Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[ATAG_Septic]

Hi Chaps,

I have found the Spit IIa to be competitive with the 109. I have achieved a couple of kills and survived a couple more lengthy encounters. I have been able to make a sustained turn inside the 109 but only just. It surprised me how willingly the 109s have entered a turn fight but I'm no expert and it could have been the best tactic under the specific circumstances. I don't know whether these were experienced players.

I hesitate to mention this as I really enjoy the IIa but it seems a bit of a gift that I can fly with boost on all the time at 100% throttle. It seems to be about 8lbs boost. As long as revs are kept a little lower than maximum using prop-pitch and rads are open it will not overheat. I can achieve and maintain 280 mph low and sustain a turn at around 200mph for as long as my patience lasts.

Why have the realism fans not jumped up and down at this? Or am I completely wrong and I should be able to fly with the throttle through the gate all the time?

I really have no agenda to support here, it's merely subjective observation. I hope there is some balance possible, and there seems some currently between the 109E4 and SpitIIa.

Cheers,

Septic.

[notafinger!]

I would like to see more balance in the FM's as well with each of 3 main single engines having defined strengths & weaknesses. It's not possible to get 100% realism in the FM's but something that feels believable (i.e. fits the historical narrative of BoB) and is balanced is possible.

[FS~Phat]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Septic

Hi Chaps,

I have found the Spit IIa to be competitive with the 109. I have achieved a couple of kills and survived a couple more lengthy encounters. I have been able to make a sustained turn inside the 109 but only just. It surprised me how willingly the 109s have entered a turn fight but I'm no expert and it could have been the best tactic under the specific circumstances. I don't know whether these were experienced players.

I hesitate to mention this as I really enjoy the IIa but it seems a bit of a gift that I can fly with boost on all the time at 100% throttle. It seems to be about 8lbs boost. As long as revs are kept a little lower than maximum using prop-pitch and rads are open it will not overheat. I can achieve and maintain 280 mph low and sustain a turn at around 200mph for as long as my patience lasts.

Why have the realism fans not jumped up and down at this? Or am I completely wrong and I should be able to fly with the throttle through the gate all the time?

I really have no agenda to support here, it's merely subjective observation. I hope there is some balance possible, and there seems some currently between the 109E4 and SpitIIa.

Cheers,

Septic.

I have had exhaust manifold failure from sustained 3000RPM at 8lbs boost in the Spit IIA a few times. This was above 5000ft though so Im not sure what would happen down lower.

[ATAG_Septic]

Originally Posted by FS~Phat

I have had exhaust manifold failure from sustained 3000RPM at 8lbs boost in the Spit IIA a few times. This was above 5000ft though so Im not sure what would happen down lower.

I do need to reduce the rpm at full boost (with pitch not throttle) or the engine is damaged within minutes but around 2700rpm can be sustained indefinitely with rads open.

I enjoy having to manage the aircraft in combat and would prefer if more management was needed on both 109 and Spit. The E4 is, for me, too easy in terms of engine and flight management.

Cheers,

Septic.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Septic

I do need to reduce the rpm at full boost (with pitch not throttle) or the engine is damaged within minutes but around 2700rpm can be sustained indefinitely with rads open.

I enjoy having to manage the aircraft in combat and would prefer if more management was needed on both 109 and Spit. The E4 is, for me, too easy in terms of engine and flight management.

Cheers,

Septic.

Agreed, you should get a benefit from using the manual prop pitch.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Agreed, you should get a benefit from using the manual prop pitch.

+1

Sad case of people getting caught with their pants down and then bringing up the whole my plane is nerved threads

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Sad case of people getting caught with their pants down and then bringing up the whole my plane is nerved threads

LOL Jamz you've gone and done it, I am glad I got my asbestos suit out ready this threads about to heat up!!!

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

LOL Jamz you've gone and done it, I am glad I got my asbestos suit out ready this threads about to heat up!!!

