Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301
 

It is nice to see the new 100octane Spit I and Hurri.

But boost levels are a bit weird:

Spit Ia 100 octane: +9psi normal/+12 psi WEP (should be +6.25/+12psi)
Hurri 100 octane: +6.25psi normal/+12psi WEP (correct!)

Spit II (unchanged, always 100 oct): +6.25psi normal/+9 psi WEP (should be +9psi/+12psi**)

** there was some previous discussion whether +12psi was approved for BoB Spit IIs.

There doesn't seem to be much point doing detailed testing on FMs that B6 said would be changing further anyway. But basically, the new WEP speeds (at SL) for Spit I and Hurri seem roughly to bring them into line for the historical non-WEP speeds, which is of course a step in the right direction. It should be noted that assuming the 109s are unchanged in the patch, they are slow at SL as well (but not as much as the RAF, depending on whether you subscribe to Messerchmitt official specs or some variously problematic actual flight tests)

The CloD Spit II (+9psi) could always do 290mph at SL, the CloD Spit 1a (+12) can now do ~280mph at SL (from 260mph at +6.25psi) and the CloD Hurri (+12psi) can do 270mph at SL (from 240mph at +6.25psi).

Cheers, camber

I never had any prob to race back to base at SL at 270 in a hurri before the patch (coarse, raise rad, check your alpha, beta and close that stupid hood).

I wonder how fast she would go now !?!

We speak about beta patches not official ones.

In beta previous patch speed were :

"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 if you get 270 mph in Hurricane you probalby fly withouth wings or in dive or in your imagination.


Camber unfortunately you have right still level flights for RAF and German planes are porked. Now 100 Octan fuel version of SPitfires and Hurrcianes near reached speed correct for 87 Octan version so there is still huge error.

The same is with power settings. SPit MK1a 100 Octan at +12lbs and 3000RPMs should fly at least 5 minutes without engine problems but in game it couldn't go over 2 minutes. Dont checked other planes yet - before patch Spitfire MKII had also engine power settings bug and engine broke too fast.


109 also is still too slow ab. 20 kph at low alts. Also 109 slats open too late (nothing change here). Rudder still work like in hellicopter not a prop plane.

So 1C have a lot work to do here. I hope they know the problems and BlackSix said that they still working with FMs so hope is still here but we will see.

There is so much misunderstanding here. I remember seeing a SPITFIRE Ia manual stating that 12 lbs time limits were 3 minutes.

Now you come here and says its 5 minutes for the IA. There is another manual stating 5 minutes but that was for the IIa i guess. There is so many that use general desinformation and try to using data from other aircraft (IIA) to provide performance of others (IA). Or comparing the best data from one ac with worst of others, or using extra arguments and aproximation much beyond the data to prove their points. The data should talk by themselves with minimal interference of the interpreters.

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

The fight lasted almost 10 minutes. The spitfire IIA totally overperformed the 109 high there making loops and barrels rolls while the 109 barely can climb or fly level. If in RL was that way the 109s would have no chance since the BoB fight occured mostly at high altitude, and we known that they were very well matched if we compared the kill/ratios against each other. Someone can say? The Germans have more acs? Ok if you consider the bombers. But fighter vs. fighter they were matched and the british were flying over its territory, the germans had teh fuel problem etc... The truth is, the SPIT accutually in sim is very capable aircraft and certainly well matched with the 109s....

If you have the spits like you want, overperfoming the 109s in every aspect the blue players would give up. Maybe the reds ll feel better historical accuracy shoting 109s at will, killing the 109s in 10 by 1 kill ratio, and flying only against IAs and germans drones. This happened in some IL2 servers after last mods. The servers are killed. If you are blue you have to be extremely sadomasoquist to fly that ultrapack servers. The multiple fms, each one with its own biased fms for one side or other completely destroyed the game...

What do you want in a simplistic way is an all win spitfire model who can zip zap, hang on the prop, barrels rolls like humming bird, rocket climbing, outstanding climbing and energy retention etc... I think you should think yourselves, you are really good pilots? My believe is that you believe spit is that mess because you do not accept defeat and have no humildity to recognize your own fault in your failure.You think you can only be defeated if fighting 3 or 4 109s. If you got defeated by 1 then the game is cheating.

Once i shot down a guy by surprise and he complained: "You shot me down because you got me by surprise. I would expect a chance to fight" And i answered: "Then you suppose i would give you a chance. You are in a spit."

The guys here complain about the spit. I go online and see a complete different situation: Man the spits are very agile, once the pilot sees you and are not a complete noobie is very difficult to put your guns in it, mainly if you are alone. Sometimes they start to whirlwind down there, the only thing they need do to is to pull the elevator as they. They have not to think in a strategy to escape, think about energy, force the adversary to lose their initial energy to after escape in a dive, etc they have just to turn in and endless whirlwinding... So simplistic and ridiculous... However i just accept the performance that i have in the 109 and fly with my brains... Man, is this guys playing the same sim than me?

just my point...

my be the devs would develop two versions of the sim. One for the british commowealth and another for the rest of the world.

Ernst,

This sounds like the beginning of an interesting argument. I was worried no-one would ever reply to this post :) But to start off, my position is that once within historical performance precision, if possible FMs should be balanced for to enable good on-line balance at least for one variant on each side. How exactly is that a request for an unbeatable Spit coming from my totally noobie-ness? We had a super-Spit in the last retail patch (Spit II), a plane with approximately historical performance in land of neutered allies and opponents :)

This is easy to state unless you try to actually become one of the interpreters (which is interesting but takes time!). A lot of flyers post "just make them historical", but never state their precise historical conclusions and their justification ....for aircraft as closely matched as 1940 109s and Spits, imprecision in the historical record makes a real difference in on-line matchups. And then some interpretation needs to made. The RAE data for the Spits is hard to argue with, but to use flight test data for 109s, or the Messerchmitt official specs? You could make 109s +/-25kmh faster on the deck and still be within the official factory specs. These are just speeds, what about things that that there is not objective historical data like energy bleed in high AoA zoom climb? That makes rather a big difference. How should the devs address parameters like that?

There is rather a big difference between "+12 Spit can just catch 109 at SL" and visa versa when you are bouncing or running away. I could argue either historical case in the pub (would lean to the Spit)

That is interesting...in the last patch before this one (despite the target performance data that B6 posted) Spits were terrible at altitude for speed as opposed to the 109s (which hit their factory spec data). But that is according to the cockpit guages. Whose to say they are right? I haven't noticed or done any high alt testing for the most recent patch yet. If 109s are terrible at height compared to Spits in the new patch, of course that is wrong.

I can't see how you would construe my post as "wanting" this. I don't play enough 1946 to know what recent patches have done to on-line balance.

Well people have always done that in Il-2. Myself I just send them a smiley face and don't take them seriously. Maybe even a ~S~, that drives them crazy.

What is the point of analysing the flight data and comparing to the historical record if 109 drivers such as yourself see it as having a secret agenda to get the super-spit that drives the 109s out of the servers, so the Spits can fly channel laps by themselves forever congratulating themselves on winning the virtual BoB? :) I fly red but I want happy and fulfilled 109 drivers (within defensibly historical performance), I am sick of seeing hardly anyone in ATAG at my flying time.

camber

Hello Camber,

Sorry. You misunderstanded me. My post is not for you but for all. My post was for all, red or blue, not for you. i do not called you noobie and or stated you want the 109s porked. Not my intention. Please forgive, but i stand my general point.

I put it in a general way. I am not saying to one or another... I just say sometimes appears that some want the things are this way because i cannot accept that people call the spit as they are modeled today as a complete mess compared to 109. And justfying their failures because the fm is wrong... They suppose the fms are wrong because other way they cannot be defeated...

Sorry for bad english.

meh ...

You cannot combine a totally accurate historical flight sim with a popular online flight sim.

Online flight sims need to cater to game balance issues and make concessions for popular (but historically inaccurate) myths about famous aircraft.

The two are not compatible.

Much of the RAE data is ONE airplane.
Supermarine also had a guarantee percentage of a mean in the Spitfire's performance.

