A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

I agree that spit pilots learnt with exercise to handle the difference between elevator and roll sensitivity which was noticed by several pilots. I do not know if it caused much trouble for pilots as I do not have much flying experience with badly harmonized controls though. I imagine that it does require a bit of learning.

The stall behaviour seems a bit odd in any plane right now imho. And the 109 does turn like a brick while I think it was more agile even though not as agile as the spit turn radius and to a certain extend turn rate wise.

[Catseye]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

yeah i know lol I was on a little bit of a rant. Remember 8 hours between the bottle and throttle

Hi Gimpy117,
I saw this question to you earlier but don't recall seeing a reply.

"Are you flying with Complex Engine Management turned on?"

S!

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Catseye

Hi Gimpy117,
I saw this question to you earlier but don't recall seeing a reply.

"Are you flying with Complex Engine Management turned on?"

S!

as far as i know yes

[Catseye]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

as far as i know yes

I gather then that you haven't gone into the settings area to set your preferences up?

Boxes need to be checked etc.

Suggest you pop in there and see if you have your settings set to advanced.

Makes a very big difference.

Cheers,

[Crumpp]

refers to the elevator as if there is a problem,

Wow...

There is no problem unless you are a stability and control engineer, have some knowledge about airplanes, or dead because of the longitudinal instability.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Wow...

There is no problem unless you are a stability and control engineer, have some knowledge about airplanes, or dead because of the longitudinal instability.

Wow

There is no problem, unless you play different sim than everybody else.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I agree that spit pilots learnt with exercise to handle the difference between elevator and roll sensitivity which was noticed by several pilots. I do not know if it caused much trouble for pilots as I do not have much flying experience with badly harmonized controls though. I imagine that it does require a bit of learning.

The stall behaviour seems a bit odd in any plane right now imho. And the 109 does turn like a brick while I think it was more agile even though not as agile as the spit turn radius and to a certain extend turn rate wise.

I've has sim experience in ROF flying with the camel, you need a feather touch on the elevator and can over turn the camel with ease. It's also a trick to fly level, as to not overshoot your controls and nose up or down wildly.

I do kinda agree with the Me-109 turn. It should of course, not be able to hold with the spit in a sustained turn...but it seems right now to not nearly to be able to stay with the spit even with an energy advantage. I got bounced by an ME-109 today (he ran me down from my 6 so he was moving faster) who somehow missed with his cannons. I immediately broke left and held a tight turn with ease, Looped around and found him in a now lower energy state after attempting to follow me. I pumped some rounds into him and killed his pilot pretty quickly. It just makes me wonder how I held so much energy from that hard turn, where as the ME-109 seemed to bleed a crazy amount, and be a sitting duck for me to come around and fill him with lead. The Spit should turn better yes, But my question is...does it bleed energy as fast and is this historic? Maybe we could do a test and make a hard turn and see how long it takes to stall, or alternatively how high we can get in altitude after the turn. this would have a comparison of energy retained after a vigorous turn possibly. We wouldn't be comparing turn radius, just energy retained after a min turn radius turn.

[Robo.]

gimpy you seem to be lucky meeting inexperienced 109 pilots. Or was that an AI?

In my book it's not the plane that holds energy, it's the pilot. If you did your evasive turn to the left clean enough and he tried to follow you and turn with you instead of climbing (and not missing the burst in the first place) and yo yo into your turn (no matter how tight, 109 rolls fast enough) outmanoevering you effectively. If the 109 was me, I'd probably turn with you for a while, especially so after scoring some hits and if you'd be gaining angles on me I would still be able to extend safely, horizontally or vertically. And I am not quite as good as 109 specialists.

Same goes for the Spitfire - if your turn is sloppy, you'd lose lots of E, drop wing or stall alltogether.

The above is based on my experience online as RAF or LW pilot, yrmv of course.

[Glider]

I love this constant reference to longitudinal instability, from a plane that everyone who flew it be they allied or German found very easy to fly and land.

Don't you think its being over egged

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I love this constant reference to longitudinal instability, from a plane that everyone who flew it be they allied or German found very easy to fly and land.

... and longitudally unstable:

The German view:

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.

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known shooting-technique disadvantages.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

The British view: