Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by ReconNZ

Hi Manu

Yeah the reason i raised the original post in the first place was because this 109 actually started just lower than me. i came onto him and we had an initial first pass, at which point he began to climb, he climbed away from me, then turned and engaged. After 2 or 3 repeats of this, he was much higher than me,.

How much lower? But above all what's your speed? Was he faster than you?

I asking this since when I engage an enemy at my altitude I'll pass 30m under him (without pointing his plane so that I can avoid stupid headons) and my objective is to build the required speed for an Immelmann turn since usually I'm climbing at low speed.

In that way usually I almost keep all my energy while most of my enemies will make a 180° flat turn, bleeding most of their energy.

From there if I'm in the better climber I can climb away easily.

Do you remember his and your initial manouvres?

[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.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

There is a clue here kids

[steppie]

I have never that much of a problem with the flight model.

if you are flying a spit or a 109 and you don't have the altitude advantage then you don't have an advantage.

109 has alway had the advantage in speed and climb rate over that spit till the Mkv then the spit get an advantage in speed.

the spit has alway had the advantage in the tuning fight.

during the battle of Britain the 109 was the best aircraft but had only one major down side that stop it from exploiting it advantage and that was the lack of range (don't have this problem in the game). Also both the spit and hurries could own use maximum boost for only 2 minute before it start doing damage to the engine and try to avoid this (we don't have this problem in the game).

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by steppie

during the battle of Britain the 109 was the best aircraft but had only one major down side that stop it from exploiting it advantage and that was the lack of range

Id say being told to accompany the bombers at the same ALt taking away the 109's main advantage was a 'downside' too..

The Spit is a lovely fantastic AC but the 109 is very special hence why it was never changed and see so much service

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

The Spit is a lovely fantastic AC but the 109 is very special hence why it was never changed and see so much service

Spitfire was still produced in 1948. I'd say that was a lot of service.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Id say being told to accompany the bombers at the same ALt taking away the 109's main advantage was a 'downside' too..

The Spit is a lovely fantastic AC but the 109 is very special hence why it was never changed and see so much service

Both the 109 and spit were constantly changed which is precisely why they had the saw so much service, keeping ahead/in line with the new aircraft.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by GraveyardJimmy

Spitfire was still produced in 1948. I'd say that was a lot of service.

I didnt say it didnt

[GraveyardJimmy]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

I didnt say it didnt

The phrase I quoted: Spitfire is lovely but 109 is special because it saw a lot of service.

So did the spit don't see why you seem to imply the 109 was "never changed".

[csThor]

Whiskey - Tango - Foxtrott?

Why do I get the "entitlement vibe" from some of the hardcore-RAF types here? Wakeup call people - CloD is not supposed to model the outcome of the historical BoB, it's supposed to model accurate performance figures. Introducing 100oc fuel isn't going to be the magic potion that allows RAF players to take on the whole Luftwaffe on their own, win single-handedly and shoot down evil Nazi aircraft by giving them a stern glare. (please note the dripping sarcasm here)

I can't shake the impression that some of you people - on both sides - make way too much noise about performance intricacies. Wakeup call number two - aerial warfare was never ever about duels between individuals and always about teamwork to achieve specific goals. If people would get over that god awful dogfight-contest-e-sports fixation and focused more on historical mission setups with appropriate team tasks these pointless bickering over FM intricacies would cease. But then some folks seem to be hell-bent on either re-fighting WW2 (if they aren't still fighting it) or about proving just what kind of super-duper great egomaniac they are.

PS: Yes, I do fly blue. But I focus on the Stuka so speed isn't an issue for me. The Stuka has none.