I would like to see the stability and control characteristics modeled. As much as any other performance parameters, they are key to an aircraft's ability to fight.

I do not agree with the guys stating spitfires are porked. However since the devs make the 100 octane the servers are more populated and in fact i am happy with this because now we have more enemies to play with. In fact the reds are more happy to fly since they have 100 octane and the blue are happy because they have motivated enemies to play with. I expect the devs fix the hurrincane start procedure then the guys who like the hurries ll come too.

My only worry is that the devs create proper CEM and weathering that prevent players of using 12 lbs boost unpunished. Now after they had the 12 lbs they want to use it all time they want for longer periods without damage. Why? My critique is for that guys who thinks that while their acs overperforms the enemy in any situation then is not good enough. When i fly the 109 i only use 1.2 ata or aprox 70% trothle while climbing and only 1.1 ata or aprox. 50% while cruising. Normally when i change course i accelerate to 80% (only to maintain speed) for a while then trotle back to 50%. When entering combat i accelerate full power but always when i can i reduce the power to 1.2 or 1.1 to preserve the engine. With the actual CEM i really not need to fly this way, i could simpe maintain full power and be happy. But i fly this way because i like. I like to fly as is should be, even if the CEM permits the other way. I dream about the day when this ll really make some difference. This way not only that few moments of combat ll be important, but all you do since you take off. You ll have to really prepare to find you enemy. But i am cetic cause i known there ll be many complaining about: "I cannot fly more than x minutes full power" "The engine is porked" "Engine is heating too fast" "This is not true" "Engine is toast after some minutes" etc. So i am not very helpfull because the devs ll not made that way cause most guys are only turn and burners...

Some say: If the manuals say 3 or 5 minutes then they can use it for much more time without damage (based in what? developers are conservative?), i.e, using their own interpretation about a thing that is not wrote anywhere to get more advantage.

And i agree with Crummp control stability is very important and we have some things complete wrong like the 109 stall and spin behaviour.

I feel like there is a lot of bias when it comes to the spit, I feel more so than the Me-109. Spit Pilots Complain because they keep getting bounced by the ME-109 and call it a god plane...except for the fact that the 109 pilots are screaming in from a height advantage. From my experiences with the spit, it is far from uber sure, but it's REALLY REALLY good. To fight an ME 109 all you need do is turn and wait for his first mistake. It's easy to fly it on the edge because of it's baby easy flight model. It might well be slower than RL like everyone screams (as far as i know the 109 is too) but it's roll rate is crazy overdone and the controls are balanced wonderfully (which is not right). The Me-109 on the other hand is porked to a degree because it has no wing slats that function. to fight a spit I always seem like I need to fly on pins and needles. Many Times I have had a spit dead to rights (or the other way around) and have had him somehow fly out of it.

and yes, I agree the Me-109 has a completely wrong stall and spin. but I bet thats because it has no slats!

actually i see it the other way around, the Blues were used, since last beta, to fight horrendously underpowered Reds, and were having joy almost every day; personally i felt much harder to catch a 109 with a Spit IIa then it ever was with the former Spit Ia, when the also former super Spit IIa was almost banned; i also knew i had not unlearned, rather the Spit had its speed chopped, bled E like crazy, could barely climb, and dropped like stone above 15000ft.

what happened i think, is that the Reds had to became smarter and improve their game, the situation became an intensive training against a foe that was better in almost every aspect; so by now, with our refurbished Spits, what i feel and see is the Blues having their arses handed a lot more often; i know they're having a harder time atm.

however i agree the Spit is very difficult to stall, WHEN you know were the limits are; since the Reds are a lot more used to turning fights, this notion has became second nature by now. but i assure you it's very easy for a Spit to enter a spin when you overdo a tight turn.

as for the 109s, well i've seen a lot more crashes due to spins lately, essentially when they try to pull very hard turns at low speed near the ground; my advise, DON'T; without speed, it's half a suicide. then again, what is to be expected? 109 doesn't have that turning ability, it has always been known for being very twitchy pulling such stunts. maybe atm is a bit exaggerated, i cannot say; but for sure not completely fake; i guess they'll have to get used to it somehow until they master it or it's toned down a bit

I tend to agree with Jatta Raso - comparing the first and the current Beta patch, the RAF has got more chances now, which is good for everyone and it is also closer to historical specs.

It's all about the pilot. If he started with advantage (21k) and kept his speed up, it is possible to stay on top of 3 109. It's not particulary easy and you have to shoot well. It's the other way round if you bounce him, esp. at lower altitudes (10k). What was the pilot's name if you don't mind me asking?

I smiled reading your opinion on Spitfire, I suggest you try it for a month or so and fly against some competent 109 pilots if you can (there is quite a few out there).

Don't get me wrong, I fly in a RAF Hurricane Squadron (not too much fun at the moment, huh?) but I spent lots of time in all fighters and I very much like the 109. My opinion is that all the FMs are a bit on the dodgy side and it is possible to do crazy stuff in any of them. Not just the LW or RAF in particular.

I agree on the red whining though. It's usually based on lack of discipline and cooperation (especially that!) and inability to accept own failure. You can see this on both sides though, I suggest you ignore this kind of remarks, certainly works for me.

The game is what it is, just have fun. Improve, learn and appreciate the advantages of whichever plane you chose (109, Spitfire, whatever). It takes a good pilot to be succesful in anything. None of that is easier than the other, it's just different approach. The Luftwaffe has got the performance superiority, that's the way it was in RL, but at the end of the day it's just about the pilot's skill and tactics.

"short periods"

March 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ap1590b.jpg

August 1940: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...3&d=1332111666

November 1940: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1334724569

"5 minutes"

August 1940: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/dowding.pdf

Great post, Banks!

Just to evaluate the current model - it is possible to engage the BCC-O in a Spitfire Mk.Ia (100 octane) with following results:

- with mixture at auto rich, full boost (incorrect at +9lbs) and 2600rpm. Any more rpm and engine starts shaking (also incorrect, should be alright even at 3000rpm with the temperatures rising accordingly).

- with mixture at auto lean, full boost, it is possible to engage the BCC-O and fly at +12lbs AND 3000rpm for short period of time. Just watch your temperatures and adjust your power before it's too late.

The altitude where boost reads +9lbs with BCC-O on is around 12.000 feet (seems about right).

With the dodgy mixture and other things still incorrect, the devs are getting there I'd say. The BCC-O and 100 octane fuel can be very useful at lower altitudes, you need to be good with your CEM to get full use of it.

S!

CEM is way too forgiving and simple in this game at this point, FM/DM so porked that really hard to tell if it resembles a RC plane or what? And this goes for both sides, I repeat BOTH SIDES so there will be no commotion that I am biased to either side.

For me the biggest gripe are the oversensitive rudder and elevator trim inputs. I've tried to adjust it in the Controls but no..move the pedals 2-3mm and your plane wiggles like crazy making it hard to keep ball centered on 109 for example. Spitfire and Hurricane has trim so it easens the task a bit for these guys. Elevator trim is the same, making precise adjustments is very hard as merely touching the trim makes plane bop up or down. There is a RANGE of movement for a reason. And just check the Controls -> Axes how LAGGY the input indicators are, like it polls the inputs every 3 seconds or what? Compare to original IL-2 where you could instantly see the effect.

Also controls feel a lot twitchier online than offline. Can be the lag or whatever but very annoying at times when you try to execute precise maneuvers like aiming during a bomb dive or dogfighting.

In short the FM feels too much like the original IL-2 one with minor differences. For one I do not understand making Bf109 twitchy as it was not unless one the VERY edge of it's envelope where one should not be anyway. Where the Hurricane was said to be a stable work horse, but not so much here. Spitfire the full bred fighter but not without vices and punished you if could not tame her proper.

I think Chernarus calls again :)

I want to add a little bit of interpretation from my side. I don't think the time limits are directly connected to the engine overheat. The reason for the time limits is to ensure a reasonable engine life. Of course the time limits are indirectly connected with engine overheat as the temperatures will be higher with higher settings.

