy.i found it interesting that he also said that he was dissapointed by the late g models cause they became too heavy to be used as turn fighters.

Exactly. The notleistung 20% extra power would not cause any acceleration (only up to 10 km/h)? Nonsense.

http://www.enginehistory.org/German/DB/Chart01.jpg
source: www.enginehistory.com

Those curves are contestable regarding how the both planes shld hve performed:
- first: on the ground of the knowledge of both nation at the time of the test/calculation (1940)
- Secondly : on the base of the contradictions that a modern analysis would tell us

First pt : If British engineer in 1940 had let an elliptical winged (EW) fighter be the most advanced defense they had allowed to be put on the frontline, for sure they were not aware of the advance Germans had made in that grounds. Remind that EW are the panacea only when dealing with inviscid flows etc... etc... Look at max Cl of both plane, max Pow and wing loading.

I know that I can be annoying but those value and the fact that the wing thickness of the spit is lower tell us that there SHLD be an inversion in turn radius as the speed decrease. in other terms the spit shld turn tighter at high speed but hve a greater radius of turn when the speed is low.

In other words they couldn't hve found any other value as their assumptions were made on false grounds.

What do you mean by the term 'tighter'? Degrees per second or radius?

Sounds counter intuitive to me.

It's a rather long reply needed here indeed.

I think I did alrdy give an answer.

To make it short here :
1st we are talking of turn radius as we are dealing with cte speed turn
2nd it's almost certain that at much of the speed range the SPit had an instant turn speed greater than the 109 as here Wing area rules (at comparable wingspan, nose authority etc.. etc... )
3rd at cte speed, the drag generated by the wing in a turn attitude (AoA) and power to weight ratio are the keys. Simple calculation give you a result dependent only of Wing surface and Power to weight ratio as they are based on simpler theory that does not apply to high speed fighter and high G ( high AoA) turns.

In their calculation they are in effect minoring the drag of the Spit wing.

I must admit that I had some difficulties reading the graph in terms of turn radius at it seemed to me that whatever g-line I regarded both spit and 109 would have had approximately the same turn radius. As this is probably not true I dismissed my way of reading the chart with respect to turn radius.

My guess anyhow is that what is of importance in the chart IvanK posted is the turn time for a full circle. According to IvanK's chart the turn rate between the spit and the 109 is pretty close. This does not say anything about turn radius.

If somebody could help be decypher the chart wrt turn radius I'd be happy to listen.

How to read the chart :

Choose a speed for a plane -> then select your G level / bank angle - > read the time to 360° *-> then compare to the other plane

*You can also read the nearest dotted line that give you the nearest computed radius but as the speed V=d/t if you hve V (cte) and t then d is alrdy in your hands

Alternatively you can follow a firm line that stand for a level turn (cte height) -> you can then see how much G/ bank angle is needed at a given speed for a given plane and what wld be the radius of turn.

The chart is one of the earliest plan Fan plots (or "Dog house plot" in US terms) that I have seen. As such its straight Energy Manoeuvrability theory that is Excess Power (ps) applied to the turning problem. As such it takes into account the total Airframe engine combination so Wing loading,planform,wing section etc is part and parcel of plot. The actual RAE derivation of these charts is discussed in great detail in AVIA 6/2366 RAE report "Notes on the dogfight" A more detailed version of the Spit fan plot chart from this report is shown below. In this case the study also takes into account various extrapolated wing areas and therefore wing loading etc.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2973/turnsmall.jpg

I dont agree that their assumptions were made on false grounds. Everything I have read in these reports indicates to me that the boffins doing this work were really on top of their game. Here is some of the data they were using in this report obtained from a physical specimen BF109E3:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7...9aerdydata.jpg

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2...109aileron.jpg

The USN also produced a comprehensive study on turn performance on the F2B (Buffalo) that is equally involved and again is based on straight out EM theory applied to the turn problem and again chock full of fan plots.

Here is another chart from the same source source document as the original Fan plot came from (AVIA 5/2394 "Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests" which is a pretty exhaustive 63 page document. This chart provides similar data to the fan plot but perhaps in a more easily digestible format as both Spitfire and 109 plots are overlayed on the same chart.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4445/turn2y.jpg

Thanks for posting IvanK, really interesting stuff.:grin:

Resumee:

The Spit has a turn radius of 700 ft (about 215m) and the 109 slightly below 900 ft (275 m). The turn rate is at medium and high speed similar (slight advantage for spit at medium speed, tendency vice-versa for high speed). Good advantage for spit at low speed. Altitude loss higher for 109 during full circle (nearly 0 for spit at medium speed, 5° for 109 at medium speed)

Does not feel that way in game ...

no it doesnt I fly the spitIa and the 109s keep in a turn at medium speed the spit can not out turn them. or instant climb like the 109s E4s.

