omg the meserchmitch i so easy to shoot with the spit i love it

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by swift

Please reread my posts concerning wide curves again thoroughly or go back to reading class. I was clearly mentioning that wide curves are a good ESCAPE manoeuvre when having a decent speed advantage. Of course if there is no speed advantage or just a tiny lil bit wide curves won't save one's buttocks. So please do not treat others as stupid if your misunderstanding derives from your misreading. You may just end up looking like a big mouthed fool.

Thanks for that Swift. Good to know that there are still a few people around who can conduct a conversation online without resorting to personal abuse. Great stuff...

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

To whom it may concern:

The forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately, and so this will be my last try at using this forum to communicate accurately with anyone else who cares to communicate accurately on the Topic of this game that is for sale, and a game that I have purchased with my own earnings.

If the forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately again, then there will no longer be any more sense, at all, in my expending the effort to use this forum to communicate accurately with other people who have also purchased this game with their own earnings.

The person quoted above has a legitimate and interesting concern and I may be able to help that person with that specific concern because that specific concern is a concern that I share.

Every single World War II Air Combat Simulator since Air Warrior, that I have purchased, fits on a scale of which World War II Air Combat Simulator does the best job of simulating World War II Air Combat.

This game is currently the best I've seen, however it suffers from what I will call the Spitfire Lobby effect.

There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Allied planes relative to the Axis planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions.

Sometimes the moderators on these game forums aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported, sometimes the forum moderators do not aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported.

What will it be this time?

Last time I tried to communicate accurate information on this forum was a test case that proved the rule that confirms the fact that the forum moderators aid the people whose obvious goal is to censor the accurate information being reported on World War II Air Combat Simulation Forums, and this is not news. The odds are that accurate discussion of the game, we paid for, and we share an interest in, will not be possible on this forum.

We shall see.

Back to the point:



In almost every book I've read on relative combat performance there is one very important performance variable that is measurable as Specific Excess Power and to understand that measure of that performance variable you don't need to know all the information contained in the following sources:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c4.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c5.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c7.pdf

The important point to realize, in my opinion, is to know which plane accelerates faster than the other plane, and if you know that fact, then you know which plane has that advantage, and that is a very important advantage.

Like the English Fighter Pilot in the video linked earlier in this topic says the following words:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game then the following may be the case:



Now, the person who has an interest, a concern, and an accurate message quoted above, a concern I share, he may be a person who has purchased the game with his own earnings too, and he may want to know what I know, and if the moderators censor my attempts to communicate what I know, then that will happen again.

Too bad for me. I will try this one more time.

There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion from any other person who may have also purchased the game with their own earnings and who may be reporting information on this forum, accurate or inaccurate information.

If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test, then see which plane does this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

I can speak about the importance of having a small plane (less drag) and a weighty engine (sectional density) and why a small plane (less drag) with high sectional density (a weighty engine) tends to accelerate faster in a dive, and tends to decelerate slower in a zoom climb, but I think it may be better to avoid my opinion on such things and call upon the writings of someone who actually flew 109s, Spitfires, 190s, and many World War II Air Combat Fighter Planes during World War II, since he was one of those Fighter Pilots who was also testing captured planes to test relative performance of those planes.

The quote I am going to pick out concerns an evaluation of a 190 which was also a small plane with a weighty engine but before doing that it may be a good idea to make sure that the reader understands that the point being accurately communicated is the point concerning the advantage of a higher rate of acceleration, which is a measure of Specific Excess Power under the conditions of flight specified, a dive, which is an unloaded dive, and conversely could also be an unloaded zoom climb advantage.

The point is to point out the meaning of the term B and Z, or BnZ, or Energy Fighting which is not the same thing as Hit and Run and not the same thing as Turn and Burn.

Energy Fighting is a term used by Robert Shaw in his book titled Fighter Combat. BnZ is a term used by people who play a game.

Here is the source of a relevant measure of performance advantages used in Air Combat for World War II:

http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaff.../dp/1853104132

Here is a quote that may help anyone if anyone wants to understand game performance relative to actual performance where a dive and zoom advantage was used in World War II, how it was used, and the source of the information is a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot, who aught to know more than someone playing a game.



If the 109 does not accelerate faster in a dive, in the game, then there is an obvious lack of performance advantage required to Energy Fight in the vertical.

