Throwing some light on rates of turn
 

Hi all,

Had an interesting encounter on ATAG over the weekend.

I was in a Spit IIa

Was running about 200-230mph when I got bounced by a 109 at about 2,000ft. We both got low and slow fairly quickly. 109 was on my tail following me in a turn. Due to the already low speed, I dropped flaps and pulled round in a max rate.

For the first time in this game, I saw the 109 stay with me all the way around in the turn, for at least two full revolutions. He matched me for speed and turn rate. Both when I had flaps down, and when I had them up.

I think I stalled and got clobbered soon after. But I don't have the server info window on, so I could not see who it was. (I suspect Mr.X - he was online at the time)

Bravo to whoever that was.

I will never ever listen to anyone who complains about the Spit2a being "too maneuverable" anymore. Whoever was flying that 109 demonstrates that the 109 can stay with the Spit2a in a max-rate turn.

Turning with a Spitifire at 2,000ft while having a good K/D ratio is not possible.

I really don't think he was Mr.X, nor your enemy was a good pilot.

NOT possible?

Are you saying that he was a bad pilot for being able to turn with me?
I know it might be a bad tactical mistake (trying to turn with a spit) but that assumes the 109 cannot match the turn. This 109 did match the turn. And, of course, he had enough power to get away afterwards....

Running cicles at sea level is going to kill the pilot soon or later, of course depending on the territory over which he's flying.

Now if the 109 was over his own territory, then ok, he can try to turn with the Spit (but then I ask why the Spit was in that awful position), otherwise it's a suicidal tactic.

IIRC Mr.X has a great K/D ratio, that mean he is not going to do those mistakes. :-)

OK, I see what you're saying. Has anyone actually ever shot MRX down? ;)

I'd still like to know how this person got the 109 to turn like that though... first time I've ever seen one keep up in the turn.

The only way you can make any sort of assessment on ac characteristics is to fly both with similar skill. I do fly both but am a better 109 pilot than spit/hurry. After the patch its harder to get a kill, red and blue. If you can get hits on a 109 in a extended dog fight that end low the spit will get the kill when the 109 stalls and hits the deck.
It's so dangerous to turn in the 109 now with it's new stall habits. Once in a stall it takes a hell of a lot of hight to recover (like five times more than before). After flying blue with limited success switched to red when they were out numbered. I felt sorry for the 109 pilots as all you have to do when he gets you in range is turn and he just can't. If he slows to match your turn he is as good as dead. Either he'll stall to the ground or you'll out turn him in just 1 turn and be on his 6.
As I said this is what I have found and there is always exceptions.

This is exactly my thoughts since the patch... Until this encounter on the weekend. I was looking over my shoulder thinking, there is no way he should be able to stay with me. Yet he did... that's why I'm not convinced any more by arguments about the 109 being such a bad turner.

Dumb question I know but are you positive it was a 109? If it was you were unlucky because the vast majority of 109 pilots just couldn't turn with you now after the patch. Maybe if he had flaps extended but he would not then be able to keep up (at the moment with patch)

pstyle I urge you to go on line and fly a 109 and you will honestly see for your self.:grin:

.

not a dumb question at all - it pays to be correct about details like that.
It was a 109. ;) I'm 100% on that
I was on ATAG server, and he was yellownose, crosses on the wings and shooting at me, from about 100-150m back. I had a pretty good view.

I can understand the incredulity. You should have heard me swearing on comms! I was dumbfounded (and cussing a lot) that he could stay with me... my poor squad mates were getting an earful!

I've flown the 109 I can never get it to do what this guy was doing..... And flown against them plenty enough times to know what they can do (and I've watched them stall out, overshoot etc...)

At what day and hour that happened?

Sunday, around mid-day I think.
I wish I had the server info window on now.. and I wish I had recorded it too ;(

LOL ,thats funny. I can just imagine it.

Are you sure you were in a max-rate turn in the Spit? Dropping flaps does not automatically guarantee that you are turning beyond the 109's capability.

OK, so max-rate turn usually requires a constant speed and altitude as well, I cannot grantee that. I didn't actually time the turn, and I didn't have the time, nor the measuring tools to calculate my actual (as opposed to indicated) rate against the flying manual. I was certainly turning as fast as I could, both before, and after dropping the flaps.

We've all seen how much of an advantage the Spit 2a has had in this game when turning. I've done it loads of times, drop into a hard turn, and if he still stays with me and I'm getting close to the stall, drop the flaps. This has always shook 109s.

But not this time. It seems there is someone out there who can really coax a 109 in the turn.....

Hey, it might just be my imagination. I might not have been turning very steeply... (I doubt that) because I wasn't broken (I had not been engaged yet, and I was over friendly territory) and I was just on the stall buffet.

You were at 230 mph at 2000 feet, and you say that you "got" low and slow? Sorry to say that 230 mph and 2000 feet is already low and slow to begin with.

Edit: Not to mention that deploying flaps will DECREASE your turn rate, not increase it. How can you be sure you were at max turn rate? I'd bet that you weren't. Min radius is not the same as max rate.

You must have been really slow as the airbrakes, err flaps, have to up above 120mph.

