Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109
 

Why play red at all?

I was just in a dog fight online in a IIa getting boomed and zoomed by a 109 - he had 30 - 40% more lift and speed on me on every sweep past and he just flew away from me everytime. Seriously, there is no way that is historically correct. I am an ok pilot, I know about energy etc, but the 109 is such a better plane in this sim now, there is no point trying to fly in a dogfight 1 on 1 if you're in a spit.

The 109's are the only planes that didnt get spanked in the new patch, what the hell is that all about???

Not to mention the 109's just fly away when the do run out of ammo, and the spits cant even get close to catching them.

Honestly It kills the game, why play red at all, if the 109s continue to be so much better, pilots will go somewhere else, leaving nothing but blue planes on their own.

Actually most fighters in CLoD ( 109, SPit, Hurricane) had wrong performacne and some got bugs in flight models which need revsion. Spitfire MK II had the most accurate performacne (speed, climb) but it is only modeled for 87 octan fuel - + 9lbs when should be modeled at 100 Octan fuel and +12 lbs emergency.

Well the spits can sure keep up with my E4 and they still can turn like a biplane so I am going to call BS on this.

This is called height advantage you would be able to do exactly the same thing to him if you had more height than him :roll:.

Actually the Spit 1A is now quite a good plane. I know its not up to the 109 standard but its night and day compared to before the patch. I think the SPit IIA still needs some work though. Keep in mind if the 109 pilot was maintaining his E after engaging with more E you wouldnt have had a chance and this is the way it should be. The one with more E potential will normally win a battle. Whether that be speed or alt, or even worse, both! Which he most likely had. Best thing you can do is a split S on one of his zooms and try and extend and escape to friendly cover if possible!

Surviving in WWII combat wasnt about having big balls of steel and going it alone and taking on an enemy with an advantage. Better to fight with at least a wingman or an element flight group if you want a chance to survive combat. Thats what Teamspeak is for! ;)

If a Spit can keep up with your E-4 you are doing it wrong. Sorry but your fanboyism is not going to cover up the GINORMOUS performance gap between the 109's and Spits.

Is there any proof of that? This thread is all about opinions but no proof, from both sides. Any video's, accurate testing reports or anything?

Err what fanboyism... just telling it how I see it. A spit is slower than it should be but it still can turn much better than a 109 from what I have read it is ridiculous, sure the spit is the better turner but not THAT much better...

Yeah he actually had less e than me at the start, one swoop and he was above me, and it was game over after that. Oh and as for running away, no chance - the 109 can catch a spit II like it's standing still!

I agree about teamwork and all that, but it shouldnt be so heavily weighted to the 109's. If a 109 pilot is good, he could play in ATAG all day without ever being in danger of getting shot down. All they need do is boom, zoom then run away -there is no counter for this for the allied pilots.

I'm a blue pilot, but I flew a couple of hours on ATAG as a red one just to test the new FM's. I had several dogfights on the Spit IIa with 109's and never lost one. I have indeed reversed tables regularly when attacked by surprise from behind, with the automagical Spit no-E-loss-1 barrel-roll maneuver. In horizontal there is no way a Spit could loose, in vertical it's slightly more difficult but still feasible. The 30-40% more lift and speed is a very inaccurate estimate, IMO, in a 1 vs 1 the Spit IIa has better chances than the 109. This matches my experience on the 109, the Spit IIa is still a superior plane in co-E 1 vs 1.

I friendly suggest you to fly a 109 and go against the Spit II, just to make yourself an idea.

Cheers!

Mate, turning is irrelevant - if you can climb better and fly faster, then you shouldnt ever get tagged. The 109 is far superior in almost any way. The turning difference is most likely due to the fact that the 109 is always going so much faster, so it seems like the spit turns better - truth is the slower object will always have the tighter turning circle - the difference you speak of is caused because the 109 is so much quicker!

Mate I disagree, sure a good spit pilot can beat a poor 109er, but two good pilots, the 109 will dominate every time. All the 109 needs to do is boom and zoom and let their cannons get 1-shot 1 kills as they most often do. The spit is a sitting duck to a booming and zooming 109.

Sry to say but SPit MkI or Mk II wasnt slowier then 109 E it was rather opposite. With 100 Octan fuel it was faster at low alts then 109. 109 had litlle adventage in higher alts.

Again, from my direct hands-on experience this is not true. In a sustained turn the Spit IIa catches the 109 in a couple of 360's. Give the 109 a try and you will see, I really advise you to try it.
Another strange advantage of the Spit is the unrealistic roll rate at high speed, I was really surprised by this. In barrel rolls this was lethal for my poor 109 opponent ... LOL!

On speed: I followed a 109 hurrying for his life at low alt, and I was slowly gaining on him, but what made me slow down was the fear of damaging the engine, which in the 109 never happens. In the Spit you risk to blow the governor and engine in few minutes if you push it to the extreme for too longtime. That a disadvantage.

Cheers!

Cheers!

Thanks for clearing that up Insuber by the way your luftwhiner :rolleyes: ;)

So basically the red guys want there UFO spit back LMAO!

