Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?
 

I experienced this now twice. i Dove after a fleeing spitfire. At around 780 IAS my 109 was loosing parts resulting in total failure while the spit just kept on diving pretty unimpressed.

Winger

Are you sure he survived all right ?
That speed is more than the Spit can handle, it should overspeed from 725 km/h IAS.

i start loosing parts of my plane at around 400-450 mph IAS, depending on alt. Maybe you killed the pilot and the spit was just going in, but then otoh, i wouldn´t be surprised in a little dm hiccup.

Spitfire was known to have high Mach no., bout the .92 (from memory, don't flme if I'm wrong!). The 109 likely does not have such high an ultimate dive speed - where your advantage is, or more precisely should be in dive acceleration; you can bunt and initially outdistance a Spitfire in a 109 but given enough altitude I'd expect the Spitfire to gain eventually.

Also remember the Flight Models are still a work in progress - could be worth testing and taking to the Dev Team.

I've never seen data one way or the other but IIRC, the Spitfire has the highest critical Mach number of any of the WWII piston fighters.

By comparison the 109 is a rather 'dirty' airframe.

What you're describing sounds correct to me.

This one seems easy to test :)

It should be stated that apparently, the controls were too heavy at such high speed, one could get out of th dive through use of the trim tab.

I don't know if it would be a good idea to implement such thing ...

I think there is a BugTracker report in that reports the Spitfire's roll rate as much too fast/responsive in a high speed > 400 mph dive, which should be implemented.

Up until the last Retail Version, the Spitfires would lose their ailerons at 420 mph IAS (between 10 - 15 K feet altitude), followed in rapid succession by the tail control surfaces. I would always throttle back when diving as a result to limit my speed to 400 mph IAS. Dutch gave me the heads up that the Spits can now go in excess of 420 IAS without falling apart, which I'll have to try out.

Yep Ive read that numerous times from different sources..cant remember where though :rolleyes:

Both true. In fact when I did my dive tests, I pulled out using the trimmer exclusively. In the high speed dives, I need a lot of down trim and a lot of rudder trim, but got up to at least 440mph, maybe 450, but by that time I was more concerned with where the ground was. :grin:

P.S. I also brought prop pitch down to fully coarse, i.e. lowest revs.

Yes but I think they messed also on the aircraft, there's no reason to need rudder trim in such a dive.

Dont think we can ever get high enough in CLOD at present to get into Mach number territory :)

I wouldn't set too much store in the 0.92 Mach no. It was reached but it was a test pilot and the machine basically fell apart around him, the prop came off, the engine almost fell out.

Mind you the wings stayed on

0.89 is the figure I recall seeing quoted as a "typical" dive. Also IIRC in that particular test, the wings stayed on but were bent backwards (i.e. the structure failed).

Wow. A pilot actually did this test? Did he have to bail out? Surely, he must have.

Was it part of the test or just a 'test' that came out of an accident?

Very cool nevertheless!

The real 109 just need to roll during a normal dive and the Spitfire couldn't follow him. Was so hard for spitfires pilots that they even need using the rudder. But, at the same time this was dangerous and some pilots died because the wings twisted and broke.

I remeber have read too some problems with fabric controls surfaces.

Please correct me if i am wrong or inaccurate.

I think the wing-flexing issue was corrected in later marks.

Yep, it was an actual test. They started from 40 000 feet.

I wonder how many forms the pilot had to sign before that one!

I remember reading Pierre Clostermans biography about such an event where he and his wingman (iirc) chased down a high alt recognisances ac. (Do17?) where both spits was condemned after the mission. Wings bent, aluminium sheeting all wrinkled. I seem to remember them both got nose bleeds from the sheer speed and the resulting manoeuvres getting out of the dive. Intresting though, is the fact that the recon must have reach similar speeds before being shot down (not falling apart into a torpedo).

Fast indeed, but everything is relative. Like, can i park the plane afterwards without the wings falling of. :)


Not sure if i remember everything exactly to the letter but the essence is there.

.
Do also remember that the first Spitfire did have fabric covered control surfaces how where dangerous in a dive.

