Energy Maneuverability

[ATAG_Bliss]

Compared to flying 46, you don't have much worry in a 109 in this sim. I've been mainly flying blue as of late, and the only time the spitfire gave me the real adrenaline rush and fear was when we had the super fast IIa. I enjoyed that quite a bit.

As Robo has said (which I agree with as a 109 driver) there isn't a red plane I'm worried about while flying. I can fly like a complete idiot and quite honestly not worry about being shot. Play it a bit more and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

[JG14_Josf]

Play it a bit more and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Anyone,

Is that an ambiguous references to fears or worries concerning what can or cannot happen when using this game? No one but 109 pilots are having fun with this Word War II Combat Flight Simulator? Spitfires are targets and 109s are invincible, so long as the average idiot knows enough not to fly a Spitfire and knows enough to fly a 109?

What is the point?

I don't get it.

Why not concentrate on this Topic while in this Topic or start a thread titled something appropriate to the general concept of 109s being super planes and Spitfires are mere targets?

If that is the point then why is that point finding its way into this topic?

The point of this Topic is to discuss Energy Maneuverability that is specific to the Cliffs of Dover Program.

So far I have concluded on my own and have managed to confirm from another user of the software the fact that the Spitfire is at least Single Superior in Angles Fighting as measurable with Sustained Turn Performance and that part of the flight envelope can be plotted on a standard EM Chart where Turn Rate is measured on the vertical axis and Air Speed is measured on the horizontal axis, and that Sustained Stall Line is a condition of flight where Specific Excess Power is ZERO.

I cannot confirm the degree at which the Spitfire Corner Speed outperforms the 109 corner speed nor can I confirm that the Spitfire Corner Speed is slower and therefore better than the 109s, but contributions to this thread confirm that fact.

I cannot confirm the fact that blackout occurs at a specific g load for a 109 pilot.

I cannot confirm the fact that blackout occurs at a specific g load for a Spitfire pilot.

I cannot confirm the fact that the g load limit for the Spitfire pilot is, or is not, the same as the g load limit for the 109 pilot.

Those are things relevant to this topic.

I can see that tactics and maneuvers can be relevant to this topic.

My hope is to report specific engagements of future uses of the software, the game, the simulator of World War II Air Combat, where those missions we fly may be applicable to Energy Maneuverability, which won't be Hit and Run tactics where our flight is always higher and faster than the opposition so there will be cases where the opposition is higher and faster attacking our fighter planes and that is not a worry for us: it is the name of the game when missions include missions other than Free Hunting missions where the object is to maintain superior position (camping, cherry picking, whatever) and employ superior position and then escape before superior position is lost i.e. Hit and Run Tactics.

Case in point:

Mission for today, Tuesday, on the ATAG server, involving 4 109 Fighters from IV.JG53 on Free Hunt Patrol as ordered by the Staffel Leader Wotan.

I had much trouble in applying the Hot Fix with WinZip, failing to get the game started, having to uncheck some property in the zipped file according to WinZip, eventually joining the action, and we ran an official scored mission.

The server included, at the time I joined, 9 Red, and 8 Blue people. The server is set to generate A.I. which is a big help with low numbers, giving us something to do, as our flight vectored to intercept inbound enemy bombers.

Hertt and Saipain Shot down 2 each. I shot down 1. Wotan had connection difficulties and decided not to risk an attack.

Those bombers are fast and we ended up in an ill advised pure pursuit after an initial head-on attack. I had planned on an under and up attack, but the fast bombers are fast so we had trouble maintaining pursuit, let alone angled attacks or repeat head-on attacks.

The defensive gunners appeared to be ineffective, which was unusual compared to earlier flights against bombers on or off line.

I unloaded my entire cannon supply and much of my machine gun ammo, first into the center, then into the right engine, then the left engine as the bomber dove slightly, and then when the bomber left engine caught fire it banked left and spiraled down vertically into the ground.

