[JG14_Josf]

Robo,

Thanks for participating in this Topic. If you could please consider rephrasing your viewpoint I would appreciate the effort since my confusion concerning your viewpoint is unsolvable without your help.

In the memory I have so far, concerning the limited experience I have with the game, the 109 pilots I know were nearly shot down several times by 1 Spitfire fighting against 4 of us working as a team.

Had we had Spitfires and the 1 enemy was flying a 109, on the deck, Hertt would probably have taken that one 109 down in the first few minutes if not sooner, and we would be crying the blues, as usual, because Hertt is so greedy that way.

When there were 2 Spitfires at once, against 4 of us, the incidences of us nearly being shot down increased and this can be attributed to those unorganized pilots using their advantages used by them to their advantage during those fights. They could turn and burn like no tomorrow, and we could not turn and burn nearly as well.

What advantages?

Sustained Turn Performance Advantages.

My point is that I now know, beyond any doubt, that the Spitfire in this game has a Sustained Turn Performance Advantage, at the very least, over the 109, when the 109 is nearly full of fuel.

I don't know how that cannot be clear to anyone, since I repeat that often, in my lengthy offerings on this forum.

Which plane, in the game, has a lower corner velocity?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of acceleration in level flight from stall to the point at which acceleration is anemic?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of unloaded (minimum drag) acceleration in vertical maneuvering (going down, or trading altitude for speed, which is a net loss of energy due to drag and the fact that the thrust to drag ratio on WWII planes is less that 1 to 1)?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a slower rate of unloaded (minimum drag) deceleration in vertical maneuvering (going up, or trading speed for altitude, again a net loss of energy for the same less than 1 to 1 thrust to drag ratio)?

Probably the Spitfire.

The Spitfire is so far the better Angles Fighter when energy loss is not a consideration, but it is not yet accurately measured by me, or anyone in the squad I fly with, as to which plane is superior in this game when the fight goes vertical – as far as I know so far.

My guess is that the Spitfire will turn out to be Double Superior. I want to be wrong.

We already know that the Spitfire is Single Superior in Angles Fighting as far as any fights that are on the deck, without the capacity to trade altitude for speed.

You quote my words concerning the often repeated laughter shared among the people in my squad, and perhaps you do not understand my words as much as I do not understand your words.

We have a lot of fun in these World War II Air Combat Simulations. I met Hertt in the 1980s, flying Air Warrior On-Line, and so this is not new fun for us, this is well known fun for us; we share an interest in World War II Fighter Combat Simulation.

How about specifics concerning my lack of understanding concerning what you offer here in this thread on Energy Maneuverability?

On the other hand, it seems you only started to fly this particular sim and as you see, with basic drag and bag tactics, using 109 superior speed, climb and firepower, you can suceed quite easily. This is not really the case with e.g Spitfire, deploying equal skill and experience even.

Allow me to cut that thought off with an experience I have where I can answer what I think your viewpoint is in those words, but I may be confused.

In the first place the teamwork effort is not easy, at all, it is very difficult, and it often goes very wrong.

In the second place I do not know anything about which plane has a Superior Climb rate, at any altitude, nor do I know about any advantage in firepower, since, so far, I've seen many hits, very many hits, and almost impossible to survive numbers of hits, going into these Spitfires, and they keep fighting us despite all that damage, sometimes. These things can, I assume, be recorded on track files so as to leave no room for controversy, confusion, opinion, subjectivity, or anything other than an obvious fact demonstrated precisely and unambiguously.

In the third place we have been involved in many on-line Wars where the planes are being blamed for lack of success earned by our opponents as if the game hands us our well earned victories and the challenge has been, more than once, for us to trade planes, and then see who is handed the win by the game CODE, and we win again.

What does that prove time and again?

So...if I have your viewpoint understood, which may or may not be the case, then the challenge you offer is the same old challenge, let me, or anyone in my squad, or any combination of anyone in our squad, fight you, or any Spitfire user of the game (virtual pilot), or any combination of any Spitfire flying team, and switch planes, to see who is being handed the victories handed to whomever by the game CODE, as the game CODE favors one plane with Sustained Turn Performance Advantages, that being the Spitfire, and the game CODE favors the other plane with whatever the other plane has as an advantage that I am not yet aware of in FACT.

If things move along in this game as they have in other games I see us testing our relative performance advantages against the opposition eventually. I can share your conclusions concerning climb, firepower, and speed advantages at that point, in those cases, and meanwhile I can assume that you know what you reporting to me in FACT.

Is the Spitfire maximum climb angle the same as the 109?

How much is the Spitfire maximum climb rate less than the 109 and are the fuel loads the same, and are the pilots using the maximum climb rate engine settings, control surface positions, the best climb angle for maximum climb rate, correctly to get the maximum climb rate out of the Spitfires or the 109s?

I don't know, and so I'm asking.