Clostermann and his wingman Ian Blair in Spitfire VII`s (high altitude presure cabins extended wingtips) intercepted a german aircraft that Clostermann reported as a Me 109G with aux fuel tanks under the wings at 43000 ft.
Faced with two Spits ahead and about 1000 ft above him the 109 rolled onto his back and dived straight towards the sea, with the Spits about 1/2 mile behind and following him straight down.
At 27000 ft Closters A.S indicator showed 440 mph and he needed both hands on the stick and to lean into the controls with all his strength to keep the aircraft in a straight line.
The controls were jammed @10000 ft Ian Blair closed to within 600 yds of the !09 and opened fire a short burst. The Me109G tore in half a wing tore off and the aircraft exploded.
Pulling back on the stick wasnt pulling the Spit out of its dive so he gave the trimmer a full turn back , the G force crumpled him, the whole aircraft creaked and groaned and the momentum had carried him up to 13000 feet.

The Spit mach test was at FAE in a modified machine so it wasn't your run of the mill Spit Ia. That said it is extremely strong and managed .85 with Eric Brown at the controls. His colleague managed more because he was strong enough to apply more stick pressure.

I believe the OP expected just to catch the Spitfire up, this is not necessarily the case. The 109 had greater dive acceleration and much of this was due to the negative G cutout problem on the merlin, so often the 109 would pull away. At high speed though, due to the lack of rudder trim, a great deal of effort was required by the pilot of the 109 in applying rudder to trim out which the Spitfire could handle better. I recently read from one pilot (I forget) that he had no problem catching 109's diving because he barrel rolled to follow thus keeping G and engine power. You can do this in game, it's an effective method of dropping onto enemy without getting a cutout.

I am more bothered by the BS 'bunt' that 109's apply when getting hit. I believe that the pilot should risk injury from the violent bunts that 109's perform, up and down like bucking horses - show me a single guncam where that is happening - the body couldn't take it!

Actually the roll response at these diving speeds (say above 350mph) was better in the Spitfire than the 109. There are graphs available displaying roll vs speed from tests

Eric 'Winkle' Brown did it, it was his job to do these types of things.

Read his book, it is excellent, he did a lot of nutcase things, like the time he flew a helicopter from Liverpool to Farnborough for the first time after just reading the manual!

There's BS on both sides; I could just as easily have made my previous post about RAF pilots flying with open canopy to abuse the sound radar bug but I chose not to.

Let's not turn this into a flame war.

It's not for flaming, more something I just consider unrealistic. I fly with the canopy open sometimes because I forget it's open, and when I do it is to see better, I think that's the case for most pilots. That said, yes, close it or at least have penalties for it open such as drag.

Most figures I've seen quoted for human negative G endurance peg about -3G as the limit.

You think they're pushing more than 3 G's over the nose? Got proof? Otherwise, drop the editorials please.

Look whose started the flaming.......I'd love you to test that bucking horse in RL, would mash you up in the cockpit and you know it.

"Proove this, proove that"

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...........

Alex Henshaw's account of experiments conducted on a Mk V are interesting: pilots were complaining that the engines were over-revving in a dive, so Castle Bromwich test pilots conducted some test flights:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001b.jpg

Here's an account by an aerodynamicist regarding the fabric ailerons:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Morgan1a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Morgan2a.jpg


From Pilot's Notes Spitfire IIA & IIB

DIVING

21. The maximum permissible diving speed is 450 m.p.h. A.S.I*. Note the following:

(i) Constant-speed airscrew. - At maximum r.p.m., 3,000 , the throttle must be 1/3rd open. The pitch control need not be brought back to reduce r.p.m., the range of pitch is enough to hold down the r.p.m. at any airspeed.

(ii) The flaps must be up at over 120 m.p.h A.S.I.

(iii) The aeroplane should be trimmed in the dive, i.e. the trimming control tab should be set to give no load on the elevator. This will lessen the possibility of excessive "g" being induced in easing out of the dive, particularly if the pilot should release his hold on the stick owing to "blacking out' or any other reasons. No difficulty is experienced easing out of the dive will be experienced even if the aeroplane is trimmed in the dive as the elevator is comparatively light and recovery is not resisted by excessive stability in pitch. Elevator tabs may be used, very carefully, as described in para. 14.

(iv) The rate of descent is very great, so ample room for recovery must be allowed.

* Note Henshaw's comment on speed being pegged at 470 m.p.h. A.S.I so one wonders whether this was a misprint in the Pilot's Notes.