Had there been a Spitfire Escort hovering in advance of the bombers, higher, then that Escort Flight could have capitalized on our narrow attention span, diving in with surplus energy, or smash, and the hunters could have become the hunted, despite any feeling we may have had concerning our invincibility.

At that time the Spitfires could have employed their Angles Fighting Advantages, their possibly better Corner Speed (lower airspeed at maximum g) and we could have been bounced, shot down because we did not see the attack in time, or we could have seen them in time and we could have tried to defend against attacks by higher and faster fighter planes, and then we could have been unable to shoot down 5 confirmed enemy bombers during our second official mission with the new software.

As Robo has said (which I agree with as a 109 driver) there isn't a red plane I'm worried about while flying.

Worry? This is not the Topic titled Things to Worry About.

This Topic is the Energy Maneuverability Topic.

Do you know the Spitfire Corner Speed or the 109 Corner Speed?

If you do then please consider contributing to this topic.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Josf - Did you happen to read what I said? You're asking questions over the simplest of statements. I've flown this sim for over 2000 hours. One can imagine that my experience, along with individuals like Robo, have led me to that very simple observation that I posted before your last remark.

That's why both I and Robo suggest you fly the sim a bit more and why we both suggested you'll come to the same conclusion. Again, I'm not worried about the why, the technicalities, the specs of why x is better than y. I just simply have the experience.

Edit: And the reason people, (including 109 pilots) are chiming in on this thread is because you are trying to say the spitfire is the obvious winner in almost all aspects of flight (in comparison of the 2). Which may be the case from your limited experience and observations thus far with Cliffs. But the reality is the 109 holds all the cards. Perhaps if you make your observations / tests after 1000 hours of online combat, you would see the same thing. Basically what I was saying in the 1st place.

Hopefully you'll understand what I'm saying this time. I don't know how I could make it any more simple.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by SG1_Lud

That was an extreme an unnecesarily aggressive post to someone new in this forum, who is saying, FYI, interesting things - may yo agree with that things or not - and sharing a flow of info. Post like yours are the reason that most experts won't want to enter debates like the OP is trying to, in certain places.

Actually Josf is quit familiar to many on this board as he posted similar posts over at the Zoo for many years.

[JG14_Josf]

Anyone,

The Topic title is Energy Maneuverability.

If no one has an interest in accurately measuring Energy Maneuverability then please consider leaving this Topic alone as if this Topic were Underwater Basket Weaving, since you have no interest in this topic.

Please.

There is no point I can see in continuing the ambiguous, subjective, opinionated, and baseless arguments concerning which plane makes which players happy or fearful.

The Spitfire is, in fact, until proven in some way otherwise, Single Superior in that it is coded in the game with a superior Sustained Turn Performance Flight Envelope against any fighter modeled in the game, including the 109.

The Spitfire, so modeled, is therefore ideally suited for angles tactics which include a wide variety of applications not limited to turn fighting on the deck where diving is no longer an option.

Supposing that there are, perhaps, readers who read these threads and they are not necessarily going to write in these Topics, for any reason, not limited to the reasons that may include avoiding "getting their hands dirty" as so often is the case when personal attacks are allowed and/or encouraged, but supposing that there are any readers on this forum who have an interest in Energy Maneuverability I will soldier on in the effort to discuss that topic, despite the diversions and despite the personal attacks.

Restating the original question:

Cornering Speed: "The lowest air speed at which a fighter can obtain the structural or aerodynamic limiting G force."

In the "dogfight" situation, this is the speed I'm trying to maintain in order to "out-turn" an adversary. It's also the speed above which I must excercise caution to prevent "Over-G" damage. Below this speed I must remain "Stall vigilant.

Is there a central location where the cornering speeds of CLoD aircraft can be found?

Before targeting that question with narrow focus of precise interest it was my decision to divert attention to a similar precise measure of Combat Aircraft Performance known as Sustained Turn Performance, the idea behind the diversion was to ensure that one interesting performance characteristic was not confused with the other interesting performance characteristic.

