Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[reflected]

I checked my books:

The Hurrican should have about the same turn time as the Spitfire, the 109 is worse.
However, the Hurricane should have a lot tighter turning circle than the Spitfire, the difference should be larger in this aspect than the one between the 109 and the Spit.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by reflected

I checked my books:

The Hurrican should have about the same turn time as the Spitfire, the 109 is worse.
However, the Hurricane should have a lot tighter turning circle than the Spitfire, the difference should be larger in this aspect than the one between the 109 and the Spit.

reflected, sorry but your absolute statements come out as somehow puerile..

you can't expect people to take you seriously if you say "I checked my books" without saying:
1) what books
2) the conditions of the turning tests (planes, conditions, altitudes etc..)

the whole matter of people coming on the forum saying "I've read it in a book" (and believe it or not, even books, which are written by men, can contain mistakes) and then wanting the developers to change the FM based on their personal preferences is just going to cause damage. It's not a personal attack, since you're not the only one that made such statements, but it's really annoying to read posts similar to yours on the long run.

In a nutshell, my suggestion is that people should get their facts right before making any statements or assumptions, if anything for the sake of the sim's accuracy.

[steppie]

first thing you have to remember they are different aircraft so don't think they have the same perform because the have the same power plant.(good example the spitfire and mustang had he same engine and propeller).

the Hurricane had a better rate of turn at a slower speeds than the spitfire but the faster the spitfire went the better it turn rate got over the hurricane.

But what is a fact they both out turned the bf109.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by steppie

But what is a fact they both out turned the bf109.

Yes but is it a fact that their turn times were more than 6 seconds better?

This is the real problem.

And anyway could really the Spit outturn the 109 at stall speed? (slats)

[reflected]

OK, I'm out of this discussion. I have many books, and all of them say the same thing, consistently. If I list them it won't change the facts. This is not the case in CoD. However, since I can't state that the sky is blue without reference I'll let you prove the opposite, I don't think 1C is gonna touch the FMs anyway.

No offense, but I'm not gonna write an essay, post charts and stuff jsut to convince you or prove that I'm right, because it will have no effect on the game (unless you're a dev, but you're not), so it would be a waste of time.

[ZaltysZ]

And it does not matter much what books say (and there is no need to list them), until some one does the flight tests in game. Sustained turn time at various speeds, that is. Until then, comparison of turns will be very subjective.

[Kwiatek]

Well after reading many books, real life test by RAF and LW also looking in technical data of both planes i think that the difference between both planes sustained turn rate wasnt such huge. Still Spitfire should have the edge both in slow and higher speed turn rate. Of course im sure that some more experience pilots in 109 could turn with Spitfires with unexperience pilot - it confirmed some German aces.

Slats in 109 help a lot in the egde of stall but we should note that slats in 109 not cover all leading edge area but mostly airleons area - which mean that you have more control when you are close to stall ( when your wing rot are actually in stall). Other hand Spitfire had washed wingtips which had similar effect - when your wing rots were in stall your wing tips are not and you have still control on airleons. Both planes had similar stall speeds but Spitfire had clearly lower wingloading.

Slats in 109 give it better stall characteristic so pilots could feel more safe in stall fights then unexperience pilots in Spitfires but other hand good pilot in SPitfire could quite easy fell incoming stall beacuse Spitfire wings give him plenty of warning.

So i think the difference wasnt such huge but still Spitfire should be better in turn.


BTW

Looking in 109 COD slats working i see that they open very late - at very low speeds and i think they should work much earlier.

I checked RAF 109 E test and slats should be open in level flight at 180-190 km/h. In COD they start to open at speeds below 150 km/h.

[palker4]

From my experience with hurricanes in 1946 you will always get outurned by faster aircraft. You have advantaqe at the beggining but if you fail to kill enemy plane you will loose energy and because lack of acceleration and worse climb rate you will lose in prolonged maneuver fights its not all about turn rate you know.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Well after reading many books, real life test by RAF and LW also looking in technical data of both planes i think that the difference between both planes sustained turn rate wasnt such huge.

Good one

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Still Spitfire should have the edge both in slow and higher speed turn rate.

High speed turn only. Without too much AoA (no high G). Their the Spitfire was uncatchable for the 109.

The Hurri turned even better and could be put in a descending high G spiral were nor the Spit or the 109 could catch him.

High G flat turn IMHO : the hurri would hve the advantage on the beginning but then would loose E quicker than the Bf due to it's poorer aero and P/W.

I know that some wld talk abt Wing loading and comparing P/WL ratio but this is relevant only with similar airfoils characteristics. You can't use this argument in such different design or you ended favoring the wide chord flat plate. Think abt the the WWI Focker high thickness wings and the cambered thin sections of both French and English design (ok ok I know RoF was completely porcked when they add in the Ninja Camel and SE's - don't refer to what you see there). The former could turn inside any allied design due to better LIFT generating devices - eg WINGS.

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Slats in 109 help a lot in the egde of stall but we should note that slats in 109 not cover all leading edge area but mostly airleons area - which mean that you have more control when you are close to stall ( when your wing rot are actually in stall). Other hand Spitfire had washed wingtips which had similar effect - when your wing rots were in stall your wing tips are not and you have still control on airleons. Both planes had similar stall speeds but Spitfire had clearly lower wingloading.

You don't fly with your ailerons. The washing techniques only helps the pilot to ease the stall.
Furthermore, twisting the wing generate a huge extra amount of drag that hve to be compensated by extra power in such high drag situation of the slow turning fight. The 109 being cleaner, having a higher thicness ration (less AoA for the same lift) he has the edge here (but she might hve been harder to handle) .

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Slats in 109 give it better stall characteristic so pilots could feel more safe in stall fights then unexperience pilots in Spitfires but other hand good pilot in SPitfire could quite easy fell incoming stall beacuse Spitfire wings give him plenty of warning.

+1

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

So i think the difference wasnt such huge but still Spitfire should be better in turn.


BTW

Looking in 109 COD slats working i see that they open very late - at very low speeds and i think they should work much earlier.

I checked RAF 109 E test and slats should be open in level flight at 180-190 km/h. In COD they start to open at speeds below 150 km/h.

[/QUOTE]

I do agree with you. The slats seems much too shy to pop out

For those interested you can browse the War-Clouds forums where I remember we had some interesting discussions on that specific subject in the past

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by reflected

OK, I'm out of this discussion. I have many books, and all of them say the same thing, consistently. If I list them it won't change the facts. This is not the case in CoD. However, since I can't state that the sky is blue without reference I'll let you prove the opposite, I don't think 1C is gonna touch the FMs anyway.

I have many books too, but it's not absolute academia that will give us answers. The turning performance of an aircraft is affected by many things:

1)aeroplane related: wing design, wing load, aeroplane weight, power plant, propeller, aerodynamic features.

2)environment related: mainly altitude (air humidity and temperature are negligible)

3)piloting related: pilot's general skill, pilot's specific skills on the machine, testing skills.

an aeroplane is like a short blanket: you can have an edge on something but it will affect something else.

The Spit had the edge in maneuverability because of the fantastic elliptical wing design, but it was an extremely flimsy and delicate wing structure which couldn't take much damage.

No offense, but I'm not gonna write an essay, post charts and stuff jsut to convince you or prove that I'm right, because it will have no effect on the game (unless you're a dev, but you're not), so it would be a waste of time.

..then what's the point of your original message?
I am ready to hear any opinion and vouch for it or not, but it will need a thing called reliable evidences to support it.