I think the spit pilots are afraid of my G.50. Already Dropping flaps the minute they see an axis aircraft

:-P

To the question has anybody shot down Mr X , Yes i have! several other 71st, jeepy several times an i'm sure others have to ,but it only happens if your wing man tacktics are good. We have a little saying at 71st ,How many 71st does it take to shoot mr x down we found the number was 6 lol

How can they extend the flaps in full flight? Should not be the case or should cause damage.

Not in this sim I am afraid ;)

How about 500ft and 130mph?
It's relative to the engagement conditions.


As others have noted...Try it in game see what you think.

Oh, and the max speed you can get out of these Spit IIa is around 260-270mph.

So being 15% off max speed can hardly be described as "slow" now can it?

I don't have much spit experience, but when i flew the spit II on the ATAG server i easily reached 280 -290 mph in level flight!

Yeah, sorry, you're not going to convince me that 2000 feet is not "low" and the graphs that BlackSix posted say that even the spit 1a can reach just over 300 mph on the deck.

So yes, you were low and slow.

The graphs posted by Black Six only start at 3000 m, not at zero feet altitude.

The Spit Ia's maximum speed online at 0 feet altitude is 253 mph IAS (max boost 6.25 lbs @ 3000 rpms -- there is NO 12 lbs boost modelled in Cliffs of Dover for the Mark I/Ia Spits, nor both Hurricane Marks).

The maximum ONLINE speed at sea level for the Spitfire IIa is 290 mph IAS, but drops rapidly down to 270 mph IAS by 5000 feet altitude and even further to 262 mph IAS by 10,000 feet -- as I'm sure you've noticed but failed to mention.

"Strangely", the OFFLINE Spitfire IIa does NOT lose IAS at the higher altitudes noted, but actually holds close to 300 mph IAS as it should.

I've already posted this several times in this forum, but clearly "the fix is in" by a number of you in wishing to suppress the historic capabilities of the Spitfires and Hurricanes in this "sim" (I use the term loosely) to maintain an unfair and unhistoric advantage online of the 109 over the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Clearly you have the devs' ears as witnessed by the further downgrading of the Spitfire and Hurricane performance curves in the latest patch.

Congrats, gentlemen. :rolleyes:

Rofl, they downgraded it to historic numbers, which apparantly is too much for you?

OP: Sorry for getting this thread derailed, I actually meant were you keeping your speed up at the optimized turning speed once you dropped your flaps? If not, it's very easy for a 109 to deploy partial flaps , maintaining a higher speed, and better turning via that route. As Doggles mentioned, getting too slow is just as detrimental to your turning ability as going too fast.

They are NOT historic and you and the rest of your crowd know it. Be smug all you want, but you fool no one.

They downgraded it to below the performance of an 87 octane fueled Spit tested at Boscombe Down in March 1940. Data for this aircraft only exists from 10,000ft up. This is N3171.

No, I'm not going to produce evidence, because all of these arguments are immaterial when we consider that no aircraft in the game can achieve its true operational ceiling. If this is unachievable within the bounds of the current game engine, any arguments about performance at any altitude are so much hot air. Whoever you are, and whoever you might think you want to be. How do the FMs compare @ 30,000ft?

When the designers of this so called simulator finally get around to modelling the atmosphere necessary to allow any aircraft modelled to perform as it should at any altitude, I'll start to take notice, but until then, I'm sorry but you're all talking faeces.

Good point Dutch +1

Are you implying that Maddox Games has purposely made the online flight model worse, due to bias?
Oh get over yourself. I and I'm sure many others don't subscribe to your posts via RSS and so probably missed it. Graph is broken below 3000 meters? K. Thanks. First I've heard of it, now kindly stop attributing ignorance to malice and bias. :evil:

Yeah yeah yeah, the big bad blue guys have a secret club where we all try to imbalance the game because we're Nazis in real life and walk around with hitler mustaches, etc etc.

Let's all ignore the haphazard way the developers have put together the game. Everything else in the sim is broken, but the flight models probably aren't broken, right? I mean, sure, the entire game is a complete mess and crashes constantly. But that's probably because they spent sooo much time on the flight models. These models must be exactly the way the developers want them to be.

That's the only explanation, right? It's gotta be the Luftmafia that's convinced MG to purposely nerf the spitfire. That makes perfect logical sense. It also makes sense that every single person on these forums who is a Blue pilot is complicit and should be blamed for the current state of the flight models (ignoring for a second that the Spit 1a is extremely competitive above 6km). We should all focus our anger on them. It's their fault. Those freedom-hating Nazi bastards.

Oh wait. Maybe the FMs are broken, just like the rest of the game. Maybe if we exercise a little patience we might get representative performance in game. Maybe it's not my fault that the FM's suck. Maybe it's not von Bruhl's fault. Maybe it's not robtek's fault.

One of the most immature posts I've read on these forums in a long time.

Is the game broken? Yes. Is the game broken for both sides? Yes. Does trying to blame it on Axis pilots help anyone? No.

Please stop.

I could be just as much of a troll and point at the thousands of gallons of tears that were shed when they brought the spit 2a down from La-La-Land.