Maximum permissible actually doesn´t mean maximum that the aircraft can sustain. A safety factor is used in aircraft construction and also in manuals/permissible maneuvers.

I would be pleased that they tune up what a human can stand in a fighter aircraft so that one cannot abuse the very high followed by negative Gs.

At the present time, one can handle very high Gs for some time but even a low neg G for long time results in sort of blackout.

Totally agree JF. For instance the way we survive a bad landing or even a belly landing is over-protective. Wheels up would at best give bad bruising to the pilot shoulders and would usually break his nose on the gunsight (There is footage of a PR Spitfire landing wheels up from a mission but he was fine because the PR had no guns!). When they nose over the pilot is often injured, usually trapped and doused in petrol with a grave risk of fire. Heavy landings could easily cause spinal injuries and improper bailout often led to the pilot hitting the airframe - Hans Joachim Marseille was killed this way, the P51 Big Beautiful Doll which crashed at Duxford in 2011 injured the pilots legs on the tail as he bailed out - it would make people try to get out properly, canopy, half roll, forward stick and out. (can't really do harneess, oxygen and RT connection)

If you died on bad landings that would improve landing quality I am sure!

Agree 100% with both comments - for interest the Pilot's Notes General, which were always issued and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes, say this about g forces and blackout thresholds:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...arpe/PNG3a.jpg

I remember reading somewhere that 109 pilots had slightly higher blackout thresholds because their seats had a greater backward angle than the British - RAF fighters later adopted two-step rudder pedals for similar reasons.

Happened to me first time ever chasing a spit from 5km. He went all the way strait down and pulled up with mts to spear. I pulled out at about 500mts after loosing my rudder and ailerons. I bailed out soon after the discovery of missing control surfaces. The spit landed.

Is this an observation or are you saying this is incorrect? :confused:

S!

Observation IMHO how the FM/DM really needs some work on ALL..and I repeat ALL..planes regardless side they represent.

Big +1

JD
AKA_MattE

If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. It's called the burden of proof, and that's how science works. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect similar standards when we're talking about flight physics.

The 109 was quicker into a dive than the Spit, but the Spit wasn't known for breaking up at high speed.

I really doubt that, as i've read a report about Aileron tests on Spitfires in 1941 where is written that the Spitfire Ailerons loose 65% effectiveness at 400 mp/h because of wing twist, and that 54 lbs force are needed to get a 3°deflection on them.

Aileron reversal speed at 10000 ft was 477 mph ias.

The Rudder and the elevator of the 109 did get very stiff at highest speeds, but the ailerons also? And more that the spitfire ones with their reduced effectiveness?

I've lost interest in this, fanboys are here and then the mods will arrive to stop people saying things to each other.

Salute

Anyone bothering to read the historical tests of the respective aircraft, (early 109 and Spit), you will find both rolled very poorly at high speeds.

And high speed rolls or abrupt use of the elevator at high speed was not recommended for either. This could result in wing loss for either aircraft, the Luftwaffe Command had an advisory put out on the 109's mid war after there were quite a number of wing losses due to over zealous aileron use at high speeds. Spitfires in all versions could suffer structural damage when the elevator was pulled hard at high speeds.

The facts are: Both of these planes were capable of achieving speeds at which ham handed use of the controls could cause catastrophic damage. Yank and Bank drivers need not apply.

This is especially the case when there has been damage taken. Make sure you check your aircraft for damage before launching yourself into a vertical descent. If you don't, don't complain when parts start to come loose.

QFT

If someone has data showing the max attainable roll rate at a specified speed and altitude, they should start a thread in the FM section. Otherwise, there's really no point in arguing it any further.

Trotting out a bunch of vague pilot reports is just going to obfuscate the matter and get everyone hot under the collar.

Like this?

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/1f2ccd42.jpg

Not sure what to think about this. Should probably test...

I used this technique to successfully evade a high energy 109 at 15k yesterday (he couldn't keep up) but also successfully chased down a diving spit tonight in a 109 without breaking up. Did you put pitch fully coarse?

well a brick dives faster than a feather ;)

Winny
One thing that struck me about that posting is how measured the results were, the pressure that had to be applied, the point at which the weasurments were taken, the time taken to bank at a set speed and so on. Clearly they were not just relying on the pilots opinions.
Excellent posting and that Gloster looks as if it would have been well able to take care of itself, what a roll rate.

