Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by macro

From what iv read in reports and such

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
Spit could catch 109 accell in dive with+12 boost. 109 Elevator very heavy and hard to pull out of dive at high speeds.
Iv read the common tactic of steep but rarher slow climb of 109 was actually used by 109 pilots to get away from spits. Sounds like this is realistic in game.

Turn rate in spit was better that 109 when pushed to the limit, would need some sort of stall characteristic in spit for game balance.

Am i right or well off the mark? Not read enough about hurri to comment my opinion

Originally Posted by Matt255

I read exactly the opposite.

Spit faster at low level, 109 faster at very high altitude.
Spit rolling slower at very low speed, both Spit and 109 ailerons becoming very hard to move at speeds above ~ 600 km/h / 400 mph.

Spits controls overall slightly less heavy at high speed.

I also don't see what the 109 slats have to do with rolling or why the plane would be more stable because of them.

Just make them the same then pilot skill will be the wild card

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Just make them the same then pilot skill will be the wild card

We did that briefly in ATAG's Server #2 a couple of weeks ago. The Engine Temperature Management was temporarily switched off so we could evaluate the effects of radiator drag without overheating the engines. (Radiators are closed by default and cannot be opened). The 109 E4 and the Spitfire MK 1a 100 octane had the exact same speed at sea level at full WEP (109) and 11 lbs boost (Spitfire). Both aircraft would travel literally wingtip to wingtip for miles above the waves going full out - neither aircraft gaining an inch on the other. On cue (using Teamspeak) both aircraft were then pulled hard up into a vertical climb, engines remaining at full throttle WEP/11 lbs boost. Both aircraft climbed to the same height wingtip to wingtip, stalling out at precisely the same instant.

We did this online so we could easily do plane vs plane comparos, but you can test this easily offline with your favourite aircraft simply by unchecking Engine Temperature Management in your Realism Options. The flight models tested to be the same offline and online.

This was a very brief test on Server 2, it was soon put back to Full Switch. But for a brief time it was exhilarating to fly a Spit in equal terms with a 109. Makes for some very long -- and exciting -- dogfights between equal pilots. Once Engine Temperature Management is turned back on, the Spits are saddled with huge, no......make that HUGE.....radiator drag penalties in terms of square area, drag coefficients, and no apparent modelling of the Meredith Effect.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by winny

but you also need the combat reports.

Don't get me wrong..

I think combat reports are great for many things..

Just not great for validating a flight model!

Combat reports say more about the men and their mind set and their tactics..

But very little about the planes performance!

I will say this, you can gleam flying qualities from combat reports.. Stuff like

'I felt a slight buzz in the stick just before the stall while turning with the 109'..

But that description tells you nothing about the stall speed at which this occurred..

As I already pointed out..

Most combat reports don't include enough info to recreate the scenario in the game to see if you get the same results in-game..

Unlike real world data (test reports) that are performed using strict and repeatable methods..

For example..

I can recreate an ROC test in-game using the same real world methods to see if the real world results match the in-game results..

But how do I recreate a scenario to test from a combat report that says..

'In my Spitfire, I dove down on a 109, who spotted me at the last second and tried to evade me before I shot him down'

You cant!

There is not enough information there to recreate the scenario to see if the in-game results match the real world results..

That and the results depend more on the relative pilot experience..

That is to say assume you did try to re-create this scenario in the game..

Put a good pilot in the 109 and a Cherry in the Spitfire and there is a chance the 109 will NOT get shot down..

Does this test prove the 109 flight model is uber and the Spitfire flight model is broken?

NOT AT ALL!

All this proves is the relative experience of the sim pilots involved in the scenario affect the outcome more than the performance of the plane!

Same can be said wrt the orginal combat reports (anecdotical evidence), you don't know how much of 'it' was due to the relative experience of the pilots!

As in was the Spitfire pilot able to turn with the 109 because he was a better pilot?

All in all do we really want our flight models tweaked based on the results of some sim pilot's atempt re-create of a poorly documented WWII event?

I THINK NOT!

But I digress!

Combat reports are also useful to gain in site as to what was actually going in the trenches vs. what the generals thought was going on..

A good case in point is the whole 100 oct usage

Originally Posted by winny

As far as I know combat reports and pilot's recollections are the only record of the use of these aircraft in the role they were designed for, combat.

As noted

Combat reports are great for determining how the pilots used these aircraft and the tactics they used..

Just not good for validating a flight model

Like in the stick buzz example above..

We know it stalled (the event)
We know the pilot felt something in the stick before the stall (the useful flying quality info)
We DON'T know what the stall speed was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the throttle setting was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the flap setting was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the e state was (what is needed to validate the flight model)
We DON'T know what the altitude was (what is needed to validate the flight model)

This list goes on but you should be starting to see my point

TOO MANY UNKNOWNS!

Originally Posted by winny

and eventually if you read enough, you can build a picture of what happened. OK, there's no numbers, but it's foolish to disregard them.

Problem with that method is you can have two people read the same reports and draw two very different pictures of what happened

That is the problem with human nature

Where as with math

1 + 1 = 2

And nobody but raaaid could disagree with that!

Originally Posted by winny

read Gallands stories of diving down onto Spits and being able to engage and disengage at will.

A good example of tactics

But not a good example of how to validate a flight model

All that statement really proves is the plane with a better 'e' state will control the fight, until that pilot does something stupid to give up his 'e' advantage!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Matt255

I read exactly the opposite.

And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read the same 'accounts' and get different results

Where as 1 + 1 = 2 in real world test data and you would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with that!

[JtD]

1+1=10

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by JtD

1+1=10

I stand corrected.. raaaid and JtD!

[macro]

ok maybe i got it completly wrong lol!

i thought the slats were the to give stability at low speeds? but maybe wrong about that also

And i think AoA is correct, math is math. it it adds up it cant be denied.

best get your calculator out mate and get to work cos that sort of math well beyond me lol

1+1=11

[Matt255]

And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read the same 'accounts' and get different results

I wasn't writing that i read the same accounts (no idea what accounts he read anyway, definately never read that the Spit rolls worse than the 109 E at high speed though) or that what i read is (more) correct.

I think these planes are quite well documented, as opposed to WW1 planes for instance. I also wouldn't say that those two planes "feel" totally unrealistic regarding rollrate, turnrate or whatever in CloD, except for the too low speed of these planes, unlikely engine reliability (impossibility to run the Merlin using historical limits) etc.

I don't think we would have many FM discussions, if the speed would be close to the avaliable data.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Matt255

I wasn't writing that i read the same accounts (no idea what accounts he read anyway, definately never read that the Spit rolls worse than the 109 E at high speed though) or that what i read is (more) correct.

Ok, Ill reword it and remove the word 'the same' to read as follow..

And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read 'pilot accounts' and get different results

[SlipBall]

From the 1941 study, it sounds to me that hi-speed rolling was not a strong point