All that crying must have been done by Red pilots who want to suppress the historically accurate performance of the spitfire in favor of an inflated and overpowered model to maintain an unfair advantage online.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What a joke. The hyper-partisan nature of the posts that get made around here really piss me off.

Doggles, give it a rest. Who cares if it pisses you off? No-one cares when I'm pissed off, apart from the wife.

No I don't think I will give it a rest.

I've argued many times for historical accuracy, and I think it's unconscionable for Snapper to come in here like some kind of Spitfire McCarthy, slinging mud at everyone and telling us it's our fault that the game is broken.

Settle down, Doggles, and learn how to read a chart for once. The Spitfire Ia chart provided by Black Six only STARTS at 3000 meters of altitude -- he himself admitted they did not have data for lower altitudes. Yet you start blathering how this same chart shows the Ia at 300 mph at sea level.

When you can demonstrate that you know what you're talking about perhaps then you can make a valid point.

I'll admit to not reading the chart correctly. I was in a hurry and not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.

My reading errors aside, you don't get free license to come in here and try to paint me or whoever else as the reason the spitfire got nerfed. Go direct your comments to Luthier or to BlackSix, the community liaison.

Nobody blamed you when the Spit 2a was overmodeled.

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

But you're right in that when the game was released, both the Spit II and the Rotol Hurri performed better compared to the 109 than they should. Tests I carried out myself said they performed closest to published data out of all the a/c however. This was pretty much accepted by all, including the 109 jocks who were saying that their mounts performed lower than historically.

What was expected by some in the patch was everything else to be brought up to that level of performance accuracy. Instead the RAF fighters have been neutered, and we're being told that the Spit II and Rotol Hurri were wrong.

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

Unfortunately, we can't ban everything on the blue team except bombers, because then we'd have no game.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide. ;)

I have seen a 109 match my turn but only on one occaision (with this patch).
I didn't make a mental note of the exact circumstances for that particular encounter so I wouldn't risk jumping to any conclusions.

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.

I agree 100%. The game is broken on a fundamental level, which makes it all the more galling to have somebody come in and tell me it's my fault that his precious spitfire is too slow.

I'm not unsympathetic to this, but why is Snapper not directing his rage at 1c? When did it suddenly become my fault or whoever else's fault?

Given the abysmal state of my Russian-language skills, I can't say I've seen his signature at sukhoi. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I have to ask again: how is this the fault of the forum members who fly axis?

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.

Maybe you should bring that up next time you and Snapper are on comms.

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

Maybe for some form of calibration to put in a text book or manual --- but historically a constant speed/altitude turn in a 109 gave well below the practical max turn rate for a short engagement (though clearly giving optimal sustained turn rate) and was regarded as a technique for mediocre pilots.


From my understanding the historical way the 109 was flown by most of the experienced pilots was more the egg shaped turns described by Leykrauf. Deliberately pulling the slats out improves the instantaneous turn rate letting you crib lead for a snap shot or trade some excess speed for a few seconds at a better turn rate. However then you have to unload the wing again fairly smartly before too much E is lost and accelerate for a while before trying again.

I recall Molders may have had a different view on things but generally speaking flying the 109 in a nice neat circle was regarded as the best way possible to get shot down.

Max turn rate - like corner speed - is one of those armchair figures that its important not to get too fixated on.

Having been out turned by a Me 109 E a few times when flying a Hurricane, I decided to check my CloD control calibration (green bars for input and output) and found that I was not getting full elevator deflection.
After giving the joystick some vigorous movements, full forward and back a few times, it appeared to reset to my original settings with full deflection. This seems to happen to me on an intermittent basis (when flying Me 109 too). I suspect that it may be my joystick, which is rather old now, so I plan to order a new one soon. I keep checking my elevator deflection now as I am unable to trust to it. Hope the new stick solves this issue for me. Perhaps others may be getting the odd glitch with elevator calibration too.

Since FMs are not accurate IMO many Spitfire pilots should use this period of time to train themself on being successfull without TnBing like dogs in heat.

I've not voted for the 100 octane bug as a priority since I hope that meanwhile the overall quality of the RAF players can improve, since it's so boring to hunt guys running circles at 1km that most of my squadmates are not flying in public servers anymore.

There are some great Spitfire pilots out there: IMO many should learn from them without thinking to the actual speed performances of their plane.

Attacking with altitude advantage is only the first step...

You should reconsider your expectations.
...as I explained in the follow up, this is relative to where the engagement started. All I need to do, is go back and and an "er" to that post and this whole nit-picking falls apart.

Criticisms of the description/ terminology in the OP do nothing to add to this thread and are simply a side-show.

Here's the discussion point: 109 followed me around in a turn when I was turning as hard as I thought I could.

OK, so maybe I was not at the statistical max-rate, but I was sure I couldn't turn any faster.

Thanks Talisman. It's not impossible that my stick was out of calibration. I had not checked this for a few days, and it is kinda old.
A sensible post.... at last.

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills.

Do you think the Spit 1a outperforms the 2a at these altitudes?
Where did that post with the updated graphs go?.... I'd like to overlay the three spit variants....

