Tactics for Cliffs of Dover.

[ElAurens]

OK Chaps, assuming (I know, I know...) that the FMs in Cliffs of Dover are fairly true to historical data, the BF 109E and the Spitfire will be fairly evenly matched up to 16,000 ft. Above that altitude the Spitfire starts pulling ahead of the Messer in terms of speed, and at 20.000ft the Spitfire has a decided advantage.

So what this tells us is that we will have to get high and stay high to be successful in the Spitfire. We also must assume that Jerry will not fly historically, but will pretend it's 1944. So, they will not stay with the bombers, they will not engage in low level turn fights, and in short they will be the buzz killers we know them to be.



So Chaps, get altitude, then get some more. Don't give Jerry the chance to be the "Hun in the sun". In short beat them at their own sick game.

Leave the bombers to the Hurricanes, listen to your radar controller, and be back home in one piece for tea and medals.

Carry on.

[David603]

Don't forget that the Spitfire pilots (well the smart ones anyway) will also be using tactics that the RAF only adopted later in the war, and the Spitfire still has a big advantage over the Bf109 for manoeuvrability, regardless of altitude.

[Icewolf]

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940

[Abbeville-Boy]

oooh
cod first graph and chart thread
for proofs

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Icewolf

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940

Pilot accounts said the Spit turned better. Here's a quote from wwiiaircraftperformance.org - http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

"The RAE determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the corresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. 73 (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings. 74 "

So, reading that WWII performance site, the Spit was faster, climbed better, and turned better. Oleg may have had to program the fighters closer just to give the 109s a chance.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

So, reading that WWII performance site, the Spit was faster, climbed better, and turned better. Oleg may have had to program the fighters closer just to give the 109s a chance.

Oleg has said several times in the past that his aim is to simulate reality, not to create "balanced gameplay".

[BadAim]

As has been said soooo many times, here and elswhere, the pilot has much more to do with the outcome of a battle than the aircraft. The simple fact is that both aircraft have strong points and weak points and the pilot who knows them, exploits them properly and has conserved his fuel enough to exploit them at all will be victorious. Or at least get home in one piece.

I'll be the ball of fire heading towards the ground.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Tacoma74

I've been doing a bit of reading and it seems you may be somewhat correct. The Spit MkI did outclimb the Bf-109E, but only above about 7,000 feet or so.

I'm only reading from that wwii performance site link, I haven't read much of that before. According to the info there, the Spit even outclimbed the 109 from the deck, if the 12lb boost was engaged. The details from the 190 that landed in Britain is interesting too.

But I stand firm with my claim of other advantages. The 109 just seems a better plane to me, but it takes alot of practice and getting used to.

Do you mean it seems like a better plane in IL2?

Originally Posted by David603

Oleg has said several times in the past that his aim is to simulate reality, not to create "balanced gameplay".

Thanks for that. Although that's what we'd all ask for, it's not necessarily what's best for the game (depending on the area). The balance of pilot skill on our servers will be fair, but in real life it was very different. And numbers on our servers, and tactics are also similar, but in real life these were very different too. If these reports are really true, that the Spit was faster (slghtly), climbed better (with boost), and out-turned the 109E (easily), and Oleg makes them as such, there will be a lot of unhappy blue players.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by David603

Oleg has said several times in the past that his aim is to simulate reality, not to create "balanced gameplay".

Yea and Amen! The plane-set is intrinsically perfectly balanced. Those of us who get shot down will do so because we ran out of altitude, airspeed or luck and no other reason.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Icewolf

who says the spitfire outturns the 109? show me the references from 1940

Did you see the video posted earlier in this thread by TinyTim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI

“Invariably in a fight you’re chasing each other round and round and round but you could turn much more tight (that way)… smaller turning circle than any German fighter, especially the 109; and that was the best feature, by far.”

Unwin flew Spitfires with 19 Squadron right through the Battle of Britain. I guess he should know.