Thanks, it's just a page from the 109 tests at the RAE.

If anyone would like a copy of it let me know and i'll put it on Dropbox.

I would love a copy :)

Yes, like that.

Ok, it's available HERE to download.

It's a 40 page PDF scan of the original. 14mb ish.

It's Dropbox so dunno how fast it is...

Maybe I should say what it is! It's the 109 vs Spitfire combat/performance trials report.

Thanks for that winny - seeing the full report cf the abbreviated version so often cited is interesting.

Yes thank you Winny.

No problem, I'll leave it in my dropbox for a week or so in case anyone else wants it.

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

What do you mean ? I mean whats the background to that idea ?

The problem with the evaluation in this report is imo, that it seems that the british fighters had to come out as the better ones and so the ability to turn was the priority.
The other tactics, which might have favored the 109, weren't evaluated.
Other than that this test even proves that it took experienced pilots to outturn a 109 in a Spitfire because of the sensible high speed stall characteristics.

It highlights the many non-advantages of the 109 which the axis big lie has told through persistent compliant to 1C for the past 10 years. The question to ask is really, if the report is not to be believed then why would the authorities publish it to their side? This would only lead to inaccuracy and death of their own pilots - not a good idea if you're fighting for life and death.

Meanwhile robtek claims that only experienced Spitfire pilots could out turn the 109. Laughable.

Harsh evaluation, some truth in it though. Depends which side of the fence you are on. They didn't test above 18,500 feet because the 109 didn't have oxygen. The 109 is also a little suspect performance wise, it's the same machine they did the Hurricane performance trials with, if you look at the results from that report the 109 performed better. The Spitfire comparison was done 6 months after the Hurri one and there were 2 forced landings in between.

To dismiss it as BS is harsh, it's far from a " The Spitfire is wonderful the 109 is rubbish" report.

Read it. It is slightly biased in some sections, particularly the pilot's thoughts, but the actual data is sound, and I didn't see a problem with the method, accepting the altitude issue, in my opinion if they'd have tested the 109 at it's peak fighting altitude then it would have thrown up some interesting results, and probably wouldn't be subjected to being called BS.

It is what it is, performance trials upto 18,500, because that's what they did.

If you read it there's a description of the combat tests they performed, maybe you could highlight where you think they were 'flying it wrong'.

For me none of these discussions come down to Spit vs 109. The history is there anyone can make their own judgement/ preference. I don't care which was 'better' I simply posted it because it was relevant.

Salute

The way this game has represented the Spitfire and Hurricane displays either a complete lack of research or a complete bias.

The facts are there for all to see.

The RAF, equipped with a force which was 2/3's Hurricanes, shot down more than 1/3 more aircraft than the Luftwaffe, despite being outnumbered more than 3-1 and despite having to deploy 2/5's of its fighter force in areas of Britain which weren't under attack. In the decisive month of August for example, the Luftwaffe official records admitted losses of 774 aircraft, compared to British acknowledged losses of 426. This despite the Germans having more Single engined fighters available than the British, not even counting the available twin engined fighters, and the 1200+ bombers. The British were also focused on shooting down bombers, not fighters, were forced to climb up into combat and were almost without exception, outnumbered in every engagement.

Any examination of performance data shows the Spitfire IA using 100 octane was the superior aircraft to the 109E3 at altitudes up to approx. 16,000 ft. It was as fast or faster, climbed as well, turned better and rolled similarly. The 109E4 didn't come into use until October of 1940, and even then, it was available in tiny numbers. This game is supposed to be representing the BoB until September 15th, so it shouldn't even be in the game. (why is this plane on the online servers in unlimited numbers???) Both German and British evaluations show the Hurricane and Spitfire easily outturned the 109, Werner Moelders, the leading German Ace, later appointed to command the entire Fighter Force is very clear in warning German pilots not to turn with either British plane, and his evaluation was of the 109E3 versus the two speed pitch version of the Spitfire, far inferior to the later constant speed versions. The British evaluations were numerous and conclusive. (see previous post for one)

There was a reason the phase "Achtung Spitfeuer!" came into common usage among German pilots. (although Hurricanes shot down nearly as many 109's as Spitfires, and the tendency to report all British fighters as Spitfires was common) The symptoms "kanalkrankheit" or 'Channel Sickness' had considerable numbers of the Jagdfliegers out of action by the end of the battle. The German fighter pilots were confronted with aircraft which were more than capable of shooting them down and the fear that generated was actually physically disabling. And that was despite the RAF being told whenever possible to ignore the German fighters in favour of attacking bombers.

Why can this group of developers not get the Flight models of the British aircraft right? Everytime we get a new version, they get worse. There seems to be a stubborn refusal on the part of these Russian developers to acknowledge fact. Is this bias? A relic of the old competition of the cold war? Whatever it is, it has no part in what is supposed to be an objectively modelled SIMULATION.

The typical 'on the deck' engagement we see on the servers in CLIFFS OF DOVER is nonsense. The German aircraft were not competitive down low against the Spitfire and the advantages they had versus the Hurricane were nearly nullified. There was a reason the Luftwaffe reverted to sending its Fighters in higher and higher as the battle went on, by the end the escorts were coming in at 10,000 meters, to take advantage of their better performance up high. As mentioned, the 109's were faster and climbed better than all British Fighters over approx. 5500 meters, their advantages versus the more numerous Hurricane were magnified. The German bombers came in at this altitude anyway, no reason to go lower. Only when the German fighters were assigned to Jabo attacks, after daylight bombing ended were the Germans making low level attacks, and that resulted in heavy losses.

This game should see a situation whereby the Germans come in high, stay high with their bombers and only the foolish end up in fights on the deck.

The current situation whereby we see 109's on the deck zooming circles around the Spitfires is complete nonsense.

Sounds like the game will be really fun after we changed it like this Spitfirefanboy says. Please do it 1C and shovel your own grave.

Winger

Maybe you should actually read the report before proofing your ignorance.

excellent post

Here we go again :rolleyes: - yep, the Spitfire was a rotten fighter and inexperienced pilots could not handle its peculiar stall characteristics, nor were they able to turn with the wonderful 109 for fear that they might stall, spin, crash and burn. It's possible that hundreds of Spitfires were lost this way, yet were counted as combat casualties because it happened over the sea or enemy territory. Let's face it, the Spitfire was that skittish 1960s-1980s Porsche 911 in which the back end would slide 180° in wet weather at the least provocation, while the 109 was the sweet-handling Toyota GT 86 of the fighter world.

Yes, here we go again against the fantasy Spitfire some would like to have.

Here are two excerpts from the report which prove that i didn't get my opinion out of thin air:

1st) page 15
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned
inside the Me.l09 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to
pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however,
the Me.l09 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests,
merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.


2nd) page 18
The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot
to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As
mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.l09 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in
many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on
the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and
spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being
chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

Those facts were shouted to death by some people in another thread.

If the Spitfire is realistic simulated it has enough advantages that it doesn't need fantasy values proposed by some tunnel vision fans.

On server with high flying bomber groups the biggest issue at the moment, as I see it, is the Spitfires engines burning out trying to climb to the bombers.

The LW fighters are too busy in vulching attacks on RAF Base Hawkinge, because they know that any Spitfire will over heat if they rise to attack an incoming flight at 15,000'

It would be interesting to see the maintenance reports and see how many spitfires were lost to overheating engines.

According to the Pilot notes accompanying the Collectors edition. as long as I keep the RPM at 2600 with 6 1/4lb boost I should be able to climb for 30 minutes as long as I don't let the water temp get above 120C and the oil above 90c. It just isn't happenening at the moment.

I can live with the lower performance at the moment, plenty of time for that to be sorted out but for enjoyment it would be good to be able to get in a position to shoot the enemy.

There seems to be a very small proportion of Blue players that seam to resist the idea of seeing historically correct performance figures. Maybe their idea of "great and balanced gameplay" is to be able conduct the battle of Britain without an effective air opposition? (just like Herman had intended???? ;) )

I think it's more likely due to no longer having someone like Oleg who understands both aeronautics AND game programming.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Well done point made

Ok threads closed.

Its obvious there's a continuing red v blue bashing theme (understandable seeing as its a red v blue sim) but its from the same members across any thread they can see fit to ruin.

The report has not been read by those participating in this thread in a disruptive manner, it's just being treated as another slagging match between members.

You are continuously disrupting the forum and will receive infractions/bans in future for such actions.