I agree Snapper, there are a number of things about the Spits which are an unfair advantage - I fly them & I acknowledge this:
1. Canopy open has no performance implications. There isn't any red flyers on comms who don;t want this fixed, to my knowledge. Canopy open should slow you down. end of.
2. ramming. Not sure if it's the same for both sides, but sometimes I've collided and the other A/C has fallen apart whilst I've merrily flown on. Odd.
3. Damage decals... I don't know how confusing these are for the blue pilots, but they don't really indicate likely performance on the red A/C. Sometimes , though, I see no damage, yet cannot fly. Other times I have holes... but no effect on combat performance.

Its worth making sure that after turning on your joystick (if it isn't when you start up) and before you start the game that you move the stick through all its movement, including throttle. Sometimes if I don't my PC assumes that certain axes are at 100% when at 50% or so so there is not full movement and I have to move the stick through all its axes in the air when i realise which is dangerous. It might not be your joystick, just the way that calibration works.

These ac were tested in mock combat by the RAE back in 1940 and the results are well documented.

May be two or more players could agree to test the 109 v Spit on a server - find a quiet part of the map and be on the same TS channel.

It would be interesting to see the results of such a test for the CloD 109/Spits but, for the results to be meaningful, the players would have to be completely impartial.

I agree. Since the patch the game is much less dynamic. Encountering nothing but Spit II's online is making things quite dull. Unless critical damage is inflicted on the first pass almost every combat will play out the same. The Hurricane & Spit Ia FM's should be a priority to make them competitive online.

Sorry, I am not that FM expert, but what is about turning speed at low speed.

Perhaps I remember wrong, but as I learned it, the graphs of spit vs 109 always showed the tendency, that the bf suddenly turns better than a spit at real slow speed. I even remwmber some graphs, that a 109 even could turn faster at some low speed, than a LA5. Were this graphs referring to the real life or to the old il2?

I also remember some flights in old il2, where I thought, that I pulled my F4 to the max, but a P38 turned with me. I know that this smy fault and my lack of flying skills at this time, so you should really ask yourself, if the other pilot was simply much better pilot than you!?!

Just to throw the big ???? of skill lack into the discussion of this case. :) I do not want to blame anybody, bit just take it into account when argueing about fm.

What I got to hear from some skilled pilots and self named experts is the opposite of snapper. I heard thatthis should be okay so far, because bf109 had nearly no fm advantage left. They for sure say, that there are other things to be fixed, but I never heard anybody of them complaining as hard as snapper.

The bf is not uber! I am really looking forward to the implementation of fw190's WITH "kommandogeraet?", which will cause the focke to be uber in many condition. But that is another topic, but red pilots will argue about that as well. :)

Not a bad idea.
Could run a series of tests where pilots fly 109 v spits, then swap aircraft.

Then also put the same guys in spits v spits and 109s v 109s just to see how much human/ pilot skill influences their ability to turn.

...incidentally, did a performance graph for the Spit 2a ever get released by BalckSix after that patch? I can only find 1a graphs....

It's said that so many discussions end in an argument that is so obviously and selfishly swayed by the plane they fly. Planes on both side were very close in the out come of a dog fight in the BOB. It came down to pilot ability and luck. I find that just checking the stats window can give you a pretty good idea what planes are performing best at different stages of game development. For instance I have noticed the Hurricane has fallen from favor and scores are lower overall (red slightly ahead).

At the moment both sides are down on fighter performance and it's very frustrating since the patch. I don't mind to much because COD is a work in progress. The main aim at the moment is computer performance issues and progress (for most)is obviously being made because more guys are playing now.

Actually, you raise some valid points that need to be fixed -- especially the open canopy that doesn't cause any speed reduction. The "sound radar" was greatly reduced with the latest patch, but not eliminated.

Turning rate reduction with the patch? Can't say -- no data on that. Visible damage with no effect on performance? Can't say I've been that lucky. Ram a 109 and fly away undamaged? Can't say, either -- never done it.

Bring back old Spit IIa? Nope. Just fix the FM of the existing Spits and Hurries. Yes, that does mean 100 octane and 12 (not 20) lbs boost with the short term performance boost that was historically accurate.

One last thing: if you have any strength of conviction then have the guts to post under your regular handle.

You will always be on the side of your favorite plane and that is also a good point. So, you can only rely on ingame graphs to be released and discuss that. Hopefzlly, after the performance fix, tje dwvs can talk with us about that topic and I see that coming. It bexomes necessary as more and more planes will join the game with sequels. Just let us hope, that they will get into thos discussion soon, but not on the currently given data. You can just discuss, when ingame data is available. Then you can compare between the planes and also between game and reality data to change non sufficient simulation of various things. This will be a long way, because there is so much things to influence performance or behaviour of the graphs ingame in simulated conditions. It is very difficult.