+1

All in all the 109 is totally inferior to the IIa with the exception of slightly higher topspeed. Make the IIa faster and we have the same BS we had when fighting 109 against a IIa before the patch.

Winger

*
I think if one or the other was so superior to the other the results (scores in real live) should have let us seen a real margin in favour of one or the other and it did not. This 3 planes Spitfire, Hurricane and BF109 where very close and each had is qualities and if the pilots how flew them could use them the pilots where the victor of their encounters. Most important than the machines are the men inside them. During WW2 if the planes had performances not to far away from each other the numbers of planes and numbers but also the quality (training) of pilots did the rest. In 1940 the RAF pilots had in the beginning a little disadvantage in numbers and training but the fighter command did close that gap. The Nazis never did invade the UK! This is history and you may put many if in it you cannot change this.
:!:

You are right. But this holds true for any plane: B&Z means that one has an alt advantage and keeps it with clever maneuvering, while the lower plane can't build up his E because he must dodge the slashing dives by turning tight.
When I did so against a Spit II I found that my 109 used to bleed E more quickly, and the Spit succeeded sometimes to build up enough E to oblige me to leave the field. The Spit II is a very tough opponent, and you have chances only when:

1. lots of E more + some good initial shots on controls
2. surprise attacks from his 6, only if he has the closed canpy and low sounds volume :-)

But that's my opinion mate!

Okay that's it you have had your 100 octane discussion it is time for the blue to have there own magical fuel.

If the red get 100 octane then the blues should get the E4/N and 100 octane aka the C-2 fuel.

Happy now :-P

I think guys like you split people for red or blue ones and i understand that you never will be objective like every fanboy of his toy. Such people only make not nessesery mess here.

Im glad that i like to fly all these birds no metter of side. But im know that im in huge minoriy.

Sure i will be happy with E-4/N too even it was very rare plane in BOB and it doesnt change too much in low level speed for 109 but mostly at higher alts if you know :)

Err i fly both sides, I want realistic FM's so don't try and label me with your own tar fanboy.

Lets repeat that I FLY BOTH RED AND BLUE I LOVE BOTH THE SPIT AND 109, AT PRESENT I JUST HAPPEN TO FLY BLUE.

Ive had quite a few hours in the new patch and noticed the optimum turning speed is pretty realistic in both of the Spits.

Its about 270Km/h for maximum corner angle, if you can get the 109 to drop his speed below this low enough and the advantage clearly goes to the spit IIA down to a point but if he maintains his speed, even though you might be pulling harder and slower, he will turn faster, quite a bit faster if there's a big differential in speed!

If the 109 pilot isnt just yanking on the stick and maintains his speed he will get you if you dont maintain 270km/h

If I remember correctly the corner speed of the early 109 E3 is slightly higher by 10Km/h.
Edit... yep just checked..

If your doing say 200Km/h and he maintains 235Km/h he has the turn advantage by 2 secs which is enough to get off a snap shot from the cannon!

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/...w/turnrate.jpg

Spitfire Mark II was not cleared for +12 lbs boost during the Battle of Britain, apart for takeoff. For combat flying at all but the lowest altitudes, +9 lbs was allowed, with 100 octane fuel.

So the current +9 lbs performance is correct, regardless of fuel type.

Hey Kurfürst quick question obviously you have a lot of knowledge on the 109, so my question is if the spits get the 100 octane fuel do you believe we should get the Me 109 E4/N and C-2 fuel?

all i can say to that topic....we are still far from accurate flight models on both sides....the 109 is still too slow, and the prop pitch de- increases too slow as well.

the spitsIa are too slow as well...and yeah all planes above 6k are crap right now with this engine.
after the patch, i imediately went online, and have flown a couple of sorties, and i was of the impression, that the spits suddenly werent able to outturn me anymore.im a 109driver...
but this was only,because the pilots i outturned, made obviously many mistakes during their turns.i think since the beta patch, using rudder correctly has more impact on airspeed now, than it had before the patch.if you dont use it correctly, you will lose speed more quickly.
so my first few fights after the patch, were really easy for me.i had a bit alt advantage,dived on them,went into a tight turn,and shot em down during the first 180degrees.if i missed, i relaxed the pressure on the stick,and climbed again to come back again.but those poor pilots just continued to turn horizontal.so it was really easy to maintain energy advantage.
then i had some fights with obviously good pilots, where i really had to struggle to keep the upper hand.
but the interesting part is, that all the easy kills were spitIIa's.i think the problem now is, that red pilots who used to fly the spitIIa, arent used to focuse on maintaining energy yet.before the patch, it was really hard even against a average pilot in a spitIIa, but now, things are more even.
during the last year, i had all kind of fights against spits.some were really easy, and one could tell after a few seconds, that the pilot isnt going to be a thread.
and then there were fights, if the pilot had skills, where i really had to struggle, and had to fly disciplined, only boom and zoom tactics.as soon as i went into a turn,the spit gained on me.

so against good pilots, a 109 is not at all far superior.it has its advantages and disadvantages.

That's a very unfortunate post of you Kwiatek as you completely misunderstood my interventions. I never plead for unrealistic FM, I just reported my direct experience on the new FMs of both planes. Btw I support the request for the 100 octane / 12 lbs boost, and I voted for that in the bug tracker. Call it fanboyism ... bah!!!

