Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.

The RAF itself had a very disillusioning view of the usefulness of aerobatics in air combat. The following is from the Spitfire II Pilots manual.

In view of this, personally, I find it rather ironic all these Mike on his site for example goes into great lenght about how excellent the Spitfire's aerobatic qualities were compared to the 109E (he quotes the same manual which a few pages later flatly states that aerobatics are useless as combat manouvers). What does it help you in combat if you can make tidy loops while the other guy can't..? A loop is quite possibly the worst manouver ever in combat, as it slows you down and make a perfect target of you.

Please note that under aerobatics, I (and the RAF as well) mean loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays. A rather different thing than briskly executed, often uncoordinated combat manouvers which are 'untidy' exactly for the reason so that they are difficult to follow.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

However, the above pilot accounts describes the early manual propellor pitch system of the 109E, and this was superseded already in late 1939 by a fully automatic (CSP) system, which governed propellor pitch with a single lever system, and made tinkering with engine controls unnecessary. I am sure a number of early aircraft still had manual propellor pitch early in the Battle, especially those which converted to 109E early and still had early production machines, but the situation was hardly worse than in Fighter Command, where fighters for some time had to struggle with inefficient 2-pitch propellors.

Negative, both pilot accounts are relevant to the 1940 scenario and Battle of Britain. In Steinhilper's case, this happened in September 1940. Same practice is being described in his book on 27. October - the day he got shot down.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Please note that under aerobatics, I (and the RAF as well) mean loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays. A rather different thing than briskly executed, often uncoordinated combat manouvers which are 'untidy' exactly for the reason so that they are difficult to follow.

Loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays is obviously useless in the actual combat. We (virtual pilots) know that and RAF learned the hard way back in the day. Still, combat manoeuvres have to be tidy if you want to succeed and / or survive in the sim. We're getting into fighter combat tactics here and that is not necessary I suppose - all I say is that the aerobatic abilities of the Spitfire can save your life although aerobatics as such is useless.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Negative, both pilot accounts are relevant to the 1940 scenario and Battle of Britain. In Steinhilper's case, this happened in September 1940. Same practice is being described in his book on 27. October - the day he got shot down.

As said, the Emil pilots manual already notes the automatic prop pitch in December 1939. Stenihilper simply flew an older machine. See also picture and crash report of Werknummer 4101:

The Air Intelligence Enemy aircraft report on the aircraft is quoted by K G Wakefield, 27 Mar 77 - DoRIS Ref.B2708/1.

Report No.102/4 Me109. Crashed on 27.11.40 at 1555 hours on Manston aerodrome. Markings (Black) 12 + (the 12 outlined in white). Cowling and rudder yellow, spinner green with one white segment. No crest. Airframe made by Erla Flugzeugwerke in 1940. Works number 4101. A plate described the aircraft as being `Me109 Ele E3'. Engine DB601 A-1. Number 64760 made by Daimler Benz, Genshagen. The new type of supercharger was fitted. A constant speed airscrew is fitted with a notice on the dashboard. `Machine has automatic airscrew. Follow the short instructions for use'. Armament: 2 MG 17s and two 20mm shell guns. Armour - normal fuselage bulkhead and pilot's head protection and curved head shield. This aircraft was brought down by fighter action and the pilot made a very good belly landing, the aircraft being little damaged. Twelve .303 strikes in fuselage and a few in each wing, all coming from the port quarter astern. Pilot prisoner.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Yes but I do not. My point was that at this moment, the Hurricane is almost as fast as 109 and 109 is able to outturn a Hurricane. What I am saying is that the game does not reflect the known real life characteristics all that well. (we'll see how it will be after the patch).

I understand what you're saying though and I agree - give me a fast plane that climbs and rolls well and I am a happy fighter pilot

You are waiting for the 190, I see ; )

But yeah, I was talking generally, not CloD specific. In here I completly agree to your points.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

As said, the Emil pilots manual already notes the automatic prop pitch in December 1939. Stenihilper simply flew an older machine. See also picture and crash report of Werknummer 4101:

Well, it seems many pilots didn't need that manual as late as October 1940

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nice copy paste job from spitliarperformance.

Nothing wrong with cutting and pasting original quotes, I have done the ame from your site.

However, the above pilot accounts describes the early manual propellor pitch system of the 109E, and this was superseded already in late 1939 by a fully automatic (CSP) system, which governed propellor pitch with a single lever system, and made tinkering with engine controls unnecessary. I am sure a number of early aircraft still had manual propellor pitch early in the Battle, especially those which converted to 109E early and still had early production machines, but the situation was hardly worse than in Fighter Command, where fighters for some time had to struggle with inefficient 2-pitch propellors.

