Throwing some light on rates of turn

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

And so have we all. But see my post above. I don't think it's possible to have any aircraft modelled correctly for the same reason we can't get to altitude. Seems to me that the air is too dense at sea level, and too rarified past 20,000ft.

I agree 100%. The game is broken on a fundamental level, which makes it all the more galling to have somebody come in and tell me it's my fault that his precious spitfire is too slow.

But there has been a lot of stuff posted (reams and reams and reams and....) and the performance of the RAF fighters has been downgraded to a point lower than even published 87 octane performance levels.

I'm not unsympathetic to this, but why is Snapper not directing his rage at 1c? When did it suddenly become my fault or whoever else's fault?

When you take a look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi, it's no surprise that some people are convinced that there's a certain level of bias.

Given the abysmal state of my Russian-language skills, I can't say I've seen his signature at sukhoi. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt I have to ask again: how is this the fault of the forum members who fly axis?

I suppose all us Red chaps are feeling similar to how the Blue chaps previously felt with the Spit II, and that was banned from servers as a result.

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.

My own opinion is that instead of arguing with eachother, we should be banging on the developer's door for historical accuracy on both sides, and correct performance at all altitudes, coz arguing between ourselves isn't going to resolve any issues on either side of the red/blue divide.

Maybe you should bring that up next time you and Snapper are on comms.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by SEE

For me, the Spit is still very capable regards a range of defensive maneouvres, particularly at altitude. 'Turning' isn't always the best option anyway and one of the reasons I avoid and dislike 'low altitude' DF's. I tend to think that they limit my options and the fight thus becomes 'predictable' for my 109 opponent.

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by pstyle

OK, so max-rate turn usually requires a constant speed and altitude as well, I cannot grantee that.

Maybe for some form of calibration to put in a text book or manual --- but historically a constant speed/altitude turn in a 109 gave well below the practical max turn rate for a short engagement (though clearly giving optimal sustained turn rate) and was regarded as a technique for mediocre pilots.

Originally Posted by http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm

There is more than one account by German wartime fighter pilots that suggest that many Luftwaffe novices did not use the turning performance of the 109 to the full. They seem to have regarded the point at which the automatic slots popped out as being a warning to ease back. Only more experienced pilots pushed the Bf109 to its limits. The way the slots operated could itself be a problem, causing the Bf109 to "buck" and throw off the aim of the Bf109 pilot, perhaps at the critical moment.

From my understanding the historical way the 109 was flown by most of the experienced pilots was more the egg shaped turns described by Leykrauf. Deliberately pulling the slats out improves the instantaneous turn rate letting you crib lead for a snap shot or trade some excess speed for a few seconds at a better turn rate. However then you have to unload the wing again fairly smartly before too much E is lost and accelerate for a while before trying again.

I recall Molders may have had a different view on things but generally speaking flying the 109 in a nice neat circle was regarded as the best way possible to get shot down.

Max turn rate - like corner speed - is one of those armchair figures that its important not to get too fixated on.

[Talisman]

Having been out turned by a Me 109 E a few times when flying a Hurricane, I decided to check my CloD control calibration (green bars for input and output) and found that I was not getting full elevator deflection.
After giving the joystick some vigorous movements, full forward and back a few times, it appeared to reset to my original settings with full deflection. This seems to happen to me on an intermittent basis (when flying Me 109 too). I suspect that it may be my joystick, which is rather old now, so I plan to order a new one soon. I keep checking my elevator deflection now as I am unable to trust to it. Hope the new stick solves this issue for me. Perhaps others may be getting the odd glitch with elevator calibration too.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I agree. Sound tactics can make up for a lot in terms of performance difference. There used to be an article floating around about a guy who would go into those arcade servers where all the planes are available at every base. He would take up a 109E and fly it super high and super patiently, only diving when someone roaring around in their FW190 or P47 wasn't paying attention.

Pretty awesome article, actually, and really underscores the first lesson of air combat: Always secure an altitude advantage.

Since FMs are not accurate IMO many Spitfire pilots should use this period of time to train themself on being successfull without TnBing like dogs in heat.

I've not voted for the 100 octane bug as a priority since I hope that meanwhile the overall quality of the RAF players can improve, since it's so boring to hunt guys running circles at 1km that most of my squadmates are not flying in public servers anymore.

There are some great Spitfire pilots out there: IMO many should learn from them without thinking to the actual speed performances of their plane.

Attacking with altitude advantage is only the first step...

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

...not really expecting a guy who thinks that 2000 feet is not low to be overly receptive.

You should reconsider your expectations.
...as I explained in the follow up, this is relative to where the engagement started. All I need to do, is go back and and an "er" to that post and this whole nit-picking falls apart.

Criticisms of the description/ terminology in the OP do nothing to add to this thread and are simply a side-show.

Here's the discussion point: 109 followed me around in a turn when I was turning as hard as I thought I could.

OK, so maybe I was not at the statistical max-rate, but I was sure I couldn't turn any faster.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Talisman

Having been out turned by a Me 109 E a few times when flying a Hurricane, I decided to check my CloD control calibration (green bars for input and output) and found that I was not getting full elevator deflection.

Thanks Talisman. It's not impossible that my stick was out of calibration. I had not checked this for a few days, and it is kinda old.
A sensible post.... at last.

[snapperpuss]

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.

Look at Luthier's sig over at Sukhoi. I mean what more proof do you need.
1c makes it so in the spit I have to fly with open canopy now to take advantage of the sound radar, lucky for us they forgot to decrease the performance with open canopy. Another thing MG did is take away the turning ability of the spit, so now I have to pop flaps. Lucky for us you can do it at any speed with no damage to your plane. One of my biggest gripes is
after a DF in the spit there are these huge holes in my wing, why are they there? My plane flies normal. One last thing if you run out of ammo or lose advantage to a 109 just ram him. The uber 109 with its uber DM will usally explode and give you the kill. Just like Billy Joel said Don't ask me why.

We need 100 octane for all red planes and 20lbs of boost. Bring back pre patch spitII. I need the pre-patch spit II, I don't want to take the time to learn my plane its more fun when I can just jump in a spitII and get easy kills.

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

The situation really isn't the same. The Spit 1a is markedly superior to the 109 above 6000 meters. I know a lot of ATAG guys like to spiral around on the deck, but flight models shouldn't be altered to suit the odd habits of guys on one server.

Do you think the Spit 1a outperforms the 2a at these altitudes?
Where did that post with the updated graphs go?.... I'd like to overlay the three spit variants....

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by snapperpuss

Please leave Snapper and Dutch alone, they are totally right on this subject.
1c is very biased to blue, let me give you a few examples.
.

I agree Snapper, there are a number of things about the Spits which are an unfair advantage - I fly them & I acknowledge this:
1. Canopy open has no performance implications. There isn't any red flyers on comms who don;t want this fixed, to my knowledge. Canopy open should slow you down. end of.
2. ramming. Not sure if it's the same for both sides, but sometimes I've collided and the other A/C has fallen apart whilst I've merrily flown on. Odd.
3. Damage decals... I don't know how confusing these are for the blue pilots, but they don't really indicate likely performance on the red A/C. Sometimes , though, I see no damage, yet cannot fly. Other times I have holes... but no effect on combat performance.