Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by adonys

Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on..

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons


"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

[Insuber]

I warmly suggest to open a topic in the "performance" section, where 90% of the latest posts belong.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons


"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

I will come back to that, new to me!

These you call low speeds (200-310MPH) = (321-500Kmh)!???
I have rarely entered a turning fight at such high speeds...

This is awesome news, the Bf109 rolls like a FW190.... LOL!

If (and I repeat, "if") your graph is true, then our Bf109s are underperforming in the game right now!!!!!!


Nice one, I had the laugh of my life...
In all honesty, I have difficulty to believe that the Bf109 can roll that well, speechless!


~S~

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

I will come back to that, new to me!

These you call low speeds (200-310MPH) = (321-500Kmh)!???
I have rarely entered a turning fight at such high speeds...

This is awesome news, the Bf109 rolls like a FW190.... LOL!

If (and I repeat, "if") your graph is true, then our Bf109s are underperforming in the game right now!!!!!!




~S~

What's so great about 45 Degrees roll in two seconds? That's 16 seconds for a full 360 degrees roll. The FW-190 could do 180 degrees during those two seconds.

[335th_GRAthos]

It is twice the roll rate of the Spitfire (according to the graph posted)


@ V101 Tom: Thanks for the link, I did not know it!

~S~

[Osprey]

It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

The difference between you and I is that I am interested in the facts of the matter whereas you are interested in items that benefit the 109, ergo, you online. Please please please go away from here and spend your days on Kurfursts site which I am sure will have you most aroused.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

The difference between you and I is that I am interested in the facts of the matter whereas you are interested in items that benefit the 109, ergo, you online. Please please please go away from here and spend your days on Kurfursts site which I am sure will have you most aroused.

"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)


It take your wording as very insulting Osprey.
I respect that you are allowed to have your point of view but turning to personal offense when there is nothing better to do is not the way.
Still it may be your way, everyone has a choice.

And my choice is the ignore button.

~S~

[MACADEMIC]

Why does every thread on this forum turn into an OT bickering fest? Very unappealing.

MAC

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)


It take your wording as very insulting Osprey.
I respect that you are allowed to have your point of view but turning to personal offense when there is nothing better to do is not the way.
Still it may be your way, everyone has a choice.

And my choice is the ignore button.

~S~

Hmmm, easily offended but quite happy to tell other people to 'learn to fly'. Can't think of anything more insulting than that.

You may not see this, but everyone else will. Tra la la

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons


"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda. In this case, the graph from the actual British 1940 report was cropped, hiding the fact that the (early) Spitfire (with fabric ailerons) required far higher stick forces to roll at high speed than the 109E.

The full graph - which was cropped for obvious reasons on Mike Williams's wwiiaircraftperformance 'website' - can be seen below:



The full British trial report can be read here:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

The Germans had also tested the Spitfire and Hurricane against their fighters. In agreement with the British testing team, they concluded that the Spitfire was inferior in roll to the 109E. They also found that the Spitfire had longitudal stability issues:

"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming."

Can be read at full here: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

Given our experience of the often doctored and manipulated reports on Mike William's website, I would advise caution and not to take them at face value.