You may run the engine on "5 minute all out" setting for 1 hours without overheating, however this would reduce the time between overhauls considerably (maybe to 20 hours compared to 100 hours).
On the other hand you may run the engine on "30 minute climb" setting for 10 minutes and damage the engine due to overheating, because radiator was shut and speed was to slow.

So a "5 minute" limit doesn't mean it will only overheat after 5 minutes, it may overheat earlier and actions must be taken to prevent this. It also may overheat later or not at all and there won't be any trouble during this flight if the engine is new. There might be trouble in the next flight or you are grounded because of required engine overhaul ;)

S!

But with current system you can abuse the engine at will as the wear/tear/damage does not carry over to next flight. Always a factory fresh plane in use.

Indeed. Maybe the sequel/mmo will take care of this.

I completely agree and I am aware of what you wrote. I guess the time limit implemented within the sim is just for the game purpose, so people won't abuse it unreasonably. I don't know if that's good or bad or if there is a better way of modelling this.

My comments on the actual usage in the sim had nothing to do with the real life, basically I shared what we found out with our Squad while testing these new planes shortly.

Very good post Ernst. I say Amen to all that.

+1

especially with this beta patch, the elevator and aileron controls are really a mess....ive tried today the steam version again, to see the difference, and there is a big one....this beta patch is a big, really big step backwards regarding the elevator and aileron sensitivty in the 109...its hardly possible to aim accurately now.its a shame and damn its annoying...the rudder is maybe a bit better, but just like you said, its still hard to keep the ball centered in straight and level flight, with the slightest rudder input resulting in big reaction of the plane...

Is that true for all airspeeds? At least the elevator controls SHOULD get heavier when going very fast.

thats the strange thing,....its pretty much the same when flying really fast

I noticed the same with Spitfire last night.
A tiny touch of my z-axis threw the rudder out and I got the wind/buffet sound effect. I can't confirm this, but I am of the opinion that this is much more marked than previously.

I have a Joystick with the rudder on the Z-axis. Obviously this makes turning difficult now because I almost always accidentally shift the Z-axis slightly when turning.

I tried increasing the dead-zone on my joystick Z-axis to 10% at both the 0 had 100 marks but his had no effect. A tiny input still results in a very unsubtle movement of the control surface.

I'm not sure if people playing with rudder pedals have noticed any change in sensitivity.. it wouldn't matter so much if I could get the dead zone to work, then my accidental inputs would not result in a control surface change.

well, i play with rudder pedals...
though for me, although i notice a difference in rudder behaviour as well, its not my main concern...to be honest, i think the rudder of the 109 had a okish behaviour before both betas, the first beta messed the rudder up, and now its better again(though still too sensitive)...

my main concern(note im a 109 guy) is the elevator and aileron control behaviour with this patch...it just sucks

yeah I tried to write some paltry thing of my own, but ernst pretty much summed it up. I well flown spit Boosting Is a very very hard plane to fight. It was said that a well flown spit could dance around the sky, and that is probably true, the Issue to me is though...that the games spit is too easy to fly, It rolls far too well and has ungodly E retention. you really can't stall it at full power unless you do something drastic...and the Elevator/Ailerons exhibit perfect harmony, unlike real life where the elevator should be more sensitive.

I think If we actually make the Spit a challenge to fly like every plane should be on the edge we would solve our problems

the elevator is also very twitchy with the Spit, considerably more than before, has caused me a lot of missies from dead six, i end up fine tuning with the vertical trim on approaches and even so it's not easy; regarding rudder, it's the same situation with a sudden response on slight inputs. i find the control surfaces' response more sluggish at high speeds, although maybe more with the ailerons than with elevators.

as for the CEM questions, about WEP (boost cut-out in my case), well i don't think i can reach 2min at 3000rpm on cut-out without blowing the engine, and that with slight variations from level flight; i may fly for quite some time with cut out on 2700rpm, or i may be unable to sustain it at 2640rpm, it really depends on the given situation and speed; speed is another variable in the fray, i have been squeezing 300-310 mph at level flight with rad at 30-35% with cut-out at 2640rpm and getting away with it, i think because of the extra speed meaning extra cooling.

furthermore, i've realized there seems to be some random factors on the engine's thermal behavior; also there's a tendency to overheat when reaching 10000ft, sometimes forcing me to reduce rpm just below 2640rpm,or to reduce boost (throttle) which makes sense to me, as the air should be thinner and the prop would get less opposition, in turn heating up the shaft, governor and engine itself. right?

last note: i've read extensively that in RL the Spit was really childish to fly, "anyone could fly a Spitfire", so i don't think it's harmonic behavior is that far off... slightly overdone probably; what may be lacking to destabilize it some more is some wind conditions and different air masses with dissimilar air density

Here are Real Life power settings for Merlin III and Merlin XII during BOB era:

Merlin III with CSP at 87 Octan fuel:

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +6 1/4 at 2600 RPM
Continous cruising- +4 1/2 at 2600 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM

Merlin III at 100 Octan :

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour)- +6 1/4 at 2850 RPM ( below 20 000 ft)
-3000 RPM (above 20 000 ft)
All-out level flight ( 5 minutes)- +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)
Emergency power (5 minutes)- +12 lbs at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)


Merlin XII at 100 Octan

Max take off - +12 at 3000 RPM
(probably emergency 5-minutes also)
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +9 at 2850 RPM
Continous cruising- +7 at 2650 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit)- +9 at 3000 RPM


I really hope and want to see such power settings in CLOD RAF fighters

But probably it would be miracle if we see it :roll:

Don't expect perf as in the manual if your eng is not properly in the same state as during the test.

For example if you are cruising too fast toward the combat zone, you can't expect max perf from your eng especially with WeP.

I scarcely see ppl cruising at 260/300+kph in game in a spit (some are and I like to see it).

Or in the case of the p38 it would run forever without overheating but exceeding recommended time limits would stuff the turbocharger with the consequent drastic reduction in power.

Clearly in a game "overheating" is used to represent a wide range of engine faults not all of which manifested in real life as actual overheating. This applies to many FM and DM scenarios, you cannot model everything.

As a result if you want to claim your favorite ride has been nobbled (regardless of what plane is) its not to hard to find some area in any sim where the simplified modelling means a mismatch with historical data.

Exactly.

The most thing they can simulate is the mindset of piloting an aircraft. That means maintaining a scan of the instruments and operating the aircraft by the POH limits.

IMHO, CloD does this better than any game before it.

People should note that Ernst was one of those in the tiny minority who voted against 100 octane fuelling in bug 174. As a result I take what he says with a pinch of salt.

I agree, but the POH limits should be modelled correctly. I can see they can't model everything and the engine damage is simplified (and overaggresive for the gaming reasons) and I have no problem with that. Even though the relative performance now seems to be much better than even before and maybe the boost gauges showing incorrect values are purely cosmetic issue. This is still subject to change and I am not about to do any proper testing just yet, but I would say that most of the RAF flyers welcome the current beta. All it needs now is fixing the instruments (if that's really the issue) so correct figures are being shown, fixing the incosnistencies within RAF fighter mixture control including the necessity to go Auto Lean in order to be able to use +12lbs. at 3000rpm. And include similar limitation for DB 601 Notleistung so people won't abuse it like I do. :grin:

Osprey - Ernst seems to be just a frustrated LW pilot that was outflown by some Spitfire pilot, there is nothing wrong with that. His post is interesting and I understand what bothers him (I don't like whining either), but he is obviously wrong in his assumptions.

I routine get my butt kicked flying the spitfire. I generally put this down to poor tactical choices, slow reactions time and being deviod of any combat flying skills! :)

As such I tend to be of the opinion it's the pilot not the plane!

I'm not to sure about all this talk of Uber Spitfires when I can almost keep pace with one in a Blenhiem!

You can always tell a noob Blue pilot from the radio message!

Pilot 1 - "I've just shot down a Spitfire!!!!!!! :) :) :)"
Pilot 2 -"That was only Skoshi tiger!, Everyones done that! :rolleyes:"
Pilot 1 - "Oh! :("

Cheers!

Lol tht's all your theory of 100oct available in fighter during BoB that has to be taken "with a pinch of salt".

