Spit1a > SpitII

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst.

You don't? But I thought its obvious. I was a bit tongue and cheek as I believe they call it in England. Point is, that the both teams on both times of the Channel was a bit dissing about enemy equipement because its not like theirs, so it must be inferior. British (too stable for a fighter) and German comments (far too unstable for a firing platform) on control characteristics are esp. revealing.

Originally Posted by Osprey

Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft.

Where do you get that the Germans tested the Spitfire on 87 octane?
And, why would they do that, if not for other reason then to test it in the condition they found it to be operated by the British?

BTW there were certainly Spitfires flying with 2 pitch screws and on 87 octane during the BoB, though it eventually all changed.

Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history.

NP with that m8, you are from England, and you don't like guys are not biased towards England. Perfectly understandable.

[heloguy]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I don't understand your post really Kurfurst. It pretty much backs up a lot of the RAF tests only without the detail - it's more of a confidence report for pilots in combat.
Furthermore, as Kwaitek correctly pointed out, it was vs a 2 stage prop Spitfire on 87 octane and this wasn't a BoB aircraft. Granted, the Rotol prop fitted to the 109E may affect performance but it is a CSP so I'd doubt it makes a marked difference.
Finally, I have a faith problem with the items you post because you appear so damned biased towards blue anyway and frequently rebuff good information to the contrary, so I cannot trust your opinion I'm afraid. Sorry about that, in England we call it "The boy who cried wolf". Sadly the effect of this may well lead to bias in the sim in order to appease the complainers and the likes of Kwaitek and I really don't want that. I don't care if the Spitfire was hopeless IRL vs the 109, I just care that the sim best replicates RL performance and history.

This is a little silly. Kurfurst just has an affinity for the German aircraft. It's not about Red vs. Blue. I haven't seen anything posted on his website that's questionable, although admittedly I haven't read it all.

At any rate, I think he would be the first to say that aircraft performance in game should be affected in a very limited manner, if at all, by accounts like these. Performance should be dictated by viable sources, ie manufacturer's documents, and replicated as best as possible in game.

Comparisons do little to give hard numbers. There is no way for anyone to reproduce every time the results in either one of those tests. We aren't provided with enough information on atmospheric conditions, engine settings in all regimes, and on top of that, the aircraft aren't being flown by the pilots that have trained to fly and fight in them. As an example, most 109 pilots knew about the aileron snatching. Personally, I wouldn't have tried to turn that tight unless I was evading, or just being overzealous in trying to get a kill. It isn't an indication of the Spitfire being completely superior to the 109 or vice versa.

In fact, the problem with these comparisons is that they fuel the idea that, even if by all accounts it's said that these aircraft were evenly matched, well then surely the (insert your aircraft here) was still 5 or 10 kmh faster, could turn tighter, and climb 200-700 fpm faster. That's just the way it was.

Evenly matched also doesn't mean that they had the exact same numbers in every category. It only means that they were close in most categories, and in the ones that were different, it took the skill of the pilot to exploit these advantages to their fullest, and not let himself be drawn to expose his machine's own weaknesses.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

You don't? But I thought its obvious. I was a bit tongue and cheek as I believe they call it in England. Point is, that the both teams on both times of the Channel was a bit dissing about enemy equipement because its not like theirs, so it must be inferior. British (too stable for a fighter) and German comments (far too unstable for a firing platform) on control characteristics are esp. revealing.



Where do you get that the Germans tested the Spitfire on 87 octane?
And, why would they do that, if not for other reason then to test it in the condition they found it to be operated by the British?

BTW there were certainly Spitfires flying with 2 pitch screws and on 87 octane during the BoB, though it eventually all changed.

NP with that m8, you are from England, and you don't like guys are not biased towards England. Perfectly understandable.

Let me be quite clear. I'm not interested in bigging up the Spitfire, I just want a sim as close to how it was as possible. I don't think you share that agenda and unfortunately it is types like you who will batter 1C and spoil it.

This report, which I consider rather unscientific, is pre-BoB because all fighting Spits had CSP and 100 octane for the BoB. Perhaps it would be easier for you to prove to us that this tested Spitfire was using 100 octane? Even if it were the report does say that it has a two stage prop and that's enough for us to know that it has inferior performance.

100 octane and a CSP makes the Spitfire a different animal. That is the animal the 109's faced, not the example you cited.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by heloguy

This is a little silly. Kurfurst just has an affinity for the German aircraft. It's not about Red vs. Blue. I haven't seen anything posted on his website that's questionable, although admittedly I haven't read it all.

At any rate, I think he would be the first to say that aircraft performance in game should be affected in a very limited manner, if at all, by accounts like these. Performance should be dictated by viable sources, ie manufacturer's documents, and replicated as best as possible in game.

Comparisons do little to give hard numbers. There is no way for anyone to reproduce every time the results in either one of those tests. We aren't provided with enough information on atmospheric conditions, engine settings in all regimes, and on top of that, the aircraft aren't being flown by the pilots that have trained to fly and fight in them. As an example, most 109 pilots knew about the aileron snatching. Personally, I wouldn't have tried to turn that tight unless I was evading, or just being overzealous in trying to get a kill. It isn't an indication of the Spitfire being completely superior to the 109 or vice versa.

In fact, the problem with these comparisons is that they fuel the idea that, even if by all accounts it's said that these aircraft were evenly matched, well then surely the (insert your aircraft here) was still 5 or 10 kmh faster, could turn tighter, and climb 200-700 fpm faster. That's just the way it was.

Evenly matched also doesn't mean that they had the exact same numbers in every category. It only means that they were close in most categories, and in the ones that were different, it took the skill of the pilot to exploit these advantages to their fullest, and not let himself be drawn to expose his machine's own weaknesses.