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

That would not have happened that way if the 109 was only marginally faster or not at all faster in unloaded acceleration.

There are many examples of captured aircraft test flown by the British and in each case where I've read the results of those tests the 109 has been proven, by the British, to have that dive acceleration advantage.

If that dive acceleration advantage is not modeled into the game, then it isn't modeled into the game.

There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions.

As to the question of turning there were tests done by British pilots and they concluded, in their own test reports, that the 109 "had no tendency to spin" and that is not modeled into the game.

The British pilots, in their own reports, were unable to turn with the 109 when the British pilots were not flying close to their stall because their planes tended to spin.

That is not modeled into the game.

The 109 has a nasty stall in the game, it tends to stall in the game.

The actual rate of relative acceleration difference between the 109 and the Spitfire can be measured side by side in level flight too, in the game, to see which plane has the faster rate of acceleration in level flight, in the game, which is also a specific way to measure Specific Excess Power, which is the most significant performance advantage needed when employing Energy Fighting Tactics, or vertical maneuvering, in Air Combat, according to more than one source.

If the game models the Spitfire with a smaller turn radius in a sustained level flight turn and the 109 has a nasty stall flying a larger turn radius, then the 109 is considered to be Single Inferior according to the information provided by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat.

If there is no significant advantage in acceleration modeled into the 109 over the Spitfire or Hurricane then there is no Single Advantage, or none of this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

Which leaves Hit and Run tactics, or team tactics, to be used by the inferior plane if the inferior plane has both a sustained turn disadvantage and no significant advantage in unloaded, or dive, acceleration.

Then there is the matter of climb angle. It was noted by the British that both the 109 and the 190 had climb angle advantages over their Spitfires and Hurricanes, whereas the rate of climb may have been roughly equal or slightly more of an advantage for the German planes, in reality, the climb angle was steeper on the German planes, for some reason.

If there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game, then there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game.

Back to this:



There is one other very important measure of relative combat performance and this measure of relative combat performance has to be understood by the player of the game if the player of the game has a concern on this topic of relative performance.

That measure of relative performance is termed Corner Speed.

Here is my first try at communicating the accurate information that concerns these relative performance topics:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792

Corner Speed can be easily tested in the game, and it may help to know which plane has that advantage too, in the game.

This topic may be censored by the moderators when the Spitfire Lobby people begin to break the forum rules, attack me personally, and twist the information offered into some false version of it.

If that happens again, I won't respond again.

Dive acceleration is a real advantage for the 109 in reality, according to many documented tests for that specific performance advantage.

That was an advantage that was significant enough to inspire that British Fighter pilot to say this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

What gamers call Boom and Zoom may be, I don't know what any specific person playing this game may think, at any given moment, but that game term, Boom and Zoom, may be the actual tactic described by Robert Shaw as Energy Fighting, which is a tactic also described by a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot named Eric Brown in his own published words here:



If this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target.

Salute Josef

You have quoted a lot of generalities, and linked sites with general aeronautic theory above, all fine, but provided nothing which specifically relates to the 109.

You do mention the dive acceleration of the 109 seems to be off, not sure this is the case, but I suggest you do some testing to determine this and post the result.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

To be able to communicate why it happens the way it happens, one plane catching another plane, in a dive, or in a zoom, or in a turn at corner, or in a sustained turn, the specific TEST where planes, pilots, and software are TESTED has to be evaluated and known as to what was done by who and when, in combat, or a controlled experiment can be conducted.

Agreed

Now you keep making references to these tests that you say you have done..

Yet I can not find any posting of and/or link to the data you collected during those tests, let alone your analysis methods and results..

The only way others can evaluate the data you collected during those test, along with your analysis methods and results is if you provide us with the data you collected during those tests, along with your analysis methods and results.

So would you be so kind as to provide us a copy of the data you collected during those test, along with your analysis methods and results ?

Thanks in advance

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by NaBkin

Good post, thank you.

Do you also have the data for this style of flying?
Say for this:

"Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack."

"prop for climb" or "pitch for acceleration" - do you fly the 109 by the book or do you have data you've made yourself which work better in CloD? My 109 E manual for example says 250 is the best climbing speed, 2400rpm. Which I use to try to escape the reds.