Your way of re-writting the big and the small history is remarkable ! Wew :grin:

Osprey and Robo,

Voted no by the same reason i explained above. Without proper CEM and engine tear/wear people should abuse using boost every time. You should consider others opinion in full not only the part you want, trying to demoralize the person instead to argument against their ideas.

You should attack the ideas not the person. I am in the right to say this since i never attacked you before. And then you decided to discredit my ideas simple attacking my person. If you only want to demoralize others and have no new idea to add to the discussion do not post. This a good topic that i m affraided it ll be derailed by now.

If once a time i attack you personally, i do not remember but i would like to apologize now.

.....riiiiight.........:rolleyes:

Ernst, just for the record I never commented on your voting, that's your personal opinion and I never had any intention to question it. Just so you know, as for now, you can't abuse the 12lbs. boost at all, it's actually quite tricky to use it and you can destroy your Merlin pretty easily when you're not careful.

Also, I never attacked you (maybe on ATAG), I simply disagree on what you wrote in post 4, that is just your observation based on what you encoutered (probably a capable pilot with E advantage). I simply believe that your comment on Spitfires is wrong and your comment on red pilots whining is very correct. I don't know you and I have no intention to offend you, but the post I commented was pretty much the same thing you disliked on the red side. Except now it was you whining. If you have problem outclimbing a Spitfire, you're doing something wrong with your 109. That much for my opinion.

Enough has been said to this topic, the evidence is overhwelming, but you can't please everyone, feel free to believe what suits you best.

Having the 100 octane fighters at least is both historically correct and good for the game.

As for the actual FMs - shall we report the current issues or is it OK to rely that the devs will get it absolutely right in the final release? ;)

You hve a strange way of understanding the logic behind what is historically correct.

Assumptions does not makes proof of fact. No matter how numerous they are thrown in the basket.

The way the 100oct debate have been pounded and the voices of other opinions (because there was different opinions) repeatedly hammered by constantly repeated arguments and personal insults (I still have a vivid remembrance of being insulted by some myself) shld hve not played in your favor this way.

Even the way of some 100Octaner are flying the sim is subject to doubt.

And know you are arguing the SPit does not have strange FM regarding turn rate, E retention, is not Free of stall etc.. etc...

You know, the more I read you and your affiliates, I make my mind believing that the right simulation for you is something related to Duck shooting in a narrow corridor. And still you might request some change in the bird FM !

Please do tell me what is historically correct then, regarding the 100 octane spirit.

I know I know, everybody is cheating - especially whoever shoots you down. ;)

No I am not arguing about that at all. In fact I have raised many issues regardless on the side preference (I fly pretty much everything) and I am aware of the issues you mention. I never said what you said I said though. :eek:

You are very wrong in your assumptions, but it does not matter all that much. I have nothing else to say to you.

Kwaitek's post reminded me that with this patch the Spit 2a versus 100 octane Spit 1a performance is now completely out of kilter. They really should not be massively different.
The 100 1a now feels strangely unstable, much slower to accelerate, struggles to turn.

Spitfires were always "nice" to fly, this one is not. Yes, this is a rather subjective view! I'd be grateful if someone could produce some comparative performance graphs, particularly sustained turn rates, it's difficult I know.

56RAF_phoenix

Do not turn this into another moronic 100-octane thread. Please and thank you.

I don't think that would make any sense now as the devs might come with a new patch soon, putting all testing and graphs to the square one again.

From technical point of view, main Spitfire FM issues are:

1. Mixture still wrong way around (although unlike the Hurricane, this one works correctly as 2 pos. lever)

2. +9lbs. bnominal boost on Merlin III :-x

3. inability to use BCC-O at Auto Rich mixture at 3000rpm (and +12lbs.), just makes no sense, but your engine will shake above 2600rpm :o

4. temperature limits too strict (time wise) for both all out and BCC-O, engines too fragile

As for the 'feeling' I don't think they have changed anything, neg. G is still dodgy, now you can't stall the thing, you can apparently pull like a plunger and it won't stall while turning. It's still a spitfire with some nice extra kick at lower alts, just as it should be. Above 10-12k it's the same like good old Mk.Ia. I haven't noticed any changes in acceleration or stability - non of these are strong points of this plane anyway.

We'll see how and if these issues will be addressed, but I'd say that with this patch it's a bit more of a Battle of Britain, which is good.

/edit/

If you feel like voting for the mixture bugs, please do so here:

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/18

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/102

It seems that some of the most obvious bugs have been addressed already based on the bugtracker system.

Still some here try to put these disccusion into red or blue agenda whining lol. Poor anyside biased people.

The true is that actuall engine power modeling is wrong in many ways. Merlin engines in CLoD dont reach their real life specification. It should be corrected.

No one from "blue guys" dont even mention that 109 E in CLoD could fly all day in 5-minutes emergency power rating - 1.3 Ata at 2400 RPM without any engine problems but when it is clearly that Merling III or Merlin XII cant even reach their 5-minutes emergency rating without broken engine and some want it to be correct "blue guys" screem like hurted kids.

Im sure that time limit for engine power settings (from manual) should be reachable without any seriously problems in normal condition of flight and only in extremaly condition ( e.x very hot temperatures, cooling system damages, engine damages) could casue a problems.

Unfortunately in CLOD even in normal condition time limits for engine power settings are not possible to achive not mention that there are many bugs with designated engine power settings like e.x. SPitfire MK II with Merlin XII - nominal power should be +9lbs at 2850 RPM ( not +6 like now) and emergency should be +12 lbs at 3000 RPMs (not +9lbs like now)

I repeat correctly (historical) engine power settings for Merlin engines:

Merlin III with CSP at 87 Octan fuel:

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +6 1/4 at 2600 RPM
Continous cruising- +4 1/2 at 2600 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM

Merlin III at 100 Octan :

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour)- +6 1/4 at 2850 RPM ( below 20 000 ft)
-3000 RPM (above 20 000 ft)
All-out level flight ( 5 minutes)- +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)
Emergency power (5 minutes)- +12 lbs at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)


Merlin XII at 100 Octan

Max take off - +12 at 3000 RPM
(emergency 3 or 5-minutes also)
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +9 at 2850 RPM
Continous cruising- +7 at 2650 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit)- +9 at 3000 RPM

That is not right at all. The Spitfire gave plenty of warning but the longitudinal instability made it easy to over control and stall with a wing that had very harsh accelerated stall characteristics.

3/4 in stick travel runs the wing from cruise to stall with 5lbs per G.
Here is the post war proposal to adopt quantifiable stability and control standards like the United States. Up until then, stability and control at the RAE was opinion. It is interesting too reading the measured results vs opinion.

In Gates test, the Spitfire exhibited peak stick force during a steady 4G pullout was only TWO POUNDS!!

Of course he labeled it too light. The Stirling on the other hand exhibited a peak stick force of 84lbs during a steady 2G pull out. It was considered normal under quantifiable stability and control criteria.

Now Gates did publish several papers after visiting the NACA attempting to get the RAE on a standard or at least improve their stability and control science but it was not adopted until post war.

Between Gates and Lyons the RAE was finally on a standard by 1950.

What Kwiatek said.

I am aware of that, Crumpp.

S!

Kwiatek, I do not complain about the 1.31ata as I VERY rarely even use it ;) My most used setting is actually the best cruise power 1.21ata :) That way can keep oil and coolant cool with minimal radiator flap opening thus I have nice speed too :)

But this all boils down to the "complicated" CEM we have, basically a bit refined from IL-2. CEM is not an issue most of the time as you soon learn the settings that can be run regardless power settings. Be it blue or red.

I think all agree that the FM/DM/CEM needs a LOT of work and we can only hope that before the sequel is out, it is done or all hell will break lose and this bickering here will be nothing compared to that.

Over and out :)

S! Ernst,

First, you guys dont took me down, i land my plane, with damage but i land... lol

So lets talk about this point you bring up in your topic... All performance test i have read tells me one thing, spitfire still under modelated, BUT almost red pilots complain agains 1009s not becouse the spitfire was under performed, its becouse they dont know how to manage the engine settings...

