Spit1a > SpitII

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

The Devs may need to look at this..Whos next?

The Italians...? >D

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

The Italians...? >D

It is quite funny though...captured enemy aircraft performance charts and how they differ...I mean those 2 examples above are like chalk n cheese..

It is hard for the devs when it comes to ww1/ww2 aircraft FM's...what a task!

If only they were still in the numbers that they could be tested and tested again by non biased pilots..and see how the FM's in this game and IL2 actually stand up

[Kwiatek]

It is important to know what exacly type of planes was used in test flights and what sort of equimpment was used.

In German test quoted by Kurfurst we clearly have:

" The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers.
Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or
even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with
low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss."

So Spitfire and Hurrciane used in German test flights had 2 stage prop pitch and looking for speed comparison clearly used 87 octan fuel.

Also interesting is that German found that both Spitfire and Hurricane even with 2 stage prop pitch unit could outturn 109 E.

" Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."

Also 109 climb adventage was only in shallow and higher speed climb not with steep one:

" The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle."

So it was 109 against Spitfire and Hurrciane with 2 stage prop pitch and 87 octan fuel - so common version pre battle of bitain.

In Brirish test there were used 109 E-3 against Spitfire MK1 with CS unit ( constant speed propeller):

" Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304
Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109."

Both British and German flight test showed that Spitfire and Hurrciane could outturn 109, also Spitfire with CS propeller and 100 octan fuel was faster (at low to medium alts).


But here are also some interesting test ( British):

[Kwiatek]

Here are full above flight test:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri...ls/Morgan.html

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Here are full above flight test:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri...ls/Morgan.html

very interesting read..thks mate

[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.

[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.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109."

Both British and German flight test showed that Spitfire and Hurrciane could outturn 109, also Spitfire with CS propeller and 100 octan fuel was faster (at low to medium alts).

I think the dead give away in the British test is the finding that the Spitfire is faster in level flight, even with 6 1/2 lbs boost. Which it simply wasn't, take a look at the maker's performance curves or the Rechlin tests findings. However the French had already noted some DB 601 engine troubles with this 109E in 1939, as did the British later when testing Bf 110 and 109 in test report "Performance tests on a Me 110 and a Me 109 (DB 601 engines):

"Both airplanes were fitted with DB 601A engines which gave considerable trouble during the test. A marked falling off of power was noticed as the tests progressed and some of the most important results could not be repeated".

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Osprey,

Side note, I don't know where it states in the German reference that the Spit was on 87 octane, surely the Germans had it available, just not in quantity. At this point of the war, weren't the Germans still importing fuel from Russia, and using stocks captures from France (i.e. French and British fuels)?

There is no reference about which octan fuel was used. But there is reference that both Spit and Hurrciane had 2 stage prop pitch.

Looking at speed comparision between Rechlin tested Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 E it is clearly too me that British fighters were used only 87 octan fuel.

" Speed: the Spitfire is at 0 m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4 km by ca. 10 km/h, Hurricane and
Curtiss at 0 and 4 km altitude by ca. 60 km/h. A similar superiority of the Bf 109 E
exists in the climb performance as well."

So in Rechlin test 109 E at sea level was faster by 20 km/h from SPit and 60 km/h from Hurrciane.

100 Octan fuel Spitfie MK1 ( +12 lbs) was faster then 109 E at low to medium alts and Hurriciane ( +12 lbs) should be slowier about 20-30 km/h then 109 ( at low alts)

It is clearly to me that British fighters in Rechlin used only lower 87 octan fuel.

RL Data Speed for comparsion between Sptfire MK1 +6 1/2 lbs (blue line) - Spit MK1 +12 lbs ( red) - Hurricane MK1 +12 lbs ( green) - 109 E-3 1.45 Ata ( black - based on German manual)



500 km/h at sea level is the best speed score for 109 E-3 as i saw in RL data ( it is from german manual for E-3 ) but most common known speed score is 467 km/h at 1.3 Ata ( 5 Minute Emergency Power). For SPitfire MK1 at + 6 1/2 lbs (87 octan fuel) is ab. 450 km/h ( 280 mph) and for Hurricane MK1 at 6 1/2 lbs ( 87 octan fuel) is ab. 426 km/h ( 265 mph).



And disscussion about how many squadrons used 100 Octan fuel during BOB is pointless to me. WE know that many squadron used 100 Octan fuel during BOB expecially these most importants sectors squadrons. So both version were used during BOB.

So to be fair we should have 2 or 3 version of Spitfire MK1 and Hurricane MK1 - with 2 stage prop pitch and 6 1/2lbs (pre BOB version without pilot armour and armoured windshield), 2 stage prop pitch at 12 lbs (early BOB version) and CS propeller at 12 lbs.