Concerning "kommandogeraet" a friend told me, that a spit mk XVII and a focke flew side by side and the spit already had full throttlle, while the fw190 flew withnearly no throttle. I think, that pilots often do some faults and that this kommandogeraet was really superior. The focke pilot just flies, while the spit pilot has to manage several things in every new condituon to maintain good performance. I hope, that this will be simulated as well. So, one fault by a spit pilot and he gets serious problems with the focke! :)

Trust me, that wasn't my post! LOL

But he/she did raise some valid points which few take issue -- including the canopy. Haven't collided with any 109's post patch, but I'll take the faceless "snapperpuss" word that it's only the Spit that flies away unharmed from a ramming and never the 109. Huge damage on a Spit but no change in performance? Hmmm, as I said in my response to him -- I haven't been that lucky yet!

Sorry for attributing that to you!

I'm not 100% convinced on the reference to "huge" damage. but I do think the damage decals can be confusing though.

That's a great idea, Evangelus. I recuse myself since no one would believe me to be impartial, and also because I have very little stick time in the 109 to do it justice.

I myself am doubtful as to the accuracy of the RAE's findings with the 109. No slight to the RAE intended, but they were using a captured 109 without benefit of factory techs (AFAIK), specialized factory tools, etc. The statement that the Spitfire easily matched the 109 in a dive raised my eyebrows -- was this indeed a 109 in as-new shape in proper tune and fitting?

I'd be very interested to hear the findings and impressions of all flyers concerned.

I think you and Talisman may be on to something. In flight I've sometimes noticed I wasn't getting full deflection of my ailerons (Spitfires, Hurricanes), but figured that was due to, what? Airstream pressure? On the ground I always had full deflection of all control surfaces, so I never gave it much thought. I never did any altitude/airspeed checks on control surface effect. It may be hardware-related or another bug come to light.

Well, many of us have had over a year "to train [ourselves] on being successful", then with the latest patch we suddenly have the enhanced opportunity to become even MORE "successful" -- with the RAF fighter FM's getting further nerfed. :rolleyes:

As many Blue 109 pilots say: "It's the pilot, not the plane." Well, until the pre-patch Spitfire IIa's were rolled out. Suddenly those Blue pilots weren't saying that anymore! LOL

None of the fighters, LW or RAF, have accurate flight modelling at present. The two that actually came closest, the pre-patch Spitfire IIa and Hurricane Rotol, were penalized because of their relative performance at the time to the 109's inaccurate FM. Go figure: a "coding optimization" patch also managed to slip in FM changes detrimental to the RAF fighters.

No recognition by 1C was given to the 12 lbs boost/100 octane issue with the Spit Ia and Hurri Rotol. It's a shame. The Blue pilots are being denied the "opportunity to be more successful" and are saddled with B&Z impunity over RAF fighters. :rolleyes:

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

It isn't. But the people who post reams of 'data' receive a level of support from the members, both on the forum and on the bugtracker.

Great. Unfortunately, no other aircraft has been adjusted to perform more true to life over this altitude, so the Ia is the only a/c worth flying up there. Add to this the ridiculous altitude limit imposed by the 'broken game' as you put it, why should we be smug whilst we're flying around up there between 18and 22,000ft on our own in our Spit Ia, up where no Blue chaps will go?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with me ole mate Snapper on most points he's raised.

Oh and here's a Google translate of Luthier's Sukhoi signature;

'Messershmidt all the chief and commander of the Spitfire'

I see no point in continually quoting RL performance figures at this time. The argument just goes around in circles. I think for the moment until the Dev's are ready to implement more complexed flight/damage model keeping teams balanced is important for online play. Online if one plane is far superior then those who prefer to dominate rather than be challenged will forgo alliances and go for the killer plane. When the 109e-4 was arguably the better ac I would fly the 109e-1. When it was the spit-II dominating I would fly the spit-I. If I'm going to win I like it to be on equal terms. I know I'm not alone, many pilots are tired of imbalanced planes.

It is "Chief of all Messerschmitts and Commander of Spitfires".

Blue pilots had the opportunity to learn in 10 years of IL2... flying a truck called Fw190, provided with ridiculous gunsights and gas tanks, against anti-G planes who didn't overheat and could lose oil for more than 10 minute (I'm not talking only about Spitfires, of course... do you know the old P39?)

They had the opportunity to learn teamwork tactics and to be patient, otherwise they would be fresh meat...

Don't worry, one day they will model the 100octane version and I'm sure nobody will say a thing against... provided that it's modelled as a real plane and not as anti-G machine like the Oleg's planes...

Be sure, SpitIIs were/are/will be not a problem until they are not flown in the correct way.

Just for your knowledge the last time I've flown alone in CloD I found myself against a Spit a 5000km over the channel... he tried an headon (a stupid manouvre I say), he made a 180° flat turn while I was trying an Immelmann turn that I failed to complete because on my lack of experience on CloD planes.

So I was in disadvantage and I've started a gentle dive for my territory... the guy followed me gaining as I was keeping my speed very high (probably a SpitII but who cares?)... he followed me over my home base, down at 1km where two other 109s helped me so that I could take him down.

Simply that was a moron.

Now I'm really getting frightened that this uprising for the 100octane Spitfire as priority, historical or not, it's only to kill the enemy without difficulties... since it's easier to stick you nose on someone 6 gaining on him instead of to lose time in learning tactics and teamwork.