In truth you need to realize that you piloting ability, or lack there of, are more likely the reason why you cant conquer the 109's.

You in game experience simply does not hold up to numbers, so if you have some charts post them, please! Otherwise your "The 109's are sooo much better than me" just show your a bad pilot.

How do you know he is a bad pilot? How would you react if you were told that you were a bad pilot because you cannot deal with a Spit Mk2? Pretty sure you would jump on the FM differences and state your case based on evidence but be a tad annoyed that someone simply tells you to fly better.

The current Spit Mk1a is not right in its specification or its FM. If people are discussing these issues then it is more constructive to debate them rather than impy posters are incompetent. It makes posters feel that their opinion is worthless on a baseless assumption. Piloting skills arguments are valid but not always helpful when used almost as an insult - hopefully you didn't mean to imply it in that sense.

The Clod Spit Mk1a is very capable at altitude and handles beautifully but the Bfs have had a lot of goodies in previous patches. Spit Mk1 jockeys are still stuck with a 'Boost Cut Out' that does nothing, a top speed of 245mph, a two speed prop and debatable Neg G modelling.

Id respond by posting a graph showing the under-modeled nature of the 109E-4.
Wait a minute...:grin:

And I agree that EVERYTHING in the game needs to have its FM reworked, including the current inaccurate Spits.

I don't know him or his abilities, whats more is that without something to back his opinion its pointless.
I mean how many times have we seen this in the past with IL2?
"Aircraft A is over-modeled because when I'm flying aircraft B it shoots me down every time!"
....:confused:

Really though, what worth is an opinion if you don't have any data to base it off of?

Trying to base the truth of an FM off of "Well it cant be right because I cant shoot them down in game" is ludicrous.
Saying that an aircraft is under-modeled in regard to a certain aspect (say 109E's top speed?) and then posting technical information showing the difference from the accepted in game performance of that aircraft is another thing entirely.

Now I did ask him to post his evidence, or something at all that backs his claim because were after the truth here, right?

And I have to admit I took a short temper with him because of his other "The 109 is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO uber!" threads. its just annoying.
Sorry for any offense, none intended.

It's Ok bud, I get a bit defensive regards the Spit v BF arguments, so apolgies if I over reacted to your post. I am sure you meant well.....

I do the same, trust me.
I think both of our favorite aircraft need new FM's!

Guys are you even reading the charts IvanK hve just posted ? Those are great stuff and real dynamite.

Before complaining abt the lack of boost on the spit pls do start to question yourself about how the Spit is turning (indefinitely level) in game and hold E.

Regarding the neg G cut-out, I think it has been extensively debated to the point that it s rather insulting to read that it has not been modeled in a real (and honest ) manner.

Damn, we even hve a video of a latter model itching the camera while flying upside down: : pump up the volume and L.I.S.T.E.N by yourself !

Tomcat, I stated the Neg G is 'debatable' which means it may be correct or it may be incorrect - hence the discussion. The other aspects of FM I pointed out with the Mk1 are incorrect for that model/timeperiod and, on many servers,
the only Spit in the Plane set.

You seem to have an issue with the Spit, that's OK, some posters have issues with the BFs but that's not OK?

Read my post....(the Spit Mk1 is very capable at altitude and handles beautifully) I do not feel at a disadvantage against any of the BF's even with its current modelling but that does not mean it is correct either. The Boost data for the Spit Mk1 has been extracted from the FM file....it adds 0.002 Ibs/sq ...are you seriousley telling me that is correct or a signicant figure?

+1 to David198502 last post.

The problem with Me performance numbers

Case: Bf.109E

"Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual. It was then flown against a brand new Spitfire with a 1940 engine. As shown by the test data, the turns were made in the 120mph range which is too slow for the 109 slats to be deployed, which doesn't compare the maximum turning abilities of each aircraft."

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...s/#testflights

I HVE NO ISSUE WITH THE SPIT. Pls bear that in mind. I want that sim to be real and not an ego contest with Ninja planes. Think about you hvn't eared me criticizing the hurri.

I am not trying to impose my view. I think that talking abt the subject is interesting and in no way do I feel perso implicated in "one side or another".