I could respond with a sound bite, to keep the discussion down to a minimum number of symbols of text, but that is not my interest here, I am here to share what I know with anyone similarly interested, and I do so in the effort to gain some valuable information from other people who know things I do not know, not yet, or things I may never know without seeking, and then gaining help from other people.

This is not really the case with e.g Spitfire, deploying equal skill and experience even.

Not actually being at a table to see you winking at me, I am confused as to what the winking means. If you care to join a form of discussion in the virtual world of Simulated Air Combat then you can show me how much better the 109 is compared to the Spitfire, we can meet in fact, on a server, plane to plane, in the game, once I fly the Spitfire a few times, or even for the first time, and that can prove something, and that sounds like a lot of fun to me. You can wink at me with superior 109 firepower, and there won't be any more confusion on my end, as to what you mean to say, exactly.

If you really want to prove your point, I suggest you take Hertt and try surviving against a pair of decent 109 pilots in Hurricanes or Spitfires. I agree with all theoretical information you posted in the lengthy post of yours, but in my opinion, you happen to be commenting on the FM situation in the sim (and tactics) based on a few online fights on a 109.

That sounds like someone assuming something about Hertt and I, and what Hertt and I could possibly do as a team when we are being challenged to fly Hurricanes or Spitfires against 109s, even when the 109 pilots may have been flying as a team for some 30 years in various on-line World War II simulations such as Air Warrior, Warbirds, IL2, and now this game, so I ask again, since I don't really know, as I may be confused when I read your welcome contribution to this Topic: are you assuming something about Hertt and I and if so what exactly are you assuming?

What type of fight do you think will be the type of fight that will educate Hertt and I concerning the inferiority CODED into the Spitfire or Hurricanes as the Spitfire and Hurricane is going to be flown by Hertt and I against a 109 Rotte, or wing pair, in this game?

What type of fight?

If it is a fight started with a cold merge at the same altitude and same speed then what do you think Hertt and I are going to do, tactically, when we are handed planes that have been CODED with a remarkable Sustained Turn advantage over the 109, which is the case with the Spitfire?

Will we work to bracket the opposition as we enter the merge?

Will we concentrate on a 2 on 1 tactic first, or will we lose the initiative immediately and will we find ourselves each in a 1 on 1 battle after the first 90 degree turn?

Will we find advantage in vertical maneuvering or will we have to concentrate on horizontal angles fighting tactics?

Can we both lead turn at the merge from our bracketed positions?

Will we be defensive as the fight may last longer and will we be in positions to employ team tactics such as the split, half split, sandwich, and thatch weave to effect?

Will we be desperate and in need of forcing overshoots?

I saw Hertt manage that in a 109 already and if there is a Sustained Turn Performance advantage, instead of a Sustained Turn Performance disadvantage with the plane Hertt is flying (he has a better turn fighting Spitfire instead of a worse turn fighting 109) then it stands to reason that it will be easier, not harder, to force an overshoot, turn the tables, and then be on the offensive instead of being on the defensive in a desperate situation.

If by this challenge that you appear to be offering us, Hertt and I, we find out which plane has the lower corner speed, and we find out which plane has the faster rate of unloaded acceleration, and which plane has the least unloaded deceleration in vertical maneuvering, then we will find that out, and I don't think we will be spending any time in such a fight finding out which plane has the higher Top Speed in level flight, nor which plane will reach the higher altitude in the shortest time at a maximum performance climb angle that may actually need to change slightly if the climb rate is to remain at the maximum rate through various altitudes and conditions assuming the game is coded with the need to adjust for changes in altitudes and air density air fuel mixture, supercharge gear changes, and whatever.

If we take up the challenge, and that is why we loaded the game onto our computers, in fact, then we will learn a thing or two, and what we learn will not be subject to verbal arguments on a forum, the proof will be demonstrated, in fact, and recordable, if possible, on track files.

I once took the time to record Training Track Files with Hertt and I demonstrating how, for example, the half split works, and this training track file was taken from a typical on-line session, on a typical fun mission we were on awhile ago, in the game IL2.

I have recorded Training Track Files alone, also, demonstrating how the Barrel Roll Attack works, for example, and for another example I have demonstrated how Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique works in one of the version of IL2 when one plane, the 109, was not double inferior to the other plane, at that time, which was the P-51, in that game.

The Sustained Turn Technique as described by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat is not what the name may appear to suggest, meaning that it is not a Angles Fighting Tactic, at all, and it is not a Luffberry Circle type of maneuver where the pilot is maximizing a Sustained Turn in Level Flight where Energy Loss is not a consideration.

The Sustained Turn Technique is possible with a Single Inferior Energy Fighter when there is a marginal advantage in unloaded acceleration and there isn't a terribly inferior (higher) corner speed.

Track Files work a whole lot better at describing The Sustained Turn Technique (or the barrel roll attack) compared to the use of diagrams or words in English.