Does this work for you, or are these theories from a red pilot? For me, sometimes it works, sometimes not, and I'm not sure if it is me or the FM.
I'm just not so sure if this really works, becaus if I fly the spit the same way (BnZ) I feel like I don't have any disatvantages to the 109 (BnZ).

No, I don't really have any specific data to speak of. My comments are based on my own experience with the 109, which I fly exclusively.

I can tell you that 'step-climbing' seldom fails me. However, success will depend to a considerable extent on how quickly you detect and react to the presence of a threatening enemy. If he is co-E or better and already shooting at you it's probably too late. However, if the situation is at all retrievable, it's very important to get level and accelerating just as quickly as possible. To achieve good acceleration I adjust the p/pitch so that RPM stays at a constant 2200-2300 (or there about) and maintain that setting until I've built sufficient speed to begin the climb. The exact timing of the climb depends on the proximity of the enemy. When I conclude that I have enough speed I then adjust the p/pitch to the point where my RPM increases to about 2600 and then I lift the nose and continue to adjust p/pitch as I climb. Exact climb speed doesn't really matter because you aren't attempting a sustained climb. The important thing is to ensure that airspeed doesn't drop too much because it will slow your acceleration when you level-out. As I understand it, 260kph is about the best sustained climb speed for the 109. That, IMO, is far too slow for successful 'step climbing'. As mentioned previously, after the climb phase, I want to be doing around 300kph+ to achieve a rapid transition to good level flight acceleration. Once you have achieved a good measure of separation between you and your enemy following a succession of 'step climbs' you can revert to more conventional climbing techniques should you wish.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?

Its difficult to have those skills. Yes, scissors would be effective, but the 109E has some sort of stall bug that resembles that of the old Il-2's horrendous G-6 FM at its worst state. The CLOD 109E seem to stall randomly and with no warning, making a manoeuvre like scissors very hard to execute.

On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat.

In short the fight usually develop along the current disadvantages of the FM. The 109s stall is nerfed, so nobody in good sense goes down to engage in manouvering combat, as we all know that the Spit is practically impossible to stall and has no stability issues at all (as opposed to the real thing). OTOH the Reds can't come up to altitude because of their even more flawed altitude FM. So it's isn't that much of a surprise that 109 stay high where they are untouchable and Spits/Hurris wait down below where they are untouchable.

In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

Except that in my experience its next to impossible to shake of even the Hurricane in level flight by extending in the 109 that is supposedly much faster in both dive and level flight - either the Hurricane is too fast, or the 109E is too slow, or both.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical,

Nope. The stall characteristics of the 109E are horrendous, it stalls and enters a flat spin all the time as opposed to the real thing, which was next to impossible to be put into a flat spin. Even the British emphasized the mild stall characteristics of the 109E which enabled it to be taken easier and closer to the edge of its performance envelope than British fighters. The Spitfire

no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget,

Perhaps that's better than the current overheat model than British planes, but let's not forget that the real 109 did not overheat even at 1/4 radiator open during level flight. Our one does, however, and it forces Blue pilots to open the radiators more and as a result fly with reduced airspeed, ie. effectively taking away the advantage in performance the 109 should have.

there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had,

I agree that loops are still not modelled, which is a shame. The 109 should be more prone to this, but than again, neither the Hurricane or the Spit does groundloop.. as for landing its average, the Hurricane for example is childishly easy to land because it flies at much slower speeds.

and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts.

No the engine does over- and underrevs all the time as speed and altitude changes, and on the manual prop pitch models you have to keep an eye on it all the time. Performance suffers accordingly. OTOH even in real life there was not much of a consequence of slight under or overevving, since the DB 601A could tolerate even 3000 rpm (instead of the normal 2400) for 30 secs.

It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive,

As it should. It is the highest wing loading plane with the highest power to weight ratio and lowest drag, remember?

and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom.

As it should.

Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri.

Again, as it should.

The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically.

There was nothing preventing the use of 1.35ata, apart from oil/coolant temperatures (which the cooling system could easily handle) , fuel consumption (modelled) and increased wear of the engine (which is not a concern for any Blue/Red player).

There was no limit on how often the 1-minute rating could be used and you are wrong that it's possible to use for longer than 1-min since it disengages automatically after 60 secs.