I hear your pain.. but there will always be one aircraft which dives faster/ more stable than the others. Which ever this happens to be, that guy will always be able to follow other aircraft down and kill them. (until we get some actual working clouds to hide in)

In my opinion (based mainly on reading pilot's biographies etc) I would think that, generally the German built fighters (109s and 190s) were "better" in the dive than the British variants. And only the P-51 and P-47s were really their equivalent in the dive - as a general rule.

thanks for putting that one to bed.

Manu, you raise some good points IMHO about the fallibility of the RAE tests -- I forgot to add about the 109 pilot not being an actual LW pilot (and preferably an experten to wring out maximum performance from the captured 109). Obviously it was the best the RAE could provide at the time, but it would've been dangerous for a Spitfire pilot to put his trust in those RAE test results for the reasons we've both noted.

What Evangelus (See) suggests is of value and interest from a subjective viewpoint. It can help point to some glaring issues with both aircraft if all pilots' findings agree. Per your post, any actual changes to FM's of any aircraft should be done scientifically using established data. A good example would be the increasing complaints amongst 109 pilots of the wicked flight departure in an accelerated stall that seems to have cropped up with the latest patch + Hotfix. Is this really so? Certainly organized trials with Red & Blue pilots, all on Teamspeak, could establish this fairly quickly during dogfight scenarios. If all (or most) pilots actually find this to be so, then this would certainly be worth noting on the Bugtracker Report as a high priority item.

(As a Red pilot, I get great satisfaction if a pursuing Blue pilot "collides with terrain" at ground level....call it a "maneuver kill". But I would get no satisfaction if it occurs at, say, 2000 feet. I would much rather try for a guns kill as he recovers from the stall or take that opportunity to escape if I'm damaged or Winchester-ammo.)

So, I'm strongly in favour of one-on-one trials with plane swapping simply to get the subjective viewpoints of the pilots as a matter of interest.

@Manu: Any time I've gone head-to-head with a 109 it's been accidental -- usually not paying attention -- and I've always lost! LOL

The 12 lbs boost/100 octane historically was for emergency use only. If a Spitfire pilot uses it for a prolonged chase over the Channel he's asking for oil on his canopy and the 109 to circle back and demolish his badly-shaking aircraft. It DOES make the Spitfire extremely dangerous to the 109 pilot who gets careless in a boom & zoom attack, but the Spit will be far from invincible. It WILL discourage 109 pilots from loitering over RAF airfields as they will no longer enjoy total impunity from Spits clawing their way upwards to meet their airfield suppression attacks.

Spitfires are SUPPOSED to be frightening to its opponents, just as the 109's are frightening to the Spitfire pilots.

You forget the mighty Tempest! ;-)

But it's not really a issue of who's the faster IMO.

The problem resides in the realizing of your plane performance and the enemy's one, and how to fight because of these. Understanding your chances regarding energy state, relative position and territory over which you're fighting.

If I'm in the slower plane, for example a 190 against a P51, do you really think I'm going to follow the P51 in level flight KNOWING that I can't gain on him? No... first I'll try to not be in energetic disadvantage and if I'm forced to fight in that position then I will not stand on the P51's six for more than 5 seconds, above all if he's pointing at his territory. Of course he will attack me again when I turn away.. as he should.

The famous DnB... the most liked tactic of 190s... an impossible tactic without slower planes flown by guys with target fixation issues.

And if you are afflicted by this terrible curse that's target fixation then why don't you fly with a wingman? (here I'm not referring to you pstyle :-) )

You need only to stay over your home base and every 10 minute you'll see some enemy guy coming to strafe you on the landing strip, coming ALONE... give him a faster plane, nothing will change. Except that he will reach you in 30 seconds but it's enough to be killed by your wingman.

And I can't wait for a so well modelled Spitfire. :-)

I'm only stating that it's not really a priority in the sim IMO.. of course it HAS to be modelled for historical accuracy, but if the number of downed Spits is always upper than the number of lost 109s it's not because RAF misses the 12lbs boost... it's because the wrong tactics.

Don't get me wrong, Spitfires ARE FRIGHTENING (seriously, since my first objective is to avoid my own KIA/MIA) but only IF they are in the correct position and flown by an expert guy.

If I scroll the ingame score table and I read that a pair of the DangerDogz veterans are currently flying on a Spit you can bet I'm really worried about this.

But if I find a lonely spit 2km under my position why should I be worried? Probably only if it was a Oleg's Spit25lbs...

About headons, my squad severely prohibits them... there is actually one pilot who keeps doing them but it's the black sheep of the squad (and it's funny since he's our only real military pilot :-D ).

Anyway inside the message board of 12oclockhigh.net a guy posted this (confirmation needed):

As I said many times.. flying was a matter of bravery... it was a dangerous thing and actually some "pilots" were braver than other "pilots"...

It happens in IL2, ROF or DCS too... I'm afraid of the stall/spin and my squadmate, flying the same plane with the same loadout, can out-turn me.

I don't know for sure if the 1a outperforms the 2a at those altitudes, but it certainly outperforms the 109. I'll perhaps fly a test later tonight.