That night we fight a hell of a great battle, i shoot 2 109s down at 23k ft, and apper 2 more and i have to run away and land... How i do that? How can i make barrel rolls at 22k top how can i loop in that altitude...

So... every loop i made, i lost my engine at top, flaps down to help me bring my nose down again and dont stall, to restart my engine again... BUT in result of that i lost about 5k 6k ft to recover and back to fight again.

In that altitude you can compare, spitfire got almost the same climb rate, i just set my engine for better flow of cavalary and acceleration... Thats the point when a Blue pilot fight against a Red Ace, we got the same vantages you got.

I know you are a great fighter pilot, we play togheter a long time, but belive me, in that altitude fighting against a Spitfire IIa in certain hands, its very difficult to win...

I dont want to be arrogant or rude with anyone, but its fact, blue pilots trust too mutch in their planes, this excessive trust maybe will defeat someone maybe not, deppends against you are flying. I belive in two things, gunnery and pilots hands, of course engine performance will help too, but in war we saw this happening, spitfires rocking 109s and vice versa...

We will try to reach a more realistic Spitfire, and of course we want a more realistic 109s, but guys, open you eyes, dont reach a IL2 1946 performance, that simulator SUCKS becouse that unaccurate flightmodels... fact too...

Ill post Spitfire tests soon in this forum, for comparasions... ok?

Cya guys! Cya in skyes! ;)

I claim it since 6 years at least... Spit's energy retention gives to it a great advantage at that altitude.

The first part it's true for both the sides. ;)

Gunnery, yes, but more than pilot's hands it was pilot's IQ. Fatigue modelling, but above all realistic scanning timing and visibility would give the real advantage to the smarter and more disciplined guy, and not to the one who's good with the stick. ;)

Thx for the kind words! I 100% agree with you! I think we can add the famous "Situation awarness" or "SA" in parallel with IQ and discipline of the Pilots.

Of course we will reach for realistic flight and models like you said =)

Cya! ;)

Nice reading Felipe - I didn't get that it was yourself in the Spitfire from Ernst's post. Well flown then!

But what you discuss here with Manu is all about individual pilot's skill = using the existing FMs but not about FMs themselves. Although I obviously agree with what you said, it always comes down to the guy in the cockpit, his brain, his hands, feet, eyes, experience...

As for the Flight Models - there are still mistakes and inconsistencies in all aircraft, this thread is about improved RAF aircraft from the last Beta patch. Not because anyone is complaining but because all this is new stuff and we want it to be evaluated, discussed etc. It always takes some time to get used to the new stuff and to figure it out...

Coming back to what Ernst said about the initial FM discussion:

You can take whatever FM and make it work for you. Good pilot is a good pilot... but that doesn't mean that the FM is correct.

Have you ever tried flying a Spitfire above 20k? It certainly outperforms the 109s up there, which is why Felipe was at that altitude in the first place. But it's certainly not easy, I would say that many people with less hours in a Spitfire would blow their engine before you say Messerschmitt Messerschmitt Messerschmitt.

How exactly matched? Speed wise or climb rate? What altitudes are we talking about? Looking at the hard data - graphs etc it looks that Merlins had a slight edge up there, see http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html (I do know the site is red biased, but the actual graphs are not far off). German pilots were struggling up there and it required some skill to get some extra speed above FTH - see Steinhilpers book and fiddling with RPM etc. Even more pronounced with the Merlin XII.

I agree it is very capable and now quite well matched (with this new patch I mean). But we're still not quite there hence this discussion and pointing out at things that are still wrong - including weird mixture behaviour or wrong limits for engine operations.

Where exactly did you see a 3' limit for BCC-O (Merlin III)?

Bugtracker issues dealing with Spitfire FMs :

1. Incorrect boost settings (Rolls Royce Merlin engines):

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/370

2. Incorrect mixture operation (Rolls Royce Merlin engines):

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/102

3. Incorrect mixture position (Spitfire)

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/18

Please do vote, it seems the devs are listening and are basing the fixes on the number of votes.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

I found the gen via the above link (esp para 4) rather interesting Phoenix.

Happy landings

I've flown with Felipe before, he knows his stuff. Had you (Ernst) been taken down by me then perhaps we could argue about overmodelling, but Felipe, no, he just gets the best out of it.

This was all predicted, that after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FM's are at least brought closer and now a number of blues are suddenly upset about it. One thing I notice is that the best blue pilots are pretty much silent though, they know their machines and how to use them. If you want to learn from some of these types and aren't a squadron take a look at JG26 in Air Combat Group :) JG26_DavidRed is desperately hard to kill !

~S~

Hey Osprey and Robo, thx!

So Robo, i talk about pilots skills but i talk about correct modeling too, i think we all reach the correct FM and we will seek that! :D


Anyway i am workin with AN team for bring up the new datas of performance tests of spitfires and hurricanes ok?

Lets work for a more accurate FM!

:cool:

Osprey, many pilots keep flying Spitfires at low altitude and this is not a matter of FM...

I don't know Felipe's skill but just for the fact he flies so high it makes clear that he's more than an average Spit pilot, a good challenger, and I guess he was also when RAF fighters' speed was lower.

But, imo, you find one as Felipe once every 30 engagements with Spitfire pilots. So I can understand if blue pilots feel confident in their rides: probably they used to not look above their plane while flying at medium altitude. ;)

S!

I would say that there is an equal amount of average pilots in both camps, a few shine above them and then the new ones learning the ropes. Has nothing to do with any preferred ride or side.

As many state it would benefit all to make comprehensive tests and post the results and see what is off, what is OK and what needs some tweaking only. Without it going into a blue vs. red name calling, that is not what we need but a game/sim all want to play and learn to be a good pilot.

Which is of course what happened in the real world

S!

Sure was, but again seems many think that they should be like the very few that became legendary aces. We play a game and it sets some limitations we have to live with. And one is that we will never get accurate FM/DM/CEM because hardware just is not up to it or you would have wireframe graphics ;) I think the expectations are too high combined with the saturation of information/notes/memoirs/interviews and no-one will never be happy no matter how hard a dev tries.

So what we can do try is to get performances and modellings within an acceptable limit so the gameplay will not suffer but again not become too simplified. Then CoD and it's sequels will shine when the balance is found with the CORE of the sim being rock solid to build on. Just some thoughts..

[OT]
You're polite Flanker, but do you really think all the planes require the same skill to succeed? I don't think to say garbage by stating that TnB fighting require less self-discipline (see patience) and every new aggressive pilot can get used to it at the first dogfight very fast, since it's a "there 's no need to think: move the stick, aim and fire!"

Instakill.

If the Zeke's pilot keeps downing the Wildcat's one who's trying to turn with him, don't you think that the american pilot will try something different BEFORE the japanese one? Infact the latter does not need to change his tactic at all.. he's winning.

IMO BnZ is harder to learn, required more time and many KIA: it's less rewarding and a guy without patience will switch plane (do you remember the 190's IL2 history?). Because of this I think that the average pilot of BnZ planes (109/190/Hellcat/P47/P51) is actually more skilled than a Spitfire/Zeke/La7 pilot.

Still you enter in one of the most populated IL2 dogfight server and you find most of the 109s flying high and teamworking, and the rest is below, so that I have to fly with SpitfireI/La5/P51C and together with a teammate to have some fun since most of the guys there seem to not cooperate: of course still you find a single 109 who want to turn with you and dies fast... but the same number of BnZing Spitfires.

Of course I'm talking about IL2 1946... only Luthier knows when CloD will be worthy of been played by me.
[/OT]

Sooo... returning to the FM argument: Osprey states that "after 14 months of utter domination by the 109 the FMs are at least brought closer"... Flanker.. do you really believe it was a FM issue?

The last thing about the FM test (to not be totally OT :D ): have you guys a direct link with the developers? Are you sure that your tests are helping CloD?

Since I think this devotion should be directed where you can actually see results... what about a DCS World MOD?

http://i.imgur.com/ynB17l.jpg

Maybe one day CloD will actually allow the community to gain from your knowledge and perseverance... SDK?

Well said, Flanker!

S!


