Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Sven

Well now that I think of it, in IL2 1946 4.10.1 spitfires also easily outturn hurricanes at any speed ( As well as the newest M*d packs),
and that has been this way since the beginning as far as I remember (Forgotten Battles), not saying that that is what it should be, maybe time for revolution?

You havent tried Ultr@Pack 2.01? Haven't you?

Hurricane MK 1 +12 lbs is very close to SPitfire MK1 +12 lbs in UP if not little bit better at lower speeds

[Sven]

I find it very difficult in the Hurri to keep up with a Spit in UP 2.01, I mainly fly HSFX 5.0 now so my memory might be off.

EDIT: I just fired it up and can get them in a stable sharp turn and find the Spit to be quicker but it is indeed very close, but that's just feelings.
You are right though that when speed drops to 200 the spit has a harder time keeping up, and I have to let the elevator go a bit to prevent falling down to the earth, whilst the Hurri can push some what further.

[ATAG_Doc]

I am sure if we could go back in time and we were actually there and were all part of this, and we each had our plane we'd know what's up. What turns better and what is faster. What to do in a given situation. Because we have it at our disposal at any time we wanted to see and test. But this is a sim. There is and always will be differences based on the interpretations of a given developer.

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by timej31

I am sure if we could go back in time and we were actually there and were all part of this, and we each had our plane we'd know what's up. What turns better and what is faster. What to do in a given situation. Because we have it at our disposal at any time we wanted to see and test.

Not really. You'd get to fly the type of aeroplane you were given and for most people that would be it. So you might know quite a lot about for example the performance of the Hurricanes your squadron flew, but you wouldn't know very much about the performance of the Bf-109.

People would hear things on the grapevine. Some bits would be closer to the truth than others. Obviously a significant proportion of people who discovered the enemy's performance advantages didn't live to tell anybody about it...

During the Battle, quite a lot of RAF pilots said in their combat reports that they were fighting the He-113 rather than the Bf-109. So much for "knowing" about the enemy's performance...

In fact, it was quite possible to fly a whole tour without seeing an enemy aeroplane at all, especially for Allied pilots later in the war. It's also worth observing that pilots who were trained during the war didn't necessarily get an awful lot of hours in which to experiment with the limits of aircraft performance, because the priority was operations rather than training. And the priority of operations was to attack ground targets and conduct reconnaissance. Fighters only exist to interfere with, or prevent interference with, the aeroplanes attempting to perform this useful work. AFAIK the average pilot in a WWII airforce was not a fighter pilot, though he might have told the girls otherwise.

Later in the war, more concerted efforts were made to convey the strengths & weaknesses of enemy aircraft to pilots, though of course this intelligence information was imperfect.

Since the best tactic to employ against an uncooperative enemy aircraft is entirely a question of relative performance, it follows that aerial combat was mostly a game of extremely high stakes poker.

For this reason, it was an extremely bad career move to actually get into the sort of fight whose outcome depended upon aircraft performance; the vast majority of aces scored their kills by exploiting their opponent's lack of SA and shooting them in the back rather than by getting into aerobatics contests with them.

Of course, if you score most of your kills by bouncing the enemy then you don't know or much care about the turn performance of his aeroplane; you care more about the operational habits of enemy pilots, such as the speeds, altitudes and types of formation in which they are inclined to cruise.

So even the best WWII fighter pilots probably knew considerably less about his opponents than the average sim pilot does.

A consequence of this is that sim pilots tend to make a bigger deal out of small performance differences.

If I feel inclined, I can spend a week or two testing the performance of all of the flyable aeroplanes in the sim. I can discover the 5% performance difference between aircraft x and aircraft y, and I can exploit that performance difference in combat with considerable confidence, leading to many forum posts about aircraft x's performance advantage over aircraft y.

IRL, production tolerances and pilot skill would render this sort of 5% performance difference entirely irrelevant; the absence of a refly button means that winning "most of the time" just doesn't cut it. Mixed reports of the outcome of turn fights would filter back to the squadrons, and the consensus would probably be that turn fighting was a bad idea in general, and an especially bad idea against aircraft y, because the success rate wasn't great.

It's very hard to get away from the fact that the massive psychological differences between fighting in a real war and playing with a flight simulator have a correspondingly massive impact upon the way that people fly, fight, and even think about their aeroplanes.

[bw_wolverine]

Very nice and thoughtful postings, Viper.

I find much more enjoyment with a combat flight sim playing it in the style of the real life encounters and events than trying to push the supposed accuracy of the simulation in general to my advantage or someone else's advantage. Because of that, minor differences or inaccuracies in aircraft performance tuning generally don't bother me, because you're right about the situations being about the pilot, his training, and what has happened in the past being much more an influence than his specific knowledge of just how far he can push his crate. (That said, I do like realism, and I wouldn't MIND if they tried to get it as accurate as possible, It's just not that big a factor in how much I enjoy the game itself).

I think we like to romanticize the actions of pilots a lot, and that's fine (we wouldn't be playing flight sims if we didn't!) but I think there's a reason that most war heroes and such say "I just did what I'm trained to do" etc. Circumstances beyond their control push their abilities, rather than them consciously trying to ride the bleeding edge.

[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.