Lol..Im surprised we haven't heard it again before now

[Blackdog_kt]

The way it seems to be is that Spits are supposed to be faster down low and 109s up high.

Also, climb rates may depend on the specific scenario (airspeed, energy states, starting altitude, etc) but 109s climb steeper, which makes it harder to lead them with the sights because you have to pull harder.

That's pretty much what i got from all the technical discussions over the years, as well various pilot interviews in documentaries.

The technical talk tells us what is possible in case of equal pilots, the interviews tell us what happened without knowing the relative skill of the pilots involved. Combine quite a few of both and you'll get a good idea about what usually happened. Heck, i've seen quotes of 109 pilots claiming they could easily out-turn Spits during BoB and interviews by RAF pilots saying the 109s were untouchable.

I don't want artificial balance if it doesn't correspond to historical facts, i want things to be technically accurate. Then we can put ourselves in their shoes and be forced to fight smart on our terms (the pilot part of the equation), which will give us the best representation of simulating these events.

I also want all possible variants modeled for all air forces involved, because they will be reusable in post BoB scenarios (eg, 1941 circus raids on the current map, or over N.Africa maps in the future).

100 Octane Spits? Sure, give me. But also give me 109s and 110s with the uprated engines. Then it's a matter of mission design and server settings.

If i wanted to host a server that favors a side, i could give the best variants to them and the worst to the other (not that many would fly on it, but still, the choice is there) regardless of mission and timeframe flown.

If wanted to host one where everyone has a fighting chance, i would choose evenly matched variants.

And if i wanted to host a server that doesn't care about balance but only cares about historical accuracy, i would follow historical facts and the advantage would swing from one side to the other as the scenarios unfolded.

All this talk about "X plane is porked" has a basis due to the currently imperfect state of the FMs, but FMs can never be 100% true and there's usually too many people who only want fixes that favor their preferred ride.

Back in IL2:1946 times i used to fly 190As all the time, unless i was flying some red bomber. The situation you guys now describe with the Spit is exactly what happened in maps with late war planesets in IL2:1946. And still, being a very mediocre pilot, i decided to work around it all instead of asking for someone else to fix it for me. I started flying higher than the Spits and kept a lookout for higher 51s and 47s, or i would just climb higher than the 51s and 47s because they simply didn't expect me to be there.

Also, the scope of the engagements one favors tends to play a role in the perception of the facts in such discussions. If we were flying missions the way they were supposed to be flown, things would be much different. Currently, a lot of us are simply looking for the closest furball, grab a bit of alt advantage and go for it. In that case, the altitude band where the engagement takes place tends to get disregarded completely and if you consistently engage like that around an altitude band where your aircraft performance is lower, it will of course feel to you like there is nothing you can do.

Try flying lower or higher and see how it handles and then make your decisions:

Is the altitude advantage and possibility of one-pass kill enough to offset the fact that i'm operating outside my optimal altitude and i'll have trouble if the engagement gets protracted?

Conversely, is the performance i gain by operating at optimal altitude enough to save me from an attack by a higher flying bandit? Probably yes if i keep a good look out and the other guy doesn't have the kind of one-shot-kill firepower.

In other words...When i fly 109s i fly at 5-6km and above, trying to BnZ them. If i fly lower, i use my better acceleration to build speed and reverse before the Spits start gaining on me, i have better firepower so i'll take a head-on pass. This is a disciplined style, because you need to keep going straight and build distance, pay attention to entrance and exit angles, etc, but it's also very useful for flying 110s at low level.

When i fly for the RAF, i mostly experiment because i've never been that good with the style of fighting their aircraft favor but i have also found out a few tricks. If i can maintain a good look out to evade cannon fire in a BnZ pass, i will stay where my aircraft performs best and try to draw them down there, or climb even higher to the altitude where i have the advantage again. If i want the extra altitude i'll fly it like a BnZ machine and only go for turn fighting once the other guy is committed in the fight.