I wld be pleased to fly the Spit as soon its FM won't look likes anymore that of a flying carpet.

I am only stating that as the drag is contestable (the E retention) pointing the way it turn in the sim, the Boost can't be accurate or this plane will zoom or accelerate like an F16.

In other words : let them fix the FM and then I guess that the boost restraint will be lifted.

If you fly the hurri you'd see that the boost is already a joke (infinite time, extra cooling...). But as the hurri drag and E seems to be correctly modeled, it does not give it surrealistic perfs (just optimistic ones).

I guess you can't do that on the spit as it is for now

Last but not least, it has been shown that the 12lb boost can't be what it is seen by some here (we shld speak here more abt a "WunderBoost")

Points taken Tomcat...no arguments with your last post.

It does seem odd that the devs state in the patch notes ' for Spits, 'boost cut out' can now be enabled/disabled' - what they don't say is that it does sweet FA!.....:grin:

""Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual. It was then flown against a brand new Spitfire with a 1940 engine. As shown by the test data, the turns were made in the 120mph range which is too slow for the 109 slats to be deployed, which doesn't compare the maximum turning abilities of each aircraft."

Of course the old clapped out engine theory will be presented. The data is the best available and is presented as is. I am not sure about the clapped out bit either. that is a readers assumption, and is not reflected in the report which is very thorough.

as to the slat comment ... The original author shows a fundamental lack of basic aerodynamic knowledge. Slat deployment is a function of AOA. The Slats deploy at a specific AOA every time not at an IAS. The AOA remains the same and IAS at which the slats deploy will vary as a function of G .... BUT ALWAYS AT THE SAME AOA. But the corker is the bit " the turns were made in the 120mph range which is too slow for the 109 slats to be deployed" ... you are not serious surely ! Think about it Slats are High AOA slow speed regime devices they are more likely to deploy at the slower speed (i.e. higher AOA).

For the record here are the 1G slat deployment speeds as found by the RAE in AVIA 6/2394 Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests. Its worth noting a 9Mph diff between the ASI reading and the trailing static source.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7641/slats.jpg

Hmm, Werknummer 1034s engine problems (seems lubrication related) are documented in both French trial reports and RR reports. Its noteworthy that already in French trials the plane was loosing boost at altitude for some reason - I suspect French lubricants did not go well with the DB engines hydraulic supercharger clutch. But that's besides the point, because the British did not measure turn times for the 109E in flight tests, nor they did measure times for the Spitfire either.

The doghouse charts you presented are inidrectly based on stall speed measurements of the Spitfire. Now, those long enough to remember Ubi there were a number of threads discussing the difficulties of defining and measuring stall speeds, so there is a degree of potential inaccuracy with this base data already. From the established stall speeds of the Spitifre, they estimated its lift coefficient; they used this estimate to guesstimate the 109's lift coefficient. These guesstimates were used to calculate the doghouse charts you presented, using known power curves.

In short, they are calculated estimates with a bit shaky base data.

As to Bf 109E turn times, these are known from German/Mtt calculations, and are given as 18.92 secs for a sustained turn at 0m altitude using 990 PS or 1.3ata output of the DB 601A. (note British guesstimate is for 12k feet so the figures are not directly comparable).

As to Bf 109E(-1, -3, -4) performane in the sim, I note that in the early versions of COD the 109E just can't go past around 460 using 1.35ata, whereas the actual specifications for the type gives top speed as 500 kph at SL and 570 kph at critical altitude, with plus/minus 5% tolerance on production aircraft (so actual production aircraft fell between ca. 545 - 595 kph). Can it now reach its specs in the new beta patch?

The aileron up/down travel angle for the 109E is very interesting though - it seems the F-K increased the travel angle a lot (and changed to Frise type ailerons), though I wonder why. Better control response times, even though the E was already noted as brisk for aileron control response?

Anyway for a reality check with a new patch I always use to try if I can break the Spitty in two by madly pulling back the stick, something that would be suicidal in the real one with a stick force of a mere 4 lbs / G. It isn't possible in the sim. In fact, I did nto manage to break any aircraft in the sim, no wonder what stupid maneuvers I tried.

The increased aileron travel for the F to K series might be at least partially to counter the increased roll inertia and roll drag with the curved wingtips (hence longer wingspan).

But interesting post, Kurfurst.

I dunno about the doghouse chart and how they produced it but don't you think that they at least verified their method by test flying the Spit?

Has anyone made a test about turn times as implemented in game?