Not exacly correct beacuse there is not possible to apply +12 lbs in Clod SPit II even only at take off up to 1000 ft (300m) or 3 minutes rating like manual clamied. So still not accurate even for 100 Octan fuel modeling.

Hi Krupi,


The E-4/N was present in the Battle in similar small numbers with units as the Mark II Spitfire, so if there's a Spitfire II, I think there should be an E-4/N too.

I've collected the evidence here, where you can turn the devs attention to it too by voting:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200

IMHO the devs should model an E-7/N, which would be re-usable for any 1941 scenario, like North Africa or the Moscow map. Performance wise its identical anyway to the E-4/N.

However I am far more concerned about the 110s lacking 100 octane fuel, when about half of their were using it since the start of the Battle, so its just outright silly that we do not have them. Its like not having Hurricanes or something.

Even more importantly, 100 octane and the DB 601N engine associated with it gave a huge boost to 110 performance, the normal DB 601A variant with 87 octane fuel had a max. speed of around 520 km/h, as fast as the Hurricane, but the one with 100 octane and DB 601N should do around 550 km/h practically as fast as Spits. It would really make the 110 an interesting alternative to fly as a fighter.

It wasnt for your post but someone like JG52Krupi ;)

I am after realistic FM's.

I have no agenda here I am unbiased.

That's interesting I had the same remark few days ago: the Bf-110 C-7 with the DB601N is too slow in game, as it does only 420-430 km/h at s.l. against some 550 km/h I've found in the net. Kwiatek provided some tables, RL for C-1 / C-3 and interpolated for other types, but IMO the interpolation wasn't good. I believe that the 110 C-7 speed must be revised by the devs.

Cheers!

OK no problem ;-), but Krupi was clearly kidding, IMO.

Based on the specifications of 500 km/h for the Bf 109E series with DB 601Aa (with 1045 PS), the resulting extra power of the DB 601N (1175 PS, and much more at altitude) in the E-4/N should be good for about 515 km/h at SL.

At the critical altitude of 4800 m the E-4/N has 1175 PS compared to 960 PS of the DB 601Aa, so the E-4/N is probably good for about 600 km/h at altitude.

Going a bit off topic guys... this was about spit vs 109 turning and speed not every other planes Octane and speed rating! ;)

Sure clearly you are not biased :P

No metter it is typical here so i dont care :)

Yes because if it was the 109 behaving like the old spit 2 I would have replaced red with blue... :-P

Anyway lets get back on topic.

Can you give us the relative energy states at the start of the fight?
What was your altitude? What was the 109's one?
The speed of both?

Not confirmed. Only think confirmed for me is that serial 109 E at 1.3 Ata ( 5 minutes emergency power) could do 467-475 km/h at sea level.

And power ratings between 601Aa and 601N ( 109 E) are not too much different at low alts but if someone could read lol:

Db601 Aa

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/datasheets/601Aa.jpg

Db601N ( 109 E)

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/dat.../601N_Emil.jpg

I warmly encourage red pilots to fly blue and blue fly red, at least for a couple of hours online. This will show you that there is no "magical" plane in this game, and tactics and skills make still largely the difference, in both fields.
Except for engine life at 3000 sustained rpm and for the limited ammo of the 8 brownings, I have found the Spit IIa being an awesome plane, and one can have a lot of success on her.

I can't speak for the other Spit types as I didn't fly them enough in the new patch.


Cheers!

*sigh*

That's your opinion, Kwiatek.

And this is Messerschmitt AG.'s opinion on the matter.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html


G e s c w i n d i g k e i t s - L e i s t u n g e n:


Höchtsgeschwindigeit in 0 m 500 km/h
in 1000 m 510 "
in 2000 m 530 "
in 3000 m 540 "
in 4000 m 555 "
in 5000 m 570 "
in 6000 m 565 km/h
in 7000 m 560 km/h


http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test..._Bau_speed.png

Bei den Geschwindigkeiten ist eine Toleranz von +/- 5 % vor-
zusehen. Die Leistungen sind auf Cina-Temperatur gerechnet.



S t e i g z e i t e n.


Steigzeit auf 1000 m 1,0 Minuten
auf 2000 m 1,9 "
auf 3000 m 3,0 "
auf 4000 m 3,8 "
auf 5000 m 4,9 "
auf 6000 m 6,3 "

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test..._Bau_climb.png

Bei den Steigzeiten ist eine Toleranz von +/- 8 % vorzusehen.
Leistungen sind auf Cine-Temperatur gerechnet.

Yea you start again with prototypes and folder data not for serial planes. Serial 109 E test proff different results - 467- 475 km/h at 1.3 Ata (990 PS). Nothing new to me and no sense to disccussion these again.

BTW

109 T-2 with Db601N in May 1941 reached at 1.35 Ata 2600 RPM - 1175 PS ( maximum emergency power) 490 km/h at the deck.

So i think for 109 E-3/4 at 1.4-1.45 Ata ( 1- minut emergency power) it is possible 490-500 km/h at the deck for a while ( less then 1 minut) nothing more.