Sustained Turn Performance is interesting as it relates to the capacity to win Air Combat whereby one pilot is turning to shoot another pilot and one pilot can turn a tighter turn radius, higher g, faster turn rate, and do so at a slower air speed where energy loss is not a consideration or when Specific Excess Power is ZERO.

That advantage is decidedly coded into this sim as a Spitfire advantage over any other plane - as far as I know so far.

Confusing Sustained Turn Performance with Corner Speed can be done by someone who has experience in simulating Fighter Combat, and so my effort is to avoid such confusion.

Is the Spitfire coded in this game with both a Sustained Turn Advantage and a Corner Speed Advantage over the 109?

How about some perspective?

If the answer is yes, then how would the game be judged if the answer was no, whereby the 109 was coded with a Corner Speed Advantage?

Who would know?

Who has any inclination to precisely measure which plane has a Corner Speed Advantage?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

Perhaps that person read some of the personal attacks that fill these pages and he or she decided that the answer cannot be found here on this forum.

I don't know, but I may be more persistent.

109 = @350 km/h (fully loaded combat weight) Corner Speed

How about a relative understanding of the importance of Corner Speed in Fighter Combat for those who share an interest in such things, and decidedly NOT for those who prefer to spend their time attacking each other personally?

Suppose, for example, I am flying my routine pre-mission flights over the Channel, and the unexpected dot appears in my forward view, and it turns out to be a head-on merge at 6k meters with a worthy opponent flying an enemy fighter plane.

If I know that the 109 has a Corner Speed advantage can I use that knowledge to my advantage?

Yes, no, maybe?

If the Spitfire pilot is patrolling at 6k meters then the Spitfire pilot is probably not a gamer who has found a new toy, spawning in and running to the nearest fight, dying, repeating, as if quake was once worth playing but it became outdated and now this CLoD thing will do for a quick fix.

If the Spitfire pilot has a handle on Energy Maneuverability, and Fighter Combat in general, up at 6k meters, merging with me in my 109, will the bloke also have a keen awareness of which plane is coded with the lower Corner Speed, and how could I tell if there are any tell tale clues concerning such an understanding?

Assuming that the merge was not an early recognition made by the Spitfire pilot as to the fact that a 109 was passing, and assuming that both pilots pass on the same straight and level parallel direction opposite each other, without a Lead Turn, and without a Head-On exchange of firepower, what can be expected to be the next move by the opponent when it is a 109 against a Spitfire?

If one pilot is shot down then a mistake has to be made at some point.

What if both pilots pull up into a straight vertical zoom climb?

Are they going to test how well they can turn from level to vertical?

Are they going to test to see which plane decelerates slower in an unloaded zoom climb?

Are they going to test to see who met who at a higher speed at the merge?

Is the Spitfire pilot going to dive and run away for mortal fear of a 109 nearby?

I don't know yet. I know what I do, and the first thing I do after such a merge is a slight level turn to gauge how fast the opponent will reverse, and this is part of what is turned in Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique.

If I turn and I am not yet at corner speed then I nose low to turn at corner speed.

How far from turning around, as I turn around, has the opponent progressed as the opponent turns around?

Did the opponent climb?

If the opponent is very quickly on my tail and shooting, then I made a mistake, obviously.

Is that even possible?

If the Spitfire was higher before I saw it, and I had been climbing and turning around at the altitude where I saw the Spitfire, then it could appear as if we two were at equal energy states when we both passed each other and when I turn around I have to drop the nose to get faster so as to gain enough speed to maximize my turn rate at Corner Speed while the higher Energy State Spitfire may be turning just above Corner Speed initially and during his turn, at 90 degrees for example, that Spitfire is at Corner Speed and his turn is remarkably tight in turn radius, his attack is then his nose aimed at my wingtip as the Spitfire approaches 90 degrees off my left, and I'm not yet at Corner Speed. The Spitfire may be at Corner Speed having to dive after the turn to then be in a position to Saddle up at equal speed, and at a much better position.