What I am saying Manu is that there are average pilots that could not get the most out of their plane no matter how accurately it was modelled. They might not be bad sticks but maybe their SA is not the best or some situations just are too much for them to handle. I am talking about PERSONAL abilities here, not the FM or whatever. You can give an idiot the best tool in the world and he could do nothing with it when a more talented guy would do wonders even with a less good tool. Got the pic?

I've seen over the years many complainers how overmodelled something is and when proven wrong you are a cheater. Again nothing to do with FM or whatever but PERSONAL abilities. Boom and Zoom whereas Turn and Burn BOTH require skill to get good results and not yourself killed. And again the FM has nothing to do with it, but how YOU can handle the situation. You are given a tool, make the best use of it in the situation. Learn how to use it properly.

So I think that if we got FM/DM/CEM/Whatever well done as the CORE of the game then ALL would have a good chance to become a proficient pilot. In current situation there are too many things making some planes better over some due limitations of the game, not the player. But remember that some pilots EXPECT a Spitfire or a Bf109 of that matter to do what they THINK it should, from whatever experience they get it from(books, discussions, programs, insert source here). And it is easy to come here screaming how shit plane A is over plane B when the fault is 99% between the chair and stick. Do not EXPECT but LEARN. Then you will be the ace of all times or whatever or you will just enjoy the game even more.

So basically..Devs should make the CORE (FM/DM/CEM/whatever) of the game rock solid. After that the rest is up to the player and his own abilities, not the game limitation. I hope I made myself clear in a positive way :)

Manu, you run the risk of seriously underestimating your opponent. It works both ways, which you fail to mention. For 14 months the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots have dealt with experienced 109 pilots that, quite wisely, refuse to t&b. The 109's have used their superior speed and climbing performance to dive out of the sun, take their shot, then climb back untouched into the sun to repeat the process over and over and over until they get their kill. Yes, the Spits and Hurries turn for all they're worth, but it's hard to dodge the opponent you cannot see in the sun's glare. Can't dive away......that just makes you an easy target for the 109 pilot who can out dive you. Can't run away.....the 109 can easily catch up and shoot you down easily. Can't porpoise like the 109's favourite evasion tactic....the Merlin's carbureted engine cuts out -- at the worst possible time. Can't climb away.....even a co-energy 109 can easily outclimb you. Can't out-scissors the 109.....his roll rate is faster than yours. Oh....you can out turn him in a sustained turn....but the 109 won't hang around for that. Why would he? He can just speed/dive/climb away to repeat the boom and zoom process against his severely underpowered opponent. I've been told I can "angle fight him"......as the 109 pilot circles 1000 meters overhead laughing.

Experienced Spitfire and Hurricane pilots have learned spawn inland and grab altitude -- lots of it. 20,000 feet for starters. Which is not particularly helpful when a half dozen 109's are tag-teaming each other vulching the RAF coastal airfields. If a Spit or Hurri tries a boom and zoom on an unwary 109 below, he better get it right the first time and make his kill. Reason: Spits and Hurries have to CUT THROTTLE when initiating a dive -- they lose their ailerons past 420 mph otherwise (despite spec of 450 mph dive limit --that's a laugh. Yet a big concern by Blue pilots that the Spit's roll rate is 3 times too fast at 410 mph. Better use the rudder to do your fast rolls, 'cause you ain't gonna have ailerons too much longer! :-P). So if you miss your shot on that first attempt -- keep diving and run away. Otherwise the 109 will bunt down after you, accelerate in HIS dive and catch you as you pull up to regain altitude to repeat your boom and zoom. Don't forget, the Spit and Hurries didn't have WEP at all, unlike your 1.3 -1.4 ata that you can use over and over and over. Now we have "WEP" -- last time I used it (12 lbs boost, 3000 rpms, Full Lean mixture) on Tues night I blew my engine after a 1.5 minute climb just before reaching an unsuspecting 109. He flew on unaware while my smoking Spit fell away losing power. Yet we have Blue pilots quibbling over whether we should have 3 minutes or 5 minutes of "WEP" when we don't even have TWO minutes!!!!:rolleyes:

So, call it whining, whinging, or whatever. I fully realize 109 pilots have their FM concerns as well, especially concerning control surfaces. But I don't for a second cast aspersions on their fighting skills just because they've had it easy against the RAF fighters since Day 1. Exception: the very former Spitfire IIa. Rarely seen online (at most five were allocated). Despite very strong objections on this forum, we're finally seeing some acknowledgement at least from the devs that the Boost Cut Out Override gate (Spit)/plunger (Hurricane) actually served a purpose. The devs still refuse to actually give historical performance to this all-important feature, for reasons not mentioned yet.

All to say, Spit and Hurricane pilots have THEIR challenges, too. It's not the easy turn and burn you make it out to be, unless we chance upon a noobie 109 pilot. Nor is boom and zoom easy, I fully realize, when you have only a few seconds to judge speed, deflection, and convergence. Not to mention the 15 seconds of ammunition the 109's are limited to!

Have had the pic for some time now..

In that Chuck sumed it up nicly so many years ago when he said..

Forgive me if I'm multi-quoting you post :-)

I totally agree with you. I don't think to have said something different.

I'm all for a sim in which pilot's skill is far more important than plane's performance. IL2 is not one but still it's the best out there (the 4.11 patch is great btw!)

But the tools given to you are different: there is not a single plane, and every plane have different performace and behaviours. You have "to learn" how use it properly because only in this way you can handle the situation as you said. The relative perfomance of the plane is the thing that dictate you tactic, your engagement, your actions and reactions.

And this has a lot to do with FM. IMO. This is why in a 1v1 I lose against one guy but I win if we switch planes. Both we can fly at the same way, but on plane performes better than the other.

This is the reason I think that skill is higher for the ones who fly not friendly planes... because, against a pilot of the same experience (but in a friendly plane, call it easy planes, as 109F4 or G2 in IL2) he's going to have his a$$ kicked... once, twice, 10 times until he "learn" that he has not to do and, at last, how to fight. Luckly for him he's a virtual pilot so he can learn dying.

I think "Do not EXPECT but LEARN" is a great sentence.

So your plane is a little slower than the historical one... the why you still try to fly it in the wrong way? Why didn't you react learining instead of the asking for the correct one "AS PRIORITY" when there are so many broken things in this game?

I'm happy that the develper "tried" to implement the RAF fighters with 100oct: is it historical fuel? great!! But I think also that some use this issue as an excuse for their poor flying.

Every Fw190 pilot in IL2 had to fly plane with worser performance than the one of a captured and crashed plane. Probably many of them cried on a message board (with Oleg denying and closing their mouths) but still the 190 was the butcher bird in most of the dogfight servers (the full difficulty ones, I mean)

So by experience I don't agree at all with the sentence of Osprey since the new FM is been pictured as solution, but bad pilots will keep flying in wrong way, ignoring every tactic and strategy: probably they will stick their nose on the enemy's six knowing that "this time" they could reach it... if they learned, as you say, that altitude/speed is life then they should succeed also in the 87oct version.


The should have.. I don't believe they could do anything better that this while part of the staff is modelling russian planes, russian house and russian doghouse for russian dogs (that probably will be animated)

S!

Good post Manu :) Learn the tools of the trade and you will be successfull :)

Snapper, I'm not limiting my opinion on what I've seen in CloD.

I don't fly Clod. I did 34 hours, and most of them were for settings configuration. I just reported the fight in which my chasing Spitfire followed my from 6km to 500m over my base where me and 2 other guys killed him.

I'm taking about IL2 in general: so there are not only SpitI and 109E... I understand that the engine cut is an handicap... And it's a good thing that they implemented it (IL2 Spitfire's flown many years without the Miss Shilling's orifice). I also understand the weapon limitation.. it's all historical (but I question CloD's DM model: damage could be roughly modelled as FMs).

In many years of flight simming I almost can remember every time I found a Spitfire at high altitude dictating the fight: I remember them since with some of these pilots I've became friend (when somebody give me a good fight and fly well I'm used to make him my compliments). I remember many of my KIA (above all the one made by Jaws in his 190 against my spitfire... I learned a lot from that single kill) since I really hate to be killed.