I don't disagree but the RAF had switched to CSP by July 1940 I think and its clear that the Luftwaffe were still using older versions much later. The interesting question is how many 109's were still using the old props.

edit
All Spitfires were converted by 20 July, All Hurricane Units by 16th August

German pilots were instructed to make full advantage of this disadvantage of RAF pilots:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers. Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other
hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss.

I don't disagree with this either but would point out that the RAF witched to CSP very quickly and the above comment is of limited use.

The rest of your posting I deleted as it had nothing to do with the 109E. As you know better than I the 109F was a very different machine.

However what wasn't a cut and paste was the reference to the Yugoslav air force that supported the view that the 109 was a more difficult aircraft to fly, not a simple machine.

What often happens re the BOB is when people think it started, the UK more or les go from soon after the evacuation of Dunkirk, when do you consider the battle have really started.

Its worth noting that Leutnant Erich Bodendiek, II/JG 53 engaged in a 18 September combat did note that the CSP was a new one presumably the other aircraft were still using old ones

[Sandstone]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

That's my impression as well. The 109 was simplicity itself, like the T-34. There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform.

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:

1. Small size required a narrow track undercarriage. Fine for a peace-time airforce when pilots can be trained at leisure. Not a good idea when pilot training is reduced under war-time conditions.

2. Poor visibility. The aircraft structure was not capable of being adapted to the excellent bubble canopies used on later Allied types.

3. Limited range, restricting it to use an interceptor with limited success as an escort fighter. This would not have been a problem if the Luftwaffe had a good, long-range single-engined escort fighter, but they were unable to produce one.

4. Limited size prevented the wings carrying large/heavy internal weapons. All other fighter aircraft moved towards batteries of wing mounted guns (and particularly cannons). The Bf-109 couldn't do this. Latter versions of the aircraft were effectively reliant on a single cannon at a time when other interceptors were moving towards quad-mounts of 20 mm or 30 mm cannons.

5. Not designed for mass production (here, the analogy with the T-34 is particularly wide of the mark). The Bf-109 was designed to be produced by a skilled workforce. However, as the war progressed the German aviation industry lost men from the workforce who were withdrawn to bolster the front lines. They were replaced with significant volumes of slave labour where the intention was as much to kill the workforce through overwork and poor treatment as to produce aircraft. The skilled workers were thus replaced with "Jewish housewives and teenage girls picked up from places like Auschwitz". As a result, productivity was poor, those directing production became hopelessly morally compromised and aircraft were delivered to a poor standard by a reluctant, unskilled workforce who on occasion would sabotage their own products.

Overall, the Bf-109 was a good design for a peace-time late 1930s airforce. It was poorly suited to the war of national survival that the fascists actually initiated. It was unsuitable for low-hours pilots, it was overly complicated compared to other designs and in the face of actual German production capabilities, it had limited potential for development (because no realistic development could overcome some of the poor design decisions made early in its design cycle) and because the German aircraft industry in any event was unable to move to effective mass production and so was greatly out-produced by its opponents.

By the end of the war, fighter aircraft were becoming larger, able to be flown by relatively inexperienced pilots, had good visibility and often carried batteries of cannon. The Bf-109 had none of these things.

This isn't to say it was a bad aircraft and it still remained a dangerous opponent until the end of the war, but it was typical of the generation of fighters like the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 that the Allied nations replaced or complemented with better types as the war progressed. The Luftwaffe's inability to replace the Bf-109 says more about its disasterous R&D and procurement policies than it does about the strengths of the Bf-109.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Sandstone

The Luftwaffe's inability to replace the Bf-109 says more about its disasterous R&D and procurement policies than it does about the strengths of the Bf-109.

Quoted for truth.....

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Sandstone

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:...

Not bad for an average or obsolete aircraft that shot down so many enemies do not you think?

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here.

The Bf 109's full metal structure (wing and control surfaces as well), hydraulic retractable landing gear, leading edge slats, freely adjustable flap was a revolutionary aircraft design in the late 30's. Combined with a perfect agility and small dimensions made the 109 one of the best war machines. And the war developments held there.
The late war "Erla" canopy provided a perfect view backwards (of course not in the IL-2 game) with perfect armor. The "Rüstsatze" supplements designed to increase range and weapons. Did not have enough weapons? The Mk108 is nothing? I'm sure, 3 MK 108 can handle any Bomber. Against fighters, the single Mk108 is more than enough (one of the survived RHAF Ace said once: "it was not a fair weapon. The enemy planes falling apart if you hit once).


ps. Who are you? New guy here, or one of the banned friends?