:lol:

Well, I think it's fair to say many Red pilots would disagree about the wrong tactics getting them shot down. But if you are right, then Red pilots will still get shot down even with their 100 octane/12 lbs boost because of these "wrong tactics". However, the strong opposition to the 12 lb boost would indicate many Blue pilots don't think this at all.

Are Blue pilots afraid of Spitfires getting their precious 12 lbs boost because, on a limited basis, the 109's and Spitfires will now be fighting on a more level playing field? Or is it apples-to-oranges, cannon shells-to-rifle bullets? (oops, poor choice of words, eh? ;) )

Quote:
Originally Posted by snapperpuss
"Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills."

Even I had to laugh at this one. :)

(And I realize that whoever posted used the nom-de-plume to avoid a possible infraction -- which I wouldn't want to have happen on my account)

It's easy enough for the moderators to check IP logs and see who the real account holder is.

You already know how I'm thinking about it... I'm just watching the total of votes on the bugtracker: I don't think many guys here are against the 100 octane fuel introduction.

Think about the Spitfires outnumbering the P51s on the old IL2 public servers... Most people don't care about their safety (being in a faster plane), they care about TnBing... no tactic, no patience... they act like dogs in heat, point the nearest target. Above all the Spit are historically easy to fly... it's not surprising if many newbies fly them. And to be honest you have to know that I did not let my cadets to fly 109F4 or G2 too...

Give them more speed.. nothing will change until they learn how the real pilots were fighting (ambush and BnZing as priority).

If you ask me I'll always take the P51 over anything... or the Spitfire over the P47 if I have to fly under 10km. If I can't choose then I will think about a tactic (probably it will result on me diving away as during the hunting of heavy bombers... I can't fight against P51 and P47 at 10km... then I'll dive away after the headon with the bombers)

BtW the strong opposition is coming from only 2 guys because of historical accuracy...

OK, I misunderstood your statement on why you thought adding the 12 lb boost should be a low priority. Virtually ALL of the "veteran" CoD Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who already employ solid ACM tactics strongly feel that 12 lbs of boost be a high priority. It makes no sense to make the 12 lbs of boost a low priority simply because newbie pilots would possibly misuse it!

Just to clarify, I didn't mean for the RAE tests to be uses as benchmarks for what we have in CloD - that would be pointless. I was just pointing out that, like the RAE did, it's possible to do similar and make in game comparisons regards particular aspects of FM that are the subject of discussion.

It was certainly being used and the RAF was in the process of transitioning. Of course it should be included.

Both sides were phasing in 100 Octane fuels during the Battle of Britain.

IMHO, they should model the stability and control characteristics of both aircraft correctly, too.

Does ANY thread dealing with something even remotely related to aircraft performance need to turn into a slap concest on the 100 octane issue?

This factor was hugely significant with rookie pilots in 109's. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that the combination of the wings creaking loudly under high wing load and the slats pulling out and then slamming shut with a loud bang each time was enough to make rookie pilots avoid tight turns.

Experienced pilots of course had learnt to trust the aircraft, anticipate slat deployment (and take it into account when shooting) and flew quite differently.

Its quite possible this trait of the 109 partially explains the typical later Luftwaffe order of battle where one or two Experten in each squadron undertook most of the combat supported by a large number of less skilled pilots.

When arguing for 100 octane fuel are you saying the red plane should be faster than they are now? If red planes should be faster due to historical correctness I can understand your concern but only if the blue planes are like wise correct in speed and climb rates, but are they? I both teams are equally down on speed the its not a big problem. Speed is only a figure on the screen as long as its relative to all moving objects. It would fool most of us if they added 10% to the ias gauge.

It's partially possible: still I think the most important duty of the veterans was to keep the rookies alive for 4-5 missions and that's easily more a tactic matter then practicing "tight turns".

Probably in the training centers whose rookies learned how to fly/takeoff/land, acquainting themself with the plane (mechanically).
A combat mission was really a different thing.

You take some virtual rookies and they will do always the same errors during the first dogfights except for some guys who actually had enough prior experience: I used to have some 1v1 flying in a HurricaneMkI against anything they wanted to ride, above all against the cocky ones... after their 5th KIA they learned that good tactics are superior to raw performances (above all turn rate).

But these virtual pilots can actually die more times. The real ones had to learn what to do and not to do in combat: probably tight turning was not a priority.

Anyway, about the RAE mock fights:

- we know that Flying Officer J.E. Pebody had completed the handling tests, but we don't know how these were conducted... was he totally familiar with the plane? Hermann Graf had a very troubling training on the 109... he was almost to be thrown out of the door and he was more a lucky dogfighter than a silent killer as Hartmann. Could the RAE pilot really push the plane at his 100% also with the slats opened as the 109 veterans did?

- many pilots has flown against him: what about their experience? It's is possible that many (the statement says "large number") of them were not-rookies and still had fear of stalling and spinning (ergo Spitfires could actually lose energy in turns), or maybe were those fresh rookies?

It would be a nice to have some info about that.

Fair question, Drewpee. Camber's recent post may shed some light on this issue:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...4&postcount=56

And all the FM's are ~25mph off.....in some unknown configuration...ie radiator settings, atmospheric conditions, etc...