But I can also not forget how many times I BnZed planes with target fixation who had a plane with better performance but didn't used it correcly (SpitIX should be untouchable by Fw190 and because of this it was my favourite prey...I fled only to kill them :-) ).

The few time I entered in a CloD server it was the same thing (but with the addon of invisible planes, ghosts and monkeys operating the flaks).
Sadly my mind refuses to fly with CloD anymore, and so most of my teammates... 20 pilots with CloD, only one still fly it and it's one of the nicer poster here).

Anyway it's fun that you said about the spitfire veterans: I'm not used to fly spitfires but 2 weeks ago I've taken two cadets of my squad in a server... 1940, too many blue and so we took the RAF fighters... we took the SpitfireIs so they could learn the "enemy" plane. I told them to spawn on a base far from the coast because, I guessed, the 109s would come there and cap over our bases... "we spawn and gain altitude far from the coast. Then, with altitude, we enter in the combat zone"... I was right, after some minutes the 109s were there and I managed to kill 3 of them but I crashed while landing against an invisible building... :-|. God cried that night.

I think that the veterans should teach this "tactic", by Chat or by Briefing. With a so inferior plane RAF pilots should not pass the channel at 2km...

I will try to enter in the server to see if things are changed.

Well, guys, I can tell you one thing: give us the earlier "Über Sissyfire IIa" and it will be the Red pilots telling the Blue pilots: "Learn the tools of the trade and you will succeed.". And yes, the Red pilots will be quoting Chuck Yeager to the Blue pilots, too! ;)

;)

I remember that LW pilots were really worried about that plane, above all because of the superior service ceiling ("faster and higher", those were the requested features in a new plane).

Have I to fly in an inferior plane? I will not fly alone... teamwork can do amazing things (but here we should begin to talk about another limit of this sim...)

@Manu: Actually, everything you say I agree with in a general sense. Clearly you have flown flights sims for a long time, as many of us have, too. I fly CloD a lot, usually with the same Red pilots. Let's face it, after several hundred hours and literally many dozens of dogfights, pilots of both sides have far more [virtual] experience under their belts than most of the real life RAF or LW pilots ever could. Certainly well up there with the Eastern Front LW pilots that survived. (I'm not for a minute comparing ourselves with the Real Life pilots of either side; hopefully everyone realizes that!)

The point I'm making is that many of us on both sides are very good at this SIM. Many of our dogfights are very, very close run. We all know how to get the most of our chosen aircraft, which is why many prefer the model we do ie. in my case I choose the IIa over the 2-speed Spit I or the CSP Spit Ia because I can extract more performance from the IIa. Reason? Because I may find myself up against a LW pilot like yourself that can dig the maximum performance out of your E4 rather than settle on a G50.

Basically, as with any fine tool, I can make good use of an extra 20 mph or another minute longer at full WEP before the engine blows. I don't use the extra performance as a crutch, but as a means to better accomplish my task -- shooting down expertly-flown 109's! I know I speak for my mates on this. We don't want a crushingly superior fighter, because historically the Spits and Hurricanes were not. But they were closer a match in Real Life to the 109's than what 1C has modelled in Cliffs of Dover. That's all we ask.

Yes, and they were right to be worried. Actually, that IIa was modelled very closely to the Real Life Spit Ia -- it was the 109's that 1C should have modelled faster with better altitude performance to match and, actually, EXCEED it!

But the LW pilots would've been infuriated to be told, "Never mind the Über IIa's, fly better and smarter and stop making excuses."

S!

Well, all above just confirms the game has flaws that need to be sorted out ;) Be it FM/DM/CEM. Fix them and rest is up to us pilots. So far been quite able to hold my own, even my best flying days are long gone :)

I rarely dogfight these days, rather plan my routes according to the radio contacts and all that to get the job done :) So yes, I am in that Bf109E-4B or Bf110C-7 dropping eggs on good old RAF ;) I find it more fun to really plan the mission, navigate and use the good range and decent speed in the Bf110C-7 to accomplish what the briefing says on ATAG. It is thrilling to see if the plan works out or someone spots me going for the target :)

I would also like to ask how many of you use historical fuel loads aka 100% on missions? I bet less than 20% of people do, mostly used load is 20-50% fuel and off they go. I use always 100% on the Bf109E, 70% or more on Bf110C as that is more than enough for long range missions. IRL Spitfire suffered from same as Bf109E, short legs = big fuel consumption accompanied with a rather small fuel load.

meh .... its politics really.

If it were just a game people would choose whatever aircraft suits there flying style. In addition noobs would choose the better performing aircraft and experienced flyers would go for something more challenging.

Instead people seem obsessed with reliving the war (or perhaps in some cases Hollywood movies) choose a side based on political or national biases and then try and get that side as much advantage as they can, all the while polling the net for any evidence they can find to support their views.

There is absolutely no interest in historical accuracy unless that historical evidence just happens to advantage the particular persons preferred aircraft - and that applies to both red and blue sides. Its all very childish really.

I understand what you're saying Felipe, I am just saying that FM is something technical, but I also enjoy discussing tactics and sim flying so what. I am really looking forward for your testing. I did some basic testing, too and I will definitely comment on anything you come up with! :grin:

I know you mentioned you didn't spend much time in this sim (and I understand) but just to let you know there is quite a few high flying Spitfire pilots. I agree that say on ATAG, most of the action is happening down low, but that applies to both sides equally, even more so to the 109s as they really like their airfield strafing missions. There are many skilled 109 pilots and many skilled RAF fighter pilots, too.

I see what you're saying, new pilot usually starts with a nimble plane like Zero or La-5Fn or Bf 109G-2 or 25lbs. Spitfire - and then he learns more and sees that there is more to it than pulling the stick down on the deck. But I am saying that flying any aircraft aon the edge requires same amount of skill, maybe different type of skill. In my experience many pilots who fly BnZ are helpless when it comes to 'close range melee'. You trick him a bit and he just flies straight and doesn't know what to do. Pilot is skilled no matter what he flies, if he flies it well and if he succeeds. I would not despise an experienced pilot in a Fw 190, Spitfire or G.50. That plane type does not matter. Good pilot will fly in a way that's necessary to win and survive and he can do BnZ in a Spitfire and TnB in a 190 when it comes to that. :D I've been into 1946 as long as you are and our squad, altough historically blue would fly just anything.

It is already better than 1946, you should give it a try. I'd like to see how you deal with well flown Spitfires or 109s ;)

Yes, it was very much a FM issue.

That is not true at all. 190s were actually typically faster than they should be, especially early Dora. And they were less maneouvrable than they should be - see latest DT patch where the 190 are spot on (except for manual pp) - just ask Maraz. I might be wrong, that's not the point of this discussion though. But trust me ppl would complain a lot if it would be too slow no matter if blue or red. They never complained about G-6/AS SL speed or performance or early Dora although it was off in the positive direction. That's not blue or red, that's just people. :D

Last time I took a 190 I had 9 kills on a full real server. Spitfires Mk.VIIIs and few P-47s doing ground pounding tbh. Not bad pilots, just the fact unless you're doing silly stuff they can't touch you. And the firepower. It was even better (faster) BnZ butcher before 4.11 but now it keeps E better. Perfect fighter plane but too easy when you master it. Same like 109 in CloD. I switched to late war USAAF and at least had to master .50s. But most of the time, I always really enjoyed flying 'inferior' planes and pushed myself harder to develop better tactics. When I get killed I don't blame the FM or the plane performance, I blame myself because I am the digger, the plane is just my showel.

I agree that FM should not be used as excuse, BUT the fact that an experienced pilot can balance for the shortcomings is not an excuse not to fix these issues. That's why we have this thread.

Well, so anyone investigating historical performance, trying to form a balanced view then seeing how that performance matches the actual game....is childish and partisan?! Sure, there is always some of that kind of content on the fringes. I wouldn't take seriously posts along the lines of: "I red a buk once that said that Spitfires went ultraasonic on those 109 noobs" But seriously, partisan posts with research done badly or in bad faith rather out themselves, don't you think?

I return your meh with capitalisation. Meh ;)

S!