For comparsion serial Spitfire MK1 at +12 lbs could do 505 km/h at the deck but for longer time ( 5- minutes).

Edit

*Yawn* The above are the corrected results for an E-series standard aircraft, and the official type specification of the 109E guaranteed within +/- 5% by the manufacturer.

Yes with engine outputs uncorrected and in all likelyhood using the higher supercharger gear. They are not even performance tests anyway, but mere comparisons of different installations compared to the standard installation.

There's a reason these trials are never ever considered by Messerschmitt AG as the type's representative perfomance.

Indeed, the 109T in comparison the 109E had a tailhook and enlarged wing area though.

Messerschmitt AG thinks otherwise. They think 500 km/h is possible for the 109E series with 1.35ata for 5 minutes, and that the coolant and oil temperatures should be well within limits with the radiator flaps 1/4 open.

I'd like to see that test of that supposedly 'serial production' Spitfire I doing 505 km/h deck.

Truth is, that the 109E could do 500 km/h on the deck at its five minute rating (and practically indefiniately as the coolant system could cope with it easily), the Spitfire could do about 500 km/h at its five minute emergency rating, though it needed 100 octane fuel to compete and engine wear was hihgh. I am not sure if it's coolant system could take it for long, since it was originally designed for 30% less power/temperature load. The 109E could push things a bit further at tree top using the 1-minute rating, though this was officially not sanction but only for take off.

Krupi, quit pretending that you aren't dripping with BIAS. Its pretty pathetic. Second, if you are in a 109 and you allow your self to get in a turn fight with a Spit, you DESERVE to get shot down.

I will post the video of a friend and I flying together comparing the 109 and Spit climb rates, needless to say the 109 walks away from the SPIT IIa like its standing still in a climb.


I really have to laugh when the RAF aircraft have been gutted and yet you cry for more nerfing, but yet also cry for more performance out your "unbiased" 109. Yet you offer no numbers, facts, or concrete evidence of the fact that SPIT's are superior.


Like someone else mentioned a good Spit Pilot against a average 109 pilot A spit can win (if he suckers the 109 into a turn fight).

But a good 109 and a good Spit, The Spit fire is doomed, speed is life. The Spit cant run away, or disengage a Z & B. If a 109 messes up he just runs for home. NO SPIT can catch a 109 in a FLAT out drag race.

100 OCtane isnt magical, its proven. Hell even the fuel tanks in the menu say 100 Octane on them.

You dont wanna get beat by a SPIT? Dont get suckered into his fight. You wanna Beat a 109? Get him to blow all his E in a right hand turn.

And you have the guts to call someone else a whiner?

The 109 was reputed to have the superiour climb than the spit so I do not see anything wrong with this.

I do not know the tendency of speed but there might simply be no general "plane X was faster than plane Y" but rather "between alt 1 and alt 2 plane x was faster than plane y and between alt 2 and alt 3 plane y was faster than plane x"

If you loose a combat try to analyse your mistakes first. You may become a good pilot in the end and perhaps you won't need to put the blame on the fm anymore.

Yeah but in truth Krupi you are a very poor pilot.

lol :-P

+1 truth.

hmmm i fly red and blue I want realistic FM's hello can anyone hear me... lol you are so pathetic hooves.

lol i'm only joshing mate :grin::grin:

I think it should be this simple, In a short climb a spit should gain on a 109, but in a sustained climb the 109 should pull away, especially in a left handed spiral climb. In a 109 Never dog fight a spit you will always be tempted to use flap reduce throttle thinking that you might get a lead on him, you wont. Pick your combat entry point and exit point carefully, know when to enter the fight and keep energy at all times.

Maby at 6 1/2 lbs yes but still not sure with CSP but really doubt with +12 lbs emergency power for SPit. 1300 HP make really difference here.

Can we have this as a message popup when opening this forum?

The bolded part is not entirely true.

A good Spit pilot will enter the fight with energy advantage and will energy fight.

If he fail to kill the enemy until the energy states are equal (that's not easy: the 109 climbs better BUT he has to lose energy turning hard to avoid the Spit's high speed attacks) then he can turn too.. only in that case the quality of the 109's pilot matter.

TnB will always make you bleed energy and you will have to lose altitude to keep speed.

So the Spit's pilot should always try to kill the enemy in BnZ, ambushing it, like Johnnie Johnson did when he received his SpitIX.

You may turn fight but it's not mandatory. I like to say it the last thing to do.

Although the 100 Octane was really only effective up to about 10,500ft, so in a short zoom climb against a 109 below these altitudes a Spitfire using +12 lbs could probably catch a 109; the CSP prop made a bigger difference above that altitude. From what I can find the 109 also had a steeper climb angle which made it hard for a pursuing Spitfire to line up its sights.

:grin: But by the way; did anbody complain when the "Spitfire Mk.II speed performance was too good at all altitudes, sometimes 60 mph better than the real thing." ? Not that I really missed this constant howling about plane perfomances, but feels a bit like being back to normal....