It is all relative.

I have not examined any of the FM's in any detail since I got the game. I just noted how easy it was to spin the Bf-109E and the impossibility of breaking the Spitfire Mk I airframe on a dive pullout from 400mph IAS with full left rudder and full back elevator violently applied.

I am willing to bet the FM's are closer than one would think in terms of level speed and climb rates. The stability and control characteristics are not close though.

I wouldn't bet a lot of money, because they're not.

Looks like you are doing some intense testing there Crumpp. Maybe a test pilot in a former life.
I just hope flight models are looked at soon. I think online player numbers will start to drop if both red and blue can't both be competitive. At the moment dog fights are lasting too long with poor results. Very frustrating. I'd rather both spit and 109 were slower as long as 2 good pilots can end a dog fight, win or loose, live or die, with a smile on year face.:)

I just scanned this thread, as it is just like 100 other threads about FMs/aircraft performance vs. historical numbers.

Gents, we are all chasing our tails here, and no I don't mean a defensive circle...

None of the aircraft are correct, NOT ONE OF THEM.

Why beat each other up over this? We are stuck with an alpha build game currently.

It's why I don't fly much anymore, and believe me I do miss it. But it's just not worth doing at this point. When I do fly I just patrol inland and try to find unescorted bombers, if I see fighters I will generally try to run away as any fighter on fighter combat is utterly broken in the sim as it is. And it's not just aircraft performance at issue, visibility, sound, atmospherics, etc... all add up to a less than enjoyable time online.

I hope it does not take a further year to sort this mess out. I want to fly again, and enjoy it.

ROFL!

A proof that people can still take things with good humour, even after years reading this forum... cudos! :D :D :D :D

+1



~S~

Hmmm.....did you also notice that in a flat out dive, it's very difficult to get over 410mph IAS, and at 420mph IAS your ailerons fall off?

According to the Spit I pilot's notes provided with the collector's edition, max safe speed in a dive is 450mph IAS.

I did some dive testing a while back to figure out my limits and my results confirm this. 400mph is sustainable, but 420 will rip my ailerons off after a couple seconds.

Big whoop. Use the rudder and the roll rate is STILL too fast! LOL

I fly on-line rather than off-line and must admit that I am flying less and less now too and I never thought that would happen! It is all getting rather depressing.

Lack of historical accuracy, particularly performance accuracy for both Red and Blue aircraft, but especially for Red aircraft for me as I belong to an RAF squad, and game performance issues is resulting in less and less enjoyment as I wait for improvements. Am I waiting in vein though?

Do the developers care much about historical accuracy? Are we wrong to presume that historical accuracy is a high priority, or are they more interested in the game aspects rather than a high level of simulation?

How much historical inaccuracy are customers willing to put up with I wonder? There is not much dialog from the CloD development team regarding historical flight models as far as I can see, but perhaps I am wrong about that. Should we expect more dialog or are we lucky to get what we get?

I can’t help feeling that some transparency regarding the aircraft flight models and the development teams rationale for choosing them might help the customer base understand where we stand regarding this product. What precisely is their intention as far as flight models are concerned?

My squad has flown together less and less since CloD was released, due mostly to frustration and dissatisfaction regarding poor game performance and historical inaccuracy; and of course it’s not so much fun anymore IMHO. Many of our squad members are now off doing other things (WoT, RoF, etc, etc) and I get the distinct impression that other squads are suffering a down-turn too.

I never thought I would consider actually giving up on combat flight simulations, but I am now. Is the demise of CloD having the same effect on anyone else out there?

P.S. The poor attitude of some on this forum is also depressing. For example, opposition for oppositions sake, aggression, insults, lack of respect, lack of civility, lack of consideration, lack of objectivity, people who appear to enjoy the sport of arguing that black is white and baiting others, childish comments, a blue verses red agenda no matter what facts are presented, etc, etc. It strikes me that the vast majority of readers probably do not post in this forum due to the poor attitude of some that do. I have been educated by this forum and am grateful to many who post here, but I suspect that the silent majority that read this forum are judging some of what we post as very poor. That said, I think it will take both the development team and the customer base to work positively together to make us all feel better out this flight sim series and give it a good future.

Personally I was really keen to play Clod, I bought it within days of its release, and downloaded all the beta patches as soon as they were available.

Now, whilst I still check this forum for news I havn`t played the game for six months either on or offline and I never downloaded the latest beta patch, I guess my interest has just waned due mostly to the FM issues.

I guess the most reliable indicator of interest that remains in this game is the number of people who have downloaded the latest beta patch compared with the number who downloaded prevous betas

It really pains me to say this but Clod seems a deadend. All future development will be geared to BoM. It just seems to me that the developers with Clod took on a subject they never had any affinity with or true understanding of, rather they used this scanario merely to have a logical timeline for the development of the new game engine and franchise.

I wish them all the best with Bom and think with a theatre they are more familiar with and have a greater understanding of along with the extra time they will have had to develop the game they should do a better job.

Yeah, hope they don't. He was just poking fun. :)