Flying like that doesn't get me a lot of kills. However, it doesn't get me killed too often either.

I think that even if the FMs are not 100% accurate and because they can never be, the best situation would be to have correct relative performance between aircraft even if the absolute one is not. Relative performance is what dictates how we fight.

If a 109 is doing 400km/h and a Spit is doing 250mph they are equally matched, if the same 109 was doing 320km/h and the same Spit was doing 200mph they would also be equally matched. They would be inaccurate in both cases, but equally matched nevertheless.

[ATAG_Snapper]

What I'd like to see is actual field tests of the aircraft in question (Spits, Hurries, 109's, 110's -- for starters). I've done a little bit for the Spit Ia and IIa at altitudes where presently most of the fighting takes place: sea level, 5,000 feet, and 10,000 feet. I discovered some anomalies with the IIa's flight model: it's different (worse) online than offline when you start climbing to 5,000 feet and above to 10,000 feet. At sea level the online vs offline FM for the IIa seem the same. OTOH, the Ia compares closer to each other offline vs online at various altitudes, which kind of rules out some kind of "atmospheric" differences between the online vs offline environments. Don't know why.

This testing can be a little tedious and given the state of flux these beta patches are in right now, it could be a lot of work for nought at this point.....so not recommended. I don't have any real stick time on the 109's nor 110's, so I don't believe I'm capable of doing a credible job of extracting the maximum performance from these aircraft.

I'd be the first to say my data is up for challenge. Others have done some quick informal tests of their own which seem to correlate very closely, but all are welcome to check and report in their own right.

Online if I am co-alt/co-e with a 109 at 5,000 feet or above, I will turn tail or try to lure him down lower. At sea level "the fight's on" AKAIC. My greatest challenge is keeping the 109 in sight -- the sun's glare is murder. Lose sight = lose fight. Re-acquiring tally on a streaking 109 is vital for survival, and I will not fly a straight course for more than a few seconds at a time until I can. At full overboost maximum speed is achieved at 2800 - 3000 rpms, but care must be taken to periodically (and frequently) ease up on boost & rpms during a dogfight/chase/evasion or you will damage your engine -- especially at 5,000 feet & above, even at full Auto Rich Mixture and 100% open rad (I keep mine at 50% - but not sure rads are fully modelled; 0% open will overheat your engine quickly though).

Accurate deflection shooting is key in using the Spitfire's superior turning rate to offensive advantage. Learn your convergence(s) and trajectory to use to deadly advantage when the faster 109 is flashing by you (as they seem to do). A few hits on their elevator is all it takes.

Personally, I believe ALL flight models are off -- LW and RAF both. I'm no test pilot, I'm no aeronautical engineer (clearly). But I can hop into a Spit or Hurri and fly to a set of parameters (climb, dive, level, turn, etc at various alts & speeds) to see for myself what each can and can't do. Hence my discovery of offline vs online discrepancy of flight modelling for the Spitfire IIa. The devs can say all the want about what flight charts they're using, but I'm only convinced by what actually IS.

As the coding is refined for added performance and stability, I'm hoping the devs can then focus more on accurate FM's universally. We as a community can then increasingly be called upon to conduct our own hands-on field tests and report hard data that the devs can, I trust, put to good use in massaging the FM's further.

NOTE: Anyone actually measure the air speed indicator for accuracy? I did! It is. (IMHO). Methodology: Used google maps to get geographical distance between the tip of "The English Point" (Dungeness) and the tip of "The French Point" (Point Gris Nez). Flew over Dungeness at treetop level and trimmed to a set speed for level flight, then headed towards France. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the tip going feet wet, then held steady speed and course at wavetop level. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the surf at the tip of Point Gris Nez. The elapsed time agreed within seconds of what simple arithmetic said it should've been. Good enough for me for sea level measurements, at least.