Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[JtD]

It's not about turning fights, it's about the ability of a plane to sustain a turn at a given speed. That's what the chart shows. It's something else what you make of it - both here at the forum discussing it, and in the air piloting these planes.

Like with that Gripen, most accidents happen due to pilot error, not erroneous design calculations. It's rather an argument against the reliability of pilot accounts, than an argument against reliability of maths and physics - so I'm not quite sure why you posted the video.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

It's not about turning fights.

Oh, have I misunderstood something? I just figured since the thread went OT within 7 pages or so and it turned into an argument about which aircraft had the turning advantage it 'was' about turning fights, if I'm not mistaken that is exactly what triggered the whole change of topic was a turning circle diagram and the usual suspects denying that the Spit would win in a turning fight.

[Al Schlageter]

Doesn't the V in a designation mean a prototype/test a/c?

Bf 109 V15a

[JtD]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Oh, have I misunderstood something?...

Some are drawing wrong conclusions from the chart, but that doesn't change the chart. Kurfürst said the 262 can sustain a better turn time than the Spitfire at 400 mph, which is true. This will not win it a sustained turn fight though, as the Spitfire doesn't need to match the 262's speed. It can't do it in straight and level flight, so why bother in turns. Like I said, there's the chart and there's what you make of it.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

My best guess is that there was a major difference between the Emil and Friedrich propellers...

OK, I can see that at altitude the F is at least faster than the E, even if still at more power. Do you have the propeller efficiencies somewhere so I could take a look at them? Regarding the Spits, the IX was quite a bit more dirty than the I, just like a G-6 was more dirty than an F. So I would expect it to need more power for the same speed. But the E-F issue is different.

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Doesn't the V in a designation mean a prototype/test a/c?

Yes, 109E prototype.

Originally Posted by Bounder!

Just a stab, Kurfürst is probably the man for this question but looking up the weight of the 109e and 109f and it appears the later is heavier when loaded which might help account for the lack of speed increase over the emil?

Weight certainly is a factor, but for top speed of high speed fighter aircraft the effect is rather small. It matters much more for climb and turn.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by JtD

Yes, 109E prototype.

Then why is prototype data being used and not data from a production Bf109E?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Then why is prototype data being used and not data from a production Bf109E?

Based on past experience with Kurfürst.. My guess would be the prototype data has better results than the production data.. That is to say Kurfürst tends to go with the best of the best data for 109s and the worst of the worst data for anything allied.. Also known as cherry picking!

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Then why is prototype data being used and not data from a production Bf109E?

Awww, why so serious? Anyway, Check out http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...09/me109e.html

[Glider]

Originally Posted by JtD

Like with that Gripen, most accidents happen due to pilot error, not erroneous design calculations. It's rather an argument against the reliability of pilot accounts, than an argument against reliability of maths and physics - so I'm not quite sure why you posted the video.

What is more likely to go wrong, A prototype on its sixth flight or a test pilot of many years experience. The problem was traced to issues with the avionics and delayed responses to control input, not pilot error.
These had been calculated and tested in simlators but it was only when they flew that the problem was idnetified.
So the calculations and theory was flawed resulting in a serious accident the pilot was lucky to get away with. People who rely on theory are banking the farm on a theory and thats why I posted the video.

I notice that no one has come up with any examples of an F4, F105 or 262 taking on a slower aircraft in a turning fight. The F4 and F105 people say that they had the advantage in a turning fight at over 0.9. If this is the case then why didn't the US pilots use that advantage?
Its a simple question, in reality they didn't, they used their speed to go vertical or gain a tactical advantage.

This is the core of the difference. In Vietman I can find examples of US pilots going vertical or using speed to gain a tactical advantage. No one has (so far) show that US pilot wanted to go into a turning fight.
I believe from what I have read that the 262 pilots did exactly the same thing.

PS the main target for the 262 were the bombers, not fighters

As far as the game goes, do you want it to reflect what could happen, or did happen.

Going back to the subject. I do get a little frustrated when people pick and choose which part of the offical test reports they agree with.

Can I ask you if you agree with what the German test establishment said about the 109 and Spitfire? I do in its entirety good and bad from all points.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Glider

Its a simple question, in reality they didn't, they used their speed to go vertical or gain a tactical advantage.

This is the core of the difference. In Vietman I can find examples of US pilots going vertical or using speed to gain a tactical advantage. No one has (so far) show that US pilot wanted to go into a turning fight.
I believe from what I have read that the 262 pilots did exactly the same thing.

Tht's what I am saying here, Glider. Changing direction is not about drawing circles like a compass with your plane but to point your nose faster in the intended direction that your opponent.

Again, if your plane fly at the limit of his envelope you have no chance in term of manoeuvrability. A faster plane will fight at a higher speed were he is more efficient in term of E. This what hve ruined Il2 with a Spit that never depleted his E (and again in CoD) turning basic BFM useless (YoYo for example).

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

This what hve ruined Il2 with a Spit that never depleted his E (and again in CoD) .

Are you suggesting that the CLoD spit does not loose energy in the turn?