The pilot was trained for the 109 first, he didn't just get in it. Besides, these are test pilots, not just any pilot. We can only go by the information we have available just as the pilots did in real life in 1940, in this case they are formal tests by RAE. What else are we going to use?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In real life, there was no appreciable performance difference between the Spit I and II,.........

..........the Spit II's Merlin had a marginally higher altitude performance, and a consequence, worse low altitude performance. .

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

[TomcatViP]

[edited]
12lb is pushing the donkey too far. Just like stating a Merlin was producing 1.3K HP

We can all agree abt 12lb as Emergency (it regards devs to found a sense of wht emergency use could be in the sim and server to add this or not to their options)

1300+HP stop the joke right there. Enough of revisionism !! Look what happend to the strong IL2 com with those fancy moder.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

+1

[Flanker35M]

S!

Ask Helmut Wick how easy it was to kill Spitfires, he did so on regular basis in TURN fights..Really, you can argue until your face turns blue and it will never change. It was the pilot, not the plane back then. And most kills were of surprise, not prolonged turn fights as in this game. We can NEVER get accurate performance in a game on a PC. Only an approximation what could have been.

Sissyfire lovers will swear it was the savior of the world where Bf109 fans will swear it was their crate. If you ask those that flew against eachother, they respected their adversary's plane and could never tell how the engagement would turn out. So tired of this same crap going on with EVERY SINGLE game with Sissyfires or Bf109..and I bet it will never end either.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Let me be quite clear. I'm not interested in bigging up the Spitfire, I just want a sim as close to how it was as possible. I don't think you share that agenda and unfortunately it is types like you who will batter 1C and spoil it.

OK, let me be clear too.

I was a beta tester of the origianal Il-2. Ever since I am following this series, and contributed to it with work and date, as well as testing. And you?

As for the FM models, I don't really care who's bigging up. All I do is providing the historical data from my collection, for free, and the devs do whatever they want with it. Hopefully what they will do with it is modelling the planes as accurately as possible after every country's own specs, if these are available, rather than according to foreign testing papers of often semi-functioning, crashlanded junks. Fanboys of course won't be happy it with in any time, they will want only the "bestest" versions and forget the realities life, like you do.

This report, which I consider rather unscientific, is pre-BoB because all fighting Spits had CSP and 100 octane for the BoB. Perhaps it would be easier for you to prove to us that this tested Spitfire was using 100 octane? Even if it were the report does say that it has a two stage prop and that's enough for us to know that it has inferior performance.

The Rechlin paper, which was forwarded to all German fighter units was - IMHO rather useful - a tactical advice for fighter pilots based on the available information and strenghts and weaknesses of enemy types derived from testing. It should be useful in the game against the same type of aircraft, ie. 2 pitch Spits and Hurris, but some other advice is valid for improved types, too.

As for the all of them had the best stuff etc. I consider it wishful thinking and without evidence. As far as CSPs go we know that they just started to be retrofitted at start of the battle, and the process wasn't about finished until mid-August, so yes, you could definietely meet up with two-pitch in July 1940, early in the battle. As for 100 octane, it was done to death. No evidence or documentation was ever presented by anyone, that would specifically say that all aircraft are using 100 octane, or even all aircraft are planned to use 100 octane. All we know is that the original early 1939 plans called for 16 fighter and 2 blenheim bomber sqns. to be provided with 100 octane by September 1940.The high octane stuff was introduced to select fighter (and some Blenheim bomber) stations in spring of 1940, from which it follows that not all had it. We also have evidence that further conversion of units was stopped in May 1940 due to concerns of overseas supply, especially as the Germans were sinking tankers at an alarming rate, and all 100 octane came from overseas; we also know that the conversion continued, and was finished later in the automn. We also know that about 2/3s to 3/4 of the avgas consumed in the BoB was 87 octane. We also know that there's evidence for about 1/3 of the fighter stations for 100 octane used, predominantly Sector stations and in 11 Group. Everything else is just a wet dream at the currently available evidence.

So I am patiently waiting for someone to post a primary document that would say that all Squadrons are using 100 octane. Until that happens, I consider it wishful and baseless, and contradicted by evidence.

As for the Rechlin tested Spitfire. You claimed that all Spits had 100 octane. Would it not be strange for the Germans, to capture a plane with 100 octane fuel in its tanks, and then test it with something else than 100 octane fuel, when they had plenty of supply of that, both captured stocks and their own production of high grade C-3 fuel..?
Of course, they may have operated it on 87 octane, but that would only make sense if the plane they captured also had 87 octane in its tanks when it was captured..

100 octane and a CSP makes the Spitfire a different animal.

Yup.

That is the animal the 109's faced, not the example you cited.

So, how come the Germans captured one in such condition.. if it did not exist, as you say?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Lol.

One that put it 3000 feet above the 109. Ask Ulrich Steinhilper if it was marginal.

As others told you, it was the pilot, not the plane back then. One Spitfire pilot was lucky, and climbed higher than his 109 pilot opponent, so he had the advantage, and shoot the other guy down on that day. It has nothing to do with the planes.

The Mark II was practically the same plane as the Mark I, not some wonder fighter some want to make it to be. Just look at the engine outputs. The only difference between the Merlin III and XII was that the latter had about 1500 feet higher rated altiude, otherwise it had the same output, just 1500 feet higher. That's a whopping 500 meter...

Oh wait.. the same difference existed between various Bf 109 models.. some had DB 601A engines an older type of supercharger, some had with improved vaned diffusor superchargers in the Battle, too? Do you want to guess how much they differed from one another in rated altitude? By the same 'mighty' 500 meter / 1500 feet. And then of course there were the units with DB 601N, which had extremely good high altitude output. So, even on the German side, you had at least 3 different engines in the same airframe.