Back to your welcome words on this Topic (words that could be reworded to help me understand what you intend to communicate without my misunderstanding):

The reason you would not be as succesfull in a Spitfire is simple - the game really portraits a massive (and not historical) performance gap. It is much better in recent patch, but the RAF is still no match for good 109 pilots.

Now you are challenging my capacity to interpret historical data?

On this forum there is a document that I found, just a few days ago, a document that I had previously not found, and a few things are reported in this document. I can link the document if you care to read it, assuming that you have not yet read it, which is an assumption on my part based upon your words above.

In that document the British pilots flying the captured 109 state that the 109 did not tend to spin in a stall, and that was, according to them, a historical advantage for the 109.

Have you flown the 109 in this game?

Does the 109 in this game tend to spin when stalled?

In that document the British pilots flying the captured 109 (what fuel were they using?) found that the 109 climb ANGLE was much superior to their Spitfires and Hurricanes and in mock combat the 109 could easily gain altitude above the Spitfires and Hurricanes because of the steeper climb angle, so the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots would wait for the 109 pilot, a British pilot, to dive down and back into the fight.

I think that that document makes it clear, or documents a FACT, that the Maneuverability Diagrams for the Spitfire and 109, also found on this Forum, are CALCULATED plots on a diagram, and they are based upon a captured 109 flown by British pilots, and those British pilots complained of aileron snatching resulting from leading edge slat deployment.

This is interesting historical information.

Did you know that a 109 leading edge slat deployment problem was understood by the German pilots when those leading edge slats were not properly maintained?

Is it a fact that poorly maintained aircraft do not perform well?

What about the fuel used in the planes captured by the British when the British documented the performance of the German planes in the vital effort to accurately determine relative performance variables that existed at those times between those specific planes tested?

Does a high performance engine run correctly on the fuel that the engine is designed and tuned to run on or can any fuel be used when the right fuel is not available?

The Germans used synthetic fuel made from coal on their aircraft and there are documents I may still be able to find where these fuels were tested for relative octane rating and other variables to quantify the relative performance of the synthetic fuels used by the Germans during World War II.

If you have better, more accurate, useful, and factual information concerning relative historical performance between any version of Spitfire and any version of 109, then you have, in my opinion, a Standard by which that information is already set, and that Standard is documented on that Energy Maneuverability Chart, where, apparently, the plots on the chart are based upon a captured German plane flying climb tests, with a plane that is possibly not maintained correctly, and possibly not using the fuel it was designed to use, and then the chart is calculated based on those climb tests at the climb angles used by the British pilots, and that is a Standard of Excellence in the effort to know which plane is historically better, and why, and exactly why, so if you can do better than that Standard of Excellence, then please do, please provide better, more precise, more relevant information that measures relative historical performance.

To me those 109 and Spitfire Maneuverability Charts are the best sources of relative combat performance available to my knowledge, so far, despite the obvious lack of confirmations concerning the specific methods used to plot that vital data on those charts.

That is history, and that is not the game.

The game is what it is, as were the planes handed to the pilots in history, they ran what they brought into the fight, and that is what we do too.

We have been challenged, more than once, to fit our uber feet into the unter shoes and more often than not the grass has TURNED out to be greener on the other side of the pond.

This time things may be different. I don't know yet.

I do know, as a matter of demonstrable fact, that the Spitfires are decidedly superior in Sustained Turn Performance when the 109 is loaded with fuel.

I also know for a fact that the 109 is modeled with a vicious tendency to spin when departing the flight envelope.

Most of my confusion concerning your welcome response in this topic concerns these last words:

The reason you would not be as succesfull in a Spitfire is simple - the game really portraits a massive (and not historical) performance gap. It is much better in recent patch, but the RAF is still no match for good 109 pilots.

You rate my performance before I even have a chance to perform anything. How is that possible?

You make a claim of massiveness without nailing down anything that can be measured as being massive or less than massive.

You make a reference to the past without nailing down anything specific concerning the past.

But I am left with what appears to be a challenge, and it is a challenge that I am prepared to meet in case the rubber actually does meet the road.

Unless my life is ended in a car accident, or some other unfortunate (for me) event, the future will include my decision to load up a Spitfire and see what can be done in one, soon enough, and therefore the relevant question here, it seems to me at least, is who and what will my opponent bring to the fight?

The fight could, possibly, be recorded on a track file, and then there is no longer any room for misunderstanding or confusion?

I can learn a whole lot when reviewing what I can or cannot do in a fight against a superior opponent when generously given the opportunity to learn these valuable lessons.

Tuesday is on our Squad schedule for a return to the CLoD Word War II Air Combat Simulator game, and I think we will be trying out the ATAG server again. High command (Wotan) has yet to issue orders.

Tonight, it seems, we fight again.

Knowing what I know now about the advantage of Sustained Turn Performance in the Spitfires, I can say to Wotan, if he orders us on close bomber Escort, that "I want Spitfires for my wing." since I could then use that advantage in turning and burning around those bombers.

I hope that those English words, that giant wall of text, can manage to remove the room for too much reading between the lines.