;)

I do not understand what the further questions? It is surprising that the plane will win the combat, who has advantage at start? Do you think it would be good if the plane with initial disadvantage can shoot down the other aircraft without any problems? What would you need? Rocket? Rechargable shield? Laser gun? :confused: :rolleyes:

Seems more balanced
 

Hi Chaps,

I have found the Spit IIa to be competitive with the 109. I have achieved a couple of kills and survived a couple more lengthy encounters. I have been able to make a sustained turn inside the 109 but only just. It surprised me how willingly the 109s have entered a turn fight but I'm no expert and it could have been the best tactic under the specific circumstances. I don't know whether these were experienced players.

I hesitate to mention this as I really enjoy the IIa but it seems a bit of a gift that I can fly with boost on all the time at 100% throttle. It seems to be about 8lbs boost. As long as revs are kept a little lower than maximum using prop-pitch and rads are open it will not overheat. I can achieve and maintain 280 mph low and sustain a turn at around 200mph for as long as my patience lasts.

Why have the realism fans not jumped up and down at this? Or am I completely wrong and I should be able to fly with the throttle through the gate all the time?

I really have no agenda to support here, it's merely subjective observation. I hope there is some balance possible, and there seems some currently between the 109E4 and SpitIIa.

Cheers,

Septic.

I would like to see more balance in the FM's as well with each of 3 main single engines having defined strengths & weaknesses. It's not possible to get 100% realism in the FM's but something that feels believable (i.e. fits the historical narrative of BoB) and is balanced is possible.

Hi Manu

Yeah the reason i raised the original post in the first place was because this 109 actually started just lower than me. i came onto him and we had an initial first pass, at which point he began to climb, he climbed away from me, then turned and engaged. After 2 or 3 repeats of this, he was much higher than me,.

Now I'm a pretty experienced spit pilot, i did my best to stay with him, but the 109 just climbs so much better than the spit - it's ridiculous.

+1 Hooves - exactly my original point. The fm is fundamentally biased towards the 109, and imo it's killing the game.

I have had exhaust manifold failure from sustained 3000RPM at 8lbs boost in the Spit IIA a few times. This was above 5000ft though so Im not sure what would happen down lower.

You're flying it wrong then.
Spit 2 max sea level is just on 280mph.

you can easily get that and some out of the 109E4.

I have no probs fighting 109's in spit 2 as long as i follow simple rules.

1 dont fight one if they have advantage( thats why they call it advantage)
2 get them down low, where the boost counts
3 when in a turning flight fly on the very edge of stalling until on his 6.
4 if a 109 climbs away, let him , go somehere else if he has speed and you cant follow. They usually try to chase if you . Get them in a turning fight then they are at your mercy
5 if they try to run at low level, chase them. You csn catch them most of the time if energies are equal( depending on skill of pilot)

sorry, you're far from ok pilot (at least with a Spit); if you do it right a Spit will give really nasty surprises to the 109s, i'll say you're mostly wrong, keep practicing or join the blues

I do need to reduce the rpm at full boost (with pitch not throttle) or the engine is damaged within minutes but around 2700rpm can be sustained indefinitely with rads open.

I enjoy having to manage the aircraft in combat and would prefer if more management was needed on both 109 and Spit. The E4 is, for me, too easy in terms of engine and flight management.

Cheers,

Septic.

:D Agreed, you should get a benefit from using the manual prop pitch.

Your see hardly any advantage using boost and then cause loads of drag with rads open..

To the OP... get more lessons then

+1

Sad case of people getting caught with their pants down and then bringing up the whole my plane is nerved threads

LOL Jamz you've gone and done it, I am glad I got my asbestos suit out ready this threads about to heat up!!! ;)

Lol..Im surprised we haven't heard it again before now

How much lower? But above all what's your speed? Was he faster than you?

I asking this since when I engage an enemy at my altitude I'll pass 30m under him (without pointing his plane so that I can avoid stupid headons) and my objective is to build the required speed for an Immelmann turn since usually I'm climbing at low speed.

In that way usually I almost keep all my energy while most of my enemies will make a 180° flat turn, bleeding most of their energy.

From there if I'm in the better climber I can climb away easily.

Do you remember his and your initial manouvres?

The way it seems to be is that Spits are supposed to be faster down low and 109s up high.

Also, climb rates may depend on the specific scenario (airspeed, energy states, starting altitude, etc) but 109s climb steeper, which makes it harder to lead them with the sights because you have to pull harder.

That's pretty much what i got from all the technical discussions over the years, as well various pilot interviews in documentaries.

The technical talk tells us what is possible in case of equal pilots, the interviews tell us what happened without knowing the relative skill of the pilots involved. Combine quite a few of both and you'll get a good idea about what usually happened. Heck, i've seen quotes of 109 pilots claiming they could easily out-turn Spits during BoB and interviews by RAF pilots saying the 109s were untouchable.

I don't want artificial balance if it doesn't correspond to historical facts, i want things to be technically accurate. Then we can put ourselves in their shoes and be forced to fight smart on our terms (the pilot part of the equation), which will give us the best representation of simulating these events.

I also want all possible variants modeled for all air forces involved, because they will be reusable in post BoB scenarios (eg, 1941 circus raids on the current map, or over N.Africa maps in the future).