I think Galway tried to say in an exaggerated way that some players might have an agenda for their favorite plane/gun/ship/car or whatever and do not stop pushing it as the only "accuracy" is the one that suits them. Can be found in many games but luckily it is the minority, most want accuracy for all which makes the games/sims a challenge, not another "shoot fish in a barrel" thingy :)

guys take a look

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...089#post442089

;)

In RL, the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs fighter engagement on average.

Read the RAF official history. The United Kingdom was able to out produce Germany in both pilots and machines despite FC's horrendous loss rate in combat.

to be honest, unless we fix all the planes, a lot of this is irrelevant. so what if the spit is too slow? so are all the rest of them. I mean right now the spit turns better than anything so it's not like it's really that big of a deal? It can out turn even the Hurricane and G.50, and only the ME-109 is faster if flown flat out (or maybe the 110 if you're some kind of god).

what I'm getting at is, unless we fix them all at once there will just be another spitfire turkeyshoot.

I'm sorry but after reading that I can't stop thinking about a glowing 110 suddenly appearing in furballs with choral sound effects. Apollo at the controls, Zeus at the rear gun. If you do get them they don't need parachutes, they just float down in togas and swim down to meet Poseidon.

Could someone enter this in bugtracker pls.

Just an obvious statement. There is no doubt that the RAF lost more fighters than the Luftwaffe, but to then extend this to say that the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs. fighter engagement on average is an unproven opinion.

The Luftwaffe fighter’s primary target were of course the RAF fighters. The RAF primary targets were the Luftwaffe Bombers who shot down a good number of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that attacked them.

What the split is I do not know and it’s probable that more RAF fighters were shot down by German fighters than vice versa but even there the tactical situation was different. It would be very misleading to look at the losses and assume that fighter/fighter combats resulted in the loss ratio shown on the charts.

Straight fighter/fighter combats where the numbers were broadly even were rare, if only because the RAF avoided such combats, as the bombers were the priority.

There was an interview shown on the TV a few months ago where an RAF BOB pilot was asked if the German bombers were defenceless. He pointed out that he had been shot down by a He111 and had to crash land after being hit by a Ju88 so he thought that they could take care of themselves. Either that or he was a poor fighter pilot but as he had survived the war, he was probably at least average.

It is hardly unproven opinion but is a fact. Statistically the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs fighter battles.

You even agree!!!

BTW..same arguments were posted on the Ubizoo board by the "blue" side about the Luftwaffe fighter losses in 1944 from the daylight bombing campaign.

I believe you participated!

This whole community outlooks of "red vs blue" is totally whacked and makes any kind of intelligent discussion of history or aircraft performance impossible.

Nobody gives a rats ass about anything other than what is going to make their favorite better to stroke their own online ace fantasy.

I knew somebody would illustrate the point.

It will never reflect reality as long as the stability and control characteristics of these two airplanes is not modeled.

Anybody who can run the math will tell you that especially if you simplify things by using symetrical airfoil formulation with a cambered wing.

It is a fact that many Bf-109 pilots believed they had a turn advantage over the Spitfire.

Why? The Bf-109 had better stability and control where needed for turn performance. It was equipped with ant-spin devices in the form of LE slats so a pilot could reef the aircraft around with confidence. In practical terms, those LE slats alone contribute to a pilot being able to extract more performance. It's stability and control characteristics made it a better gun platform that a pilot could extract maximum performance. Who cares if it stalls, it is not going anywhere and recovers easily.

The Spitfire pilot had very low stick force gardient, very little stick travel to work with, and a extremely harsh stall/spin which could kill him in the right circumstances. It was a twitchy gun platform with a dicey stall.

Which airplane would you want to be at tree top level trying to get maximum performance? A plane that is going to dip a wing a few degrees and keep flying or the one that is going to invert and spin?

What I mean by pilots being able to extract more performance?

Well, pilot skill is the largest contributor to airplane performance. Each pilot will get slightly different results based on the enviromental factors and their skill level.

Here is the range of stall speeds pilots achieved on the F6F Hellcat during the JFC.

Until the Stability and control characteristics are modeled, the Spitfire will be a frankenplane.

I couldn't agree more. It is no fun for anybody if one side is over modeled. The reality is these aircraft were equal dogfighters and the result was based on pilot skill.

It is hardly a "simulation" much less a "good game" if that is not reflected.

I think both planes had very noticable pre-stall symptoms. 109 had slats which help at slow speed turning and high angle of attack and gave plenty of warining to the pilot other hand Spitfire had lower wing loading and wash out at the wing tips which casue also plenty of warning to the pilots and airleon control with stall. I have no doubt that Spitfire turns better then 109 but probalby its need little more carefully with elevator ( much more sensibility) then 109 to flying at the egde. I understand then much more experience pilot in 109 could turn with novice in Spitfire who dont feel the plane deeply.


Here is nice opinion Spitfire MK1 pilots from BOB time:

" If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."


And from Spitfire pilot notes:

"General Flying: “This aeroplane is stable. With metal covered ailerons the lateral control is much lighter that with the earlier fabric covered ailerons and pilots accustomed to the latter must be careful not to overstress the wings. Similar care is necessary in the use of the elevators, which are light and sensitive.

For normal cruising flight the radiator shutter should be in the minimum drag position.” ( interesting about radiator position and engine temperature)

Stalling: “At the stall one wing will usually drop with the flaps either up or down and the machine may spin if the control column is held back.

This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.
”

I do think its quite funny that spit pilots notes and official docs are regarded so highly, but an official doc that shows the 109 maxed out at 500 kph on the deck is debated and discarded.
Oh well, carry on.

It has been debated ad nauseum.

It is a fact the RAE had no stability and control measured standards outside of opinion and feelings. I have all the reports that Gates submitted during the war trying to get the RAE on a measurable standard. Every one of them reports the early mark Spitfires as unacceptable by a measureable standard.

The NACA had measured standards which the Spitfire did not meet. The stability and control characteristics are documented, measured, and reproducable for a game.

There is also no question the stability and control characteristics are just as important as the standard subsonic aerodynamic formulation for determing the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft.

The Pilots notes ALSO say:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6...verability.jpg

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4...reelevator.jpg

Opinion was strong enough to include multiple warnings describing longitudinal instability and what would become in the post war, unacceptable stability and control characteristics.

This is what I think the most closest to my own thinking on this subject. The spit can turn tighter (significantly lower wing loading) but it takes at least a seasoned pilot to do so.

Due to the leading edge slats the 109 flown to the edge could turn with a spit pilot who does not fully go to the edge himself as turn performances are close albeit in favour to the spit.

I am not familiar enough with CloD in order to tell if and how well this is implemented.

Storm don't forget that wing loading does not say anything abt CL.

Wing loading is a tool to compare similar wings design. It's not valuable when in particular the thickness of the wing differs.

For example comparing Hellcat, FW190, Bf109 or Corsair wing loading is relevant as all those plane have near 15% thickness.

For example try to compare the D520 wing loading (with full mil eq.) with that of the Bf109E and you'll find that the 109 turn as better what we know is actually not true (the D520 had an 18% thickness ratio)

Sadly a lot here put this argument frwd just because it looks like tecky (especially on IL2 arguing that the 51 was a poor turner)

Edit : Hve a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

hi!

This argument is repeated but for me the tactical situation does not allow conclusions about historical performance of individual aircraft:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...tfire_mkI.html

Cheers!

This is often stated but I am not aware of many examples. Can I ask you to fill this gap in my knowldge.

Thanks

lol, this is one of crumpps 'facts', therefore don't expect to much backing it up in the near future.....

Its the Many that I am interested in. I know of one who believed that the 109 was as good given pilots of equal skill. So its the rest I am interested in.

well guys maybe one day you should open a real book...those things can be highly informative from time to time :rolleyes:

for example it is said often that the hurri turned inside the spit and not the contrary. How strange is that, humm ?

Secondly reading combat story from BOTH side will give you a hint of how fact were blurred and not bright clear as in your belief.

what like the books i have which have pilots talking about 100 octane fuel......

blah balah balah

well more accurately said... the book with no "S".

this is quite a diff btw us. thank you for that