In the end neither should be that much of a concern since the 109 cannot reach it's 1.35/1.45ata performance at all and it's slower by 40 km/h than it should be at those ratings.

And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

The 109 does fly out of trim all the time and with a yaw as the ball clearly shows. It needs rudder adjustments for perfect flying. It's mildly annoying but not much of a practical concern, neither it was in real life - and neither it is for Red planes.


Currently the 109s have the following issues:

- auto prop pitch bug on the E-4
- cannot reach historical level speeds and is slower by ca. 40 km/h
- altitude FM bug (common to all planes)
- lack of armor
- stall modelling, with unpredictable and violent stalls, flat spins
- it overheat model is much worse than the real thing, which could sustain allowable temperatures at 1/4 radiator open (or 3/4 closed) in level flight
- the weight of E-1, E-3, E-4 is slightly off (though I do not think this is that much of an issue, since turn times are hard coded and it should only effect behaviour)
- ground handling model is simplistic (common to all planes)
- best climbing speed is off, it's 270 km/h instead of 250 kph, which may seem unimportant, but it has an effect on the turn/climb envelope, curve and related tactics, low speed flight etc.
- tailwheel lock is present in 3d cocpit model (it was present on E-7 onwards)
- speaking of which there's no E-7
- no E-4/N either :p
- manual prop pitch lacks feathering option

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

What is the purpose of repeating the same thing over and over again?

Yes Josf, exactly. If you're so very much interested in measuring E-M in this sim please do actually measure it. If you share your results, that would be great.

Everything depends on the abilities of the pilot, doesn't matter what fighter aircraft in the game you fly. You keep mentioning Boyd, Shaw, anything theoretical (which is great), but what you really need is actual experience and skill if you want to succeed in this game. It seemed at first that you were interested in talking about F-M theory and this game, but now it looks you only come in here to complain about the flight models and alleged red agenda and you happen to claim things like '109 is modeled as target in the game'. Depends on who's the pilot I suppose, just like with any other fighter aircraft.

So to answer your question - 109 is a perfect energy fighter... in capable hands. It certainly has got the potential and it's fun to fly. If you stall it too often, you're doing something wrong. I never stall my 109 (except when I make a mistake) and I don't see any good 109 pilots stalling either.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Its difficult to have those skills. Yes, scissors would be effective, but the 109E has some sort of stall bug that resembles that of the old Il-2's horrendous G-6 FM at its worst state. The CLOD 109E seem to stall randomly and with no warning, making a manoeuvre like scissors very hard to execute.

It is supposed to be difficult. Emil is not an easy plane to fly and / or master Regarding the stalls you mention, I often use scissors as a maneuveur and I never stall the plane - that includes rolling scissors, vertical, horizontal combined with aggressive hammerheads - the problem is not in the aircraft. I see many other pilots being in perfect command of the 109...

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In short the fight usually develop along the current disadvantages of the FM. The 109s stall is nerfed, so nobody in good sense goes down to engage in manouvering combat, as we all know that the Spit is practically impossible to stall and has no stability issues at all (as opposed to the real thing). OTOH the Reds can't come up to altitude because of their even more flawed altitude FM. So it's isn't that much of a surprise that 109 stay high where they are untouchable and Spits/Hurris wait down below where they are untouchable.

Interesting, this is in exact opposite of what many RAF pilots are doing - you have much better chances higher up as the performance gap closes the higher you go. 109 up high are not untouchable, they're actually more vulnerable.

I am not sure if you ever flew the Spitfire in the current patch, but I can tell you it is very much possible to stall her if you're not careful. Same for the 109. The most difficult in my experience is the Hurricane, she likes to drop her wing if you're not precise with the rudder.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Except that in my experience its next to impossible to shake of even the Hurricane in level flight by extending in the 109 that is supposedly much faster in both dive and level flight - either the Hurricane is too fast, or the 109E is too slow, or both.

The difference is perhaps not as big as it used to be, Spitfire and even the Hurricane can be dangerous of course when the pilot keeps the speed up and you don't. But the 109 is faster than anything in the game if flown right. I see many 109 pilots have no problem to shake me even if I fly my Spitfire on the edge. Even worse in the Hurricane.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nope. The stall characteristics of the 109E are horrendous, it stalls and enters a flat spin all the time as opposed to the real thing, which was next to impossible to be put into a flat spin. Even the British emphasized the mild stall characteristics of the 109E which enabled it to be taken easier and closer to the edge of its performance envelope than British fighters.

Not entirely true, you had to be better pilot in order to get the 109 on the edge, Spitfire was generally easier to fly. I repeat I believe this stall experience of yours is not a 109 problem.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Currently the 109s have the following issues:

Some of the issues (top speed, top ceiling, ground handling) is equally present in all planes in the game.

I agree with most and I would add wings too fragile and stock rudder trim being wrong (maybe making the plane less stable, it was OK in on of the previous patches then changed back). Main issue is the engine modeling - Aa and A-1 mixup with FTH and power ratings - this actuly favours the Emil in the game. I don't think the real life pilots were flying at 1,45 ata during the whole flight with no consequences like we do

[swift]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Thanks for that Swift. Good to know that there are still a few people around who can conduct a conversation online without resorting to personal abuse. Great stuff...

well, a conversation requires that both parties actually listen to what the other has to say with sufficient care. You denied me this basic respect by reading only 50% of my message (which were not excessively long) on two occasions. You should not be surprised that I do not take kindly to you putting words in my mouth that I never said because you did only listen to 50% of what I said.

[JG14_Josf]

So to answer your question - 109 is a perfect energy fighter... in capable hands. It certainly has got the potential and it's fun to fly. If you stall it too often, you're doing something wrong. I never stall my 109 (except when I make a mistake) and I don't see any good 109 pilots stalling either.

Anyone,

The customary, rational, reasonable, and obvious solution to the pissing contest tactic done by the forum member quoted above is to put their money where their mouth is, and commence a method by which the person puts up or shuts up.

The 109 is no better or no worse of an Energy Fighter than any other plane if the answer to the question avoids the question and moves from a discussion about the plane to claims concerning the capabilities of the pilot.

The claim that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter (because the pilot is better) works for the Stuka, the Spitfire, the Wellington, or the paper airplane.

The paper airplane is the perfect energy fighter (fine print: so long as the better pilot is flying the paper airplane).

What is it, precisely, about the performance of the 109, that is unique to the 109, and is not something unique to the opposition, by which the 109 is superior or a "perfect" energy fighter?

If there were an operating Dueling Ladder, for example, where controlled engagements of duels, or jousts, or one on one Simulated Ar Combat Fights, scored and documented, track files recorded, then the concept of dodging the question with an ambiguous answer would be meaningless, because the facts would be documented, and the opinions would be meaning-less, as meaning-less, as opinions concerning which pilot is better reported now, on this forum, since the actual answers would be provided in the results of the documented employments of each plane and each pilot over time as the best pilots flying the best planes using the best tactics PROVE which plane is the best Energy Fighter and which plane is the best Angles Fighter.

Which plane, in the track file, performs which maneuver against which other plane, right there on track files, leaving no room for subjective opinion.

What cannot be said, without resort to complete fabrication, is that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, so no one dares make such an obvious false statement.

But to say that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better is no different that saying the Spitfire is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better.

So why not say that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, turner and burner, b because the pilot is better?

Because that would be an obvious fabrication of deception?

What is the point of the deceptions?

The characteristics that make a plane better at energy fighting are spelled out in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, and in all the work done by John Boyd that is well recorded on the Naviar site, which is not "theory". Peak acceleration, which is higher Specific Excess Power, is the performance variable that makes one fighter plane better than another plane, and under which conditions the advantage of having more power to move the airplane from where you are to where you prefer to be, again not "theory", is the ability, the power, to win the fight.

Why call the application of science used to discover the accurate measure of relative combat performance a "theory"?

What is the point of such deception?

If a person purchases the game and is then interested in finding out which plane (not pilot) is better than the other plane, then it may be a good idea to let that person know how the professionals have figured out exactly how to measure that performance advantage, without question.

Not theory.

Is it a racket?

"If you want to know which plane is better, you have to ask me, because all those other false authorities on the subject are only offering theory?"

Is that the game being played here?

"I know, but they... those people who are or were professional fighter pilots in the business of Air Combat, in reality, are mere "theorists", so ask me, and don't listen to their crack pot theories?"

Is that the game being played?

"The 109 is, because I say so, a perfect energy fighter."

That is fact?