100 Octane Spits? Sure, give me. But also give me 109s and 110s with the uprated engines. Then it's a matter of mission design and server settings.

If i wanted to host a server that favors a side, i could give the best variants to them and the worst to the other (not that many would fly on it, but still, the choice is there) regardless of mission and timeframe flown.

If wanted to host one where everyone has a fighting chance, i would choose evenly matched variants.

And if i wanted to host a server that doesn't care about balance but only cares about historical accuracy, i would follow historical facts and the advantage would swing from one side to the other as the scenarios unfolded.

All this talk about "X plane is porked" has a basis due to the currently imperfect state of the FMs, but FMs can never be 100% true and there's usually too many people who only want fixes that favor their preferred ride.

Back in IL2:1946 times i used to fly 190As all the time, unless i was flying some red bomber. The situation you guys now describe with the Spit is exactly what happened in maps with late war planesets in IL2:1946. And still, being a very mediocre pilot, i decided to work around it all instead of asking for someone else to fix it for me. I started flying higher than the Spits and kept a lookout for higher 51s and 47s, or i would just climb higher than the 51s and 47s because they simply didn't expect me to be there.

Also, the scope of the engagements one favors tends to play a role in the perception of the facts in such discussions. If we were flying missions the way they were supposed to be flown, things would be much different. Currently, a lot of us are simply looking for the closest furball, grab a bit of alt advantage and go for it. In that case, the altitude band where the engagement takes place tends to get disregarded completely and if you consistently engage like that around an altitude band where your aircraft performance is lower, it will of course feel to you like there is nothing you can do.

Try flying lower or higher and see how it handles and then make your decisions:

Is the altitude advantage and possibility of one-pass kill enough to offset the fact that i'm operating outside my optimal altitude and i'll have trouble if the engagement gets protracted?

Conversely, is the performance i gain by operating at optimal altitude enough to save me from an attack by a higher flying bandit? Probably yes if i keep a good look out and the other guy doesn't have the kind of one-shot-kill firepower.

In other words...When i fly 109s i fly at 5-6km and above, trying to BnZ them. If i fly lower, i use my better acceleration to build speed and reverse before the Spits start gaining on me, i have better firepower so i'll take a head-on pass. This is a disciplined style, because you need to keep going straight and build distance, pay attention to entrance and exit angles, etc, but it's also very useful for flying 110s at low level.

When i fly for the RAF, i mostly experiment because i've never been that good with the style of fighting their aircraft favor but i have also found out a few tricks. If i can maintain a good look out to evade cannon fire in a BnZ pass, i will stay where my aircraft performs best and try to draw them down there, or climb even higher to the altitude where i have the advantage again. If i want the extra altitude i'll fly it like a BnZ machine and only go for turn fighting once the other guy is committed in the fight.

Flying like that doesn't get me a lot of kills. However, it doesn't get me killed too often either.

I think that even if the FMs are not 100% accurate and because they can never be, the best situation would be to have correct relative performance between aircraft even if the absolute one is not. Relative performance is what dictates how we fight.

If a 109 is doing 400km/h and a Spit is doing 250mph they are equally matched, if the same 109 was doing 320km/h and the same Spit was doing 200mph they would also be equally matched. They would be inaccurate in both cases, but equally matched nevertheless.

There is a clue here kids

I have never that much of a problem with the flight model.

if you are flying a spit or a 109 and you don't have the altitude advantage then you don't have an advantage.

109 has alway had the advantage in speed and climb rate over that spit till the Mkv then the spit get an advantage in speed.

the spit has alway had the advantage in the tuning fight.

during the battle of Britain the 109 was the best aircraft but had only one major down side that stop it from exploiting it advantage and that was the lack of range (don't have this problem in the game). Also both the spit and hurries could own use maximum boost for only 2 minute before it start doing damage to the engine and try to avoid this (we don't have this problem in the game).

Id say being told to accompany the bombers at the same ALt taking away the 109's main advantage was a 'downside' too..

The Spit is a lovely fantastic AC but the 109 is very special hence why it was never changed and see so much service

Spitfire was still produced in 1948. I'd say that was a lot of service.

Both the 109 and spit were constantly changed which is precisely why they had the saw so much service, keeping ahead/in line with the new aircraft.

I didnt say it didnt

The phrase I quoted: Spitfire is lovely but 109 is special because it saw a lot of service.

So did the spit don't see why you seem to imply the 109 was "never changed".

Oh for the love of god!
 

Whiskey - Tango - Foxtrott?

