Why do Spitfires turn better than Hurricanes?!

[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.

[617Squadron]

There really wasn't that much performance difference between early models of Spifrire and Hurricane, but I don't think that sheer turning performance alone had that much to do with it.

Historically, in the early months of the BoB, the Hurricanes took on the bombers, as the airframe was more robust, it was a very stable gun platform, it could take more punishment and keep flying and the simple fact was that more Hurricanes were in service than Spitfires at that time.

Spitfires also tended to take on the fighter escorts more than the bombers, as Spitfires were considered the more agile fighter. The fighter escorts were also fewer than the bombers, so the odds were more evenly matched between the ME 109 and the Spitfire.

WW2 veteran Pilot interviews that I have watched about the Spitfire have commented that the ailerons were very heavy when compared to the Hurricane's, so there are other factors such as the brute strength of the pilot to consider. Heavy ailerons might make you think that turning rates would be slower as a result

In short, there is no right answer to this question, as there are so many factors at work.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by 617Squadron

There really wasn't that much performance difference between early models of Spifrire and Hurricane, but I don't think that sheer turning performance alone had that much to do with it.

Historically, in the early months of the BoB, the Hurricanes took on the bombers, as the airframe was more robust, it was a very stable gun platform, it could take more punishment and keep flying and the simple fact was that more Hurricanes were in service than Spitfires at that time.

Spitfires also tended to take on the fighter escorts more than the bombers, as Spitfires were considered the more agile fighter. The fighter escorts were also fewer than the bombers, so the odds were more evenly matched between the ME 109 and the Spitfire.

WW2 veteran Pilot interviews that I have watched about the Spitfire have commented that the ailerons were very heavy when compared to the Hurricane's, so there are other factors such as the brute strength of the pilot to consider. Heavy ailerons might make you think that turning rates would be slower as a result

In short, there is no right answer to this question, as there are so many factors at work.

Heavy ailerons affects rate of roll and has nothing to do with rate of turn. An aircraft described as having heavy ailerons means it is less agile for the pilot to change from one direction to another. The metal ailerons added to the Spits helped this problem.

You use aileron to establish the bank angle, then to turn you pull it with elevator. In combat turns it would mean steep turns greater than 60 degrees of bank (more like 90 degree turns pulling 2/3/4 G).

[TomcatViP]

Flat turn at :

60° of bank angle -> 2G
90° of bank angle -> 4G (min)

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Flat turn at :

60° of bank angle -> 2G
90° of bank angle -> 4G (min)

Correct