Then:

"It is the pilot, not the plane, that makes for the perfect energy fighter."

Does that work for the perfect angles fighter too? The 109 is the perfect Angles Fighter, because the pilot is better?

Is that a form of musical chairs?

It is a fabrication of deception to call the Energy Maneuverability application of Science a "theory", when the product of that employment of that work is well documented and proven to accomplish the intended goal of measuring which Fighter Plane has exactly which performance capabilities, such as level flight acceleration, Specific Excess Power, dive acceleration, zoom climb acceleration, corner speed (maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius), and sustained turn performance.

To return to a logical, reasonable, precise, and accurate perspective on the matter at hand, the topic, there can be in "theory", people talking shop on a forum is a "theory", or instead of that "talk", there can be "walking", in actual reality, a duel to employ as an example of which plane (not pilot), is, in fact, the perfect energy fighter, and which plane is, in fact, modeled as a target.

Both planes in question, are tested, in a mock combat, simulated combat, controlled tests, and pilots are switched from one plane to the other as a "CONTROL" on the test to remove the factor of which pilot is the better pilot.

If the fight turns into only a contest of turning and burning, known in the professional Fighter Combat terminology and Angles Fighting, then the claim being made is a baseless claim:

This claim:

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

If there is no energy fighting, in any test, anywhere, anytime, then the claim is baseless.

If on the other hand, in actual fact, or in theory (so as to explain what the person doing the claim actually means), the 109 is employed as a perfect energy fighter against an imperfect energy fighter, then that can be described, as it works in theory, on a forum, and that can be proven, bypassing theory, it can be demonstrated in actual fact, with a controlled use of the game in fact.

Again the book Fighter Combat, which is not a theoretical book, offers many examples of exactly what is, or is not, Energy Fighting.

So the claimant who makes the claim about the perfection of the 109 Energy Fighting capability can then, in theory, demonstrate how perfection in energy fighting is done, having made the claim, with that 109.

Or not.

Which brings up a possible problem encountered by anyone who purchases the game, who is then seeking advice as to which plane is better, and in which ways which plane is better, and then having nothing but baseless claims, that never materialize, such as the 109 being a perfect energy fighter, and finally a confession is made that "it is the pilot" not the machine, which is logically a retraction of the original claim.

The 109 is not a perfect energy fighter after all, since the claimant of that baseless claim retracts that claim, and replaces that claim with a new claim, where the new claim is that the pilot is the perfect energy fighter, not the plane.

Back to square one?

Which plane is better, not which pilot is better, but which plane is better, and the obvious answer remains obvious, as the Spitfire can turn and burn inside any 109 anytime.

Both planes have comparable rates of acceleration, apparently, since those who claim that one plane is perfect at energy fighting retract such baseless claims when challenged to put up or shut up.

Fabrications of dubious claims of "theory" contained in the information linked, Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, for example, or Navair web pages, for another example, may misdirect a new player away from those sources of accurate information that can help answer the question asked, the topic question, if that does happen, in fact, someone here on this forum being misdirected by fabrications of nonsense.

The fact remains a fact that there are easy ways to find out which plane is better and find out exactly how much one plane is better, and with an easy to manage CONTROL, the factor of the pilot is rendered to be a CONSTANT if two pilots fly both planes in mock combat to see, for themselves, exactly, without doubt, which planes do which maneuvers better according to the GAME CODE that has been "adjusted" to suit whichever opinion has sway over those adjustments.

The challenge then, for any new player purchasing the game, and asking the topic question, is to find someone willing to do controlled tests, to eliminate the Pilot variable, to render the Pilot variable to be a CONSTANT, not a variable, and in those controlled tests the person asking the question can get the accurate answer that way.

Which way?

Side by side level flight acceleration tests can show which plane can get away from which plane or both planes are equal. Either one is superior in level flight acceleration or not.

Level flight sustained turn tests, one behind the other, can show which plane can turn inside the other. That is already well known, without controversy.

The Spitfire is superior, and the 109 is modeled with a very bad tendency to spin, which is opposite of the actual well documented facts.

The two pilots can switch planes to remove the Pilot variable, to make that variable no longer a variable.

More than 2 pilots can improve the accuracy of the scientific method of making variables into constants.