Why do I get the "entitlement vibe" from some of the hardcore-RAF types here? Wakeup call people - CloD is not supposed to model the outcome of the historical BoB, it's supposed to model accurate performance figures. Introducing 100oc fuel isn't going to be the magic potion that allows RAF players to take on the whole Luftwaffe on their own, win single-handedly and shoot down evil Nazi aircraft by giving them a stern glare. (please note the dripping sarcasm here)

I can't shake the impression that some of you people - on both sides - make way too much noise about performance intricacies. Wakeup call number two - aerial warfare was never ever about duels between individuals and always about teamwork to achieve specific goals. If people would get over that god awful dogfight-contest-e-sports fixation and focused more on historical mission setups with appropriate team tasks these pointless bickering over FM intricacies would cease. But then some folks seem to be hell-bent on either re-fighting WW2 (if they aren't still fighting it) or about proving just what kind of super-duper great egomaniac they are. :evil:

PS: Yes, I do fly blue. But I focus on the Stuka so speed isn't an issue for me. The Stuka has none. ;)

What I'd like to see is actual field tests of the aircraft in question (Spits, Hurries, 109's, 110's -- for starters). I've done a little bit for the Spit Ia and IIa at altitudes where presently most of the fighting takes place: sea level, 5,000 feet, and 10,000 feet. I discovered some anomalies with the IIa's flight model: it's different (worse) online than offline when you start climbing to 5,000 feet and above to 10,000 feet. At sea level the online vs offline FM for the IIa seem the same. OTOH, the Ia compares closer to each other offline vs online at various altitudes, which kind of rules out some kind of "atmospheric" differences between the online vs offline environments. Don't know why.

This testing can be a little tedious and given the state of flux these beta patches are in right now, it could be a lot of work for nought at this point.....so not recommended. I don't have any real stick time on the 109's nor 110's, so I don't believe I'm capable of doing a credible job of extracting the maximum performance from these aircraft.

I'd be the first to say my data is up for challenge. Others have done some quick informal tests of their own which seem to correlate very closely, but all are welcome to check and report in their own right.

Online if I am co-alt/co-e with a 109 at 5,000 feet or above, I will turn tail or try to lure him down lower. At sea level "the fight's on" AKAIC. My greatest challenge is keeping the 109 in sight -- the sun's glare is murder. Lose sight = lose fight. Re-acquiring tally on a streaking 109 is vital for survival, and I will not fly a straight course for more than a few seconds at a time until I can. At full overboost maximum speed is achieved at 2800 - 3000 rpms, but care must be taken to periodically (and frequently) ease up on boost & rpms during a dogfight/chase/evasion or you will damage your engine -- especially at 5,000 feet & above, even at full Auto Rich Mixture and 100% open rad (I keep mine at 50% - but not sure rads are fully modelled; 0% open will overheat your engine quickly though).

Accurate deflection shooting is key in using the Spitfire's superior turning rate to offensive advantage. Learn your convergence(s) and trajectory to use to deadly advantage when the faster 109 is flashing by you (as they seem to do). A few hits on their elevator is all it takes.

Personally, I believe ALL flight models are off -- LW and RAF both. I'm no test pilot, I'm no aeronautical engineer (clearly). But I can hop into a Spit or Hurri and fly to a set of parameters (climb, dive, level, turn, etc at various alts & speeds) to see for myself what each can and can't do. Hence my discovery of offline vs online discrepancy of flight modelling for the Spitfire IIa. The devs can say all the want about what flight charts they're using, but I'm only convinced by what actually IS.

As the coding is refined for added performance and stability, I'm hoping the devs can then focus more on accurate FM's universally. We as a community can then increasingly be called upon to conduct our own hands-on field tests and report hard data that the devs can, I trust, put to good use in massaging the FM's further.

NOTE: Anyone actually measure the air speed indicator for accuracy? I did! It is. (IMHO). Methodology: Used google maps to get geographical distance between the tip of "The English Point" (Dungeness) and the tip of "The French Point" (Point Gris Nez). Flew over Dungeness at treetop level and trimmed to a set speed for level flight, then headed towards France. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the tip going feet wet, then held steady speed and course at wavetop level. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the surf at the tip of Point Gris Nez. The elapsed time agreed within seconds of what simple arithmetic said it should've been. Good enough for me for sea level measurements, at least.

Wir fuerchten die Hoelle nicht und geben nicht Ruh........ ;-)

They also did not get the speed increase they were stated to receive.

Spit I and Me 109 performance:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109espeed.jpg

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

Indeed ha ha!

The source for each line is given and all of them are available in the internet. So it shouldn't be a problem for you to check the values and report any anomalies.

S!

But I see the problem right there. Now people look at that graph and see thick blue line faster than Bf109E. But forget to check a "minor" thing..it is with 12lbs boost not the lower continuous power. And on that the Spitfire is slower than Bf109E. And it seems, according to that graph, that Spitfire and Bf109E were quite evenly matched regarding speed on power settings below WEP or overboost. But again can not stress enough that should not take the 12lbs curve as the absolute speed of Spitfire as it could not run that setting indefinitely but for a limited time like Bf109E it's WEP.

If those are taken from spitfireperformance.org, weren't those papers proven to be photoshopped a while ago?

If it was proven, you certainly can present the proof for this claim.

You are a great man Snapper ! I always wanted to do that myself!!!

We are focusing on the Spit II which IMO is fine online, except maybe for the climb rate and the 12 lbs takeoff boost. The other Spit types and the Hurricane have been excessively penalized according to people who flies them, I believe that the devs must have a second look at their FM's for the red pilots peace of mind. Speed/alt curves must be consistent.
In the long term all the FM engine must be revised to fix the bigger inconsistencies - G-stall lack, dive speeds, G damage, accelerations, ceiling >7000 etc.

Cheers!

Flanker you should notice that speed curves for 109 are for 5-minutes emergency power not for nominal power. So it should be checked speed at 1.23 Ata for 109 (30-minut power) vs 6 1/2 lbs for Spitfire - both continous power.

We should note that power settings for 109 E was ( Db 601A/Db601Aa):

1.4/1.45 Ata - 1 minut take off emergency power
1.3/1.35 Ata - 5 minut emergency power
1.23/1.27 Ata - 30 minut continous power

For Spitfire we have:
12lbs - 5 minutes emergency power
6 1/2 lbs - 30 minutes continous power

The problem is beside that Spitfire MK II dont have emergency +12 lbs at low level that its engine is very ofen broken without seriously reason. Yestarday i flew SPit MK II at 6 1/2 lbs and reduced RPMs for 2800 RPMs radiator open (temps normal) and after some time flying ( ab. 10-15 min) my engine broken. Flying at + 9 lbs broke engine much more faster.

Other hand if i not execed 2400 RPMs in 109 i could fly at 1.35 Ata power all time without any problems - when it should be only 5 minut emergency power.

The V15a figures depicted in the William's graph are showing the aircraft down on power. As per the report the aircraft engine was down on power (by 45 PS), and the results were corrected to the nominal engine outputs. With the corrected output, speeds were 498 km/h (309 mph) on the deck and 574 km/h at 4800 m (356 mph at 15750 feet). See:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...w_109V15a.html

6 1/2 lbs at 3000 rpm was 5 minute power, not 30 min on the Spitfire. 6 1/2 at 3000 lbs was a "climb" power but only with the rpm reduced to 2800.

This one is more realistics, with some of the 'accidentally omitted' added.

Regarding to the topic,
yesterday i flew the spit 2 on the ATAG server and it was absolutely no problem for me to follow a few 109's across the channel and to get into firing range (150 yds) as soon as they left the straight flight path.

My IAS was 280 to 290 mph with +8 lbs boost at 2650 rpm at a altitude around 1000 ft.

It was also no problem in the dogfight to turn behind a 109 coming from above, attacking another plane, follow in a shallow dive and to intercept and follow it on its way back up and getting a firing solution on the apogee.

My summary is, that even with the less then perfect FM's the spitfire 2 is a matching adversary for the BF109E4 (which the majority of the enemy was flying)

What sort of problems would you expect to happen?

I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone test out the airspeeds at sea level? I know the 109 E-4 tops out at 460km/h in level flight on the deck with afterburner. That's optimal prop pitch of 10:25-10:30, and a trimmed radiator. In small dives I can hit 470 for 30 secs.

The G.50 hits 390-410 km/h as indicated on the deck. That's with the prop pitch set correctly (around 60-70%) and the radiator closed down 50%. You can also fully trim the G.50

Has anyone speed tested the Spits and Hurris?

Well probably the same problems like other planes could have with engine which is using in emergency power settings for too long time. In Clod 109 E could fly all time at 1.35 Ata 5-minutes emergency power without any problems other hand something is not correct if Spit Mk II have unexpected engine faluires flying even only at continous power ( + 6lbs 2850 RPMs).

Im sure you dont want Spitfires flying at emergency power +12 lbs all day long without any problems but fuel?

Unfortunately yes - only sea level result:


Hurricane MK 1 Rotol

238 mph /383 kph at the deck at +6 1/2 boost ------ should be 262-265 mph /420-426 kph !!!!

So it is 24-27mph/ 38-43 kph too slow at + 6 1/2 boost power !!!!

There is no WEP - so no 100 octan fuel performacne - which should give ab. 25 mph/ 40 kph extra speed at low alts

Spitfire MK1a

255 mph/410 kph at the deck at 6 1/2 boost ---------should be 283 mph/455 kph !!!!

So it is 28 mph/45 kph too slow at 6 1/2 boost.

No 100 Octan fuel performance at all - boost cut out doesnt rise power at all.

Spitfire MK II

268 mph/431 kph at deck at 6 1/2 lbs
285 mph/458 kph at deck at 9 lbs ------ should be 286-290 mph so it is quite accurate result!!!!

No emergency take off power +12 lbs included.


So actually with present FM and performacne of planes there is no sense to flying Hurricane MK1 and Spitfire MK1 against 109 casue their performacne is way off comparing to RL data even for only 87 octan fuel not mention absense of 100 Octan fuel performacne.

The thick pink line is from handbook. I do not know what these values represent though. Prudence with data whatever source is always prime.

Even flight tests are not representing the final truth as they only represent one individual plane and not average performance.

As Kur already has presented the specs for the 109 which had a guaranteed performance inside a +/-5% bandwidth which is a lot. This however is of course theoretical tolerance. It may have been that the delivered aircrafts were +/-2% from an average somewhere inside the +/-5% (we do not know where this average was and probably the Luftwaffe did not know either).

This should be always kept in mind. Unfortunately this is a big headache for any flight sim developer.

Personally if we could have all flight data of a good statistical probe for each plane I would like to have statistically scattered performances of planes in the game. But this will never happen as we never will have that data.