Corner speed tests offer significant information concerning which plane is better at burning energy, converting that energy into advantageous position, and which plane gains more position with less loss of energy, and those corner speed tests can also be done side by side, and the pilot variable can also be rendered constant by switching pilots and planes.

An additional benefit for the new player interested enough in the game to a point where the new player is actually wanting to know the precise advantages one plane is modeled in the game better than another plane, having that interest reaching that point of intensity, to that point of finding another player willing do perform these types of comparative performance tests, is the possibility of finding a wingman, someone other than the lone player, to combine forces, and use the game to then begin to explore the many advantages of teamwork.

Team tactics are also well covered in great detail in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw.

So...no need to rely upon "experts" who never actually answer any questions, when the facts of the matter are actually modeled in the game, and with one other player to help the new player to show exactly which plane does which maneuver better, the game can thereby become a much richer experience instead of a struggle against seemingly impossible odds.

[NaBkin]

Originally Posted by Robo.

This very much depends how and with whom you fly. There are some fantastic Bf 109 pilots on ATAG and they're joy to fight against - they are in command of the plane and they know how to use it to their advantage, they cooperate and they shoot very well - they simply use the potential of the 109 as a fighter plane 100% ly. I do have great respect for their skill and I have to do my best to beat them or even survive. I am not sure what is your nick on ATAG, but I can name you a few excellent 109 pilots - many of them from ACG (5./JG27, 6./JG26), many Russian pilots, some ATAG squad 109 chaps, I./JG1 pilots recently and many many more. 109 is not easy to master, but if once you get there you will find that you can have upper hand unless you make some obvious mistake.

Well, it's not wrong what you say. But maybe lets put it that way: it probably needs a too experienced pilot to tap the full potential of the 109. I also agree that in the JG27 there are some of the best pilots, but even they do complain about their plane's performance. Go on TS with them and ask themselves

Originally Posted by Robo.

Yes, but to be fair, the RAF planes were portrayed very badly to start with. The effort in last few ptches fixed lots of issues and what we have now is much closer to the R/L specifications, although there are obviously still some issues left to be resolved... I suggest you fly for the other side for a month or so, you will see the things from different perspective.

I can't really tell since I didn't fly red back then. It was too much fun to fly my 109 against the red fighters but I can imagine that it is true because it really was too easy to compete against them. And since I want historical correct FM on both sides I'm glad that the devs did correct this issues.

By the way, I found a good way to test and sort of measure the fighting performance of the planes: REPKA Server. I never tried ict because Of the map end icons and everything. But today I flew like 2h on it just to find out if I can climb out a Spit (I couldnt try it with my squad members because nobody was on tonight but I will do it for sure to gather better info soon).

So what I've found out for me personally (this isnt very accurate and 100% scientific but it it what I did experience tonight in like 20+ sorties):

- I CAN out climb avery other plane in my 109 BUT rather slowly. it seems that 300 kmh +-20 and 2400rpm is a good performance to gain as much distance as fast as possible (because icons and outside view are on you can see how fast you gain distance, very cool).
BUT can I escape from shooting range to a non shooting range fast enough? It don't seems so, unless maybe the red pilot is a very bad shooter. You gain distance just too slowly.

- If I sit in a Spit and a 109 does a rather slow BnZ on me, I easily can do a 180 turn and still be able to deal a few hits or even shot the 109 down. Sometimes I almost didn't believe how fast I could make that single turn and still being able to maintain the speed. I feel that the spit looses a bit too less energy in tight turns.

- If you don't want to die in a 109 you don't have to (at least on Repka). If you fly perfectly and savely you'll stay alive, but its pretty hard to shoot enemys down then. You have to be a excelent shooter and very disciplined (which either I'm just partially)

- Its very hard to survive in a Hurry though. if you do the right thing like a very tight turn just at the right time and let the 109 pass you, its very unlikely to get shot down, but also you neither can make progress and fly home, you have to wait for help, unless the 109 pilot looses sight on you (which on Repka dont happen because of the icons. But on ATAG it happens all the time, as well because of the blind LOD spot in about 700 to 1k meters)

These are the main things I found out today and I really can encourrage you to go on repka yourself to try it out and test your plane. I think the Sim is on a good way but stll has some annoying flaws.

Some things I want to test as well are diving speeds. I couldnt do it properly without my teammates but I will do it for sure.