If I see that Spitfire gaining too fast I nose low and extend. If the Spitfire was much faster at the merge then the Spitfire may not have burned all the extra energy the Spitfire had over me at that time when I try to run from the fight. In other words my mistake was to fly over the channel slow and ONLY at 6k meters when a Spitfire pilot is cherry picking at higher altitudes and faster speeds.

What if, and this has happened repeatedly in my experience, in other Combat Simulators, both pilots zoom after the merge, to see which plane has the advantage in energy over the other, which is the case in Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique since the object of that Energy Maneuver, or tactic, is to encourage the opponent to bleed off too much Energy in the turn after the merge, while YOU minimize your energy loss, and so the idea is to encourage that zoom after a second merge, and if the maneuver works then the opponent has burned off too much energy and the opponent will stall first.

I've had those kinds of fights and it is a blast. Those kinds of fights almost never happen on Dog Fight Servers where quake players are spawning into the game for a quick fix, rushing to the nearest fight, anchoring the fight at that spot, fighting until dying, and counting the number of kills before death as a measure of success.

Those kinds of quake fights may be the rule, but there are exceptions, and energy fights do happen on Dog Fight Servers and the opposition knows what their plane can do relative to the other since those type of players are looking for the same type of fights, I call them energy fights, you can understand what I am trying to communicate or you can fail. You can have an interest or you can find what interests you elsewhere.

Those types of players, looking for energy fights, fly around high, they cherry pick, they hit and run, they camp at known spawn points, and if they choose a Spitfire that is what they bring to the fight, and if they prefer to choose the plane with the higher top speed, because they will run from a fight, then that is what they choose.

If they choose a plane with a slower Top Speed then more care is needed, but not much more care, when cherry picking, and choosing, where to fight, when to fight, and how to fight.

The Quake players, meanwhile, may have this to say, or that to say, about this or that, and who cares?

There are Topics for such things.

This is not that Topic.

Top Speed is one performance variable.

This is not the Top Speed performance topic.

Sustained Turn Performance is very important otherwise there would be no interest in knowing which plane can Sustain a tighter turn radius when energy loss is not a consideration (Ps = 0).

Corner Speed is a very important performance advantage even if the quake players have no clue about it.

Unloaded acceleration/deceleration is a very important performance variable even if the quake players have no clue about it.

These performance variables are on Topic.

1.
Sustained Turn Performance = Advantage Spitfire
2.
Corner Speed = Advantage Spitfire (not confirmed by me)
3.
Unloaded acceleration/deceleration (dive and zoom vertical fighting)

109 = 350 km/h Corner Speed
Spitfire = ? Corner Speed

The Sustained Turn Performance advantage held by the Spitfire is significant, in the order of a 25% advantage if the 109 turns 360 degrees in 25 seconds and the Spitfire turns 360 degrees in 18.5 seconds.

How much better is the Spitfire Corner Speed?

If the 109 has an unloaded (dive and zoom) Acceleration/Deceleration advantage, then how much is that advantage?

How can those advantages be measured?

Those advantages can't be measured by someone who only cherry picks on the quake players unless I have missed something.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Please, moderator, let me know if your displeasure is such that you prefer that I do not continue any further discussion on this topic or on this forum for that matter.

I prefer not to be involved in forums where the moderators contribute to Flame wars.

Hi

Welcome

Please ignore the trolling members, they are well known, and most posts have been removed already.

Try to keep upbeat as some of the usual suspects have already tried to "upset" the thread with thier usual agenda, keep on topic and have fun.

Try to get as much stick time as you can with CoD, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ?


As already stated in CoD structural G and its penalties are not modelled, only blackouts and elevator authorities are limiting factors.

[JG14_Josf]

When you make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinions and statements such as "double superior spitfire" expect people that actually have experience in this sim to tell you are wrong, and even laugh at you. A DR1 has a better sustained turn than a spitfire.

Anyone,

Aside from the fact that the above contribution to this Topic does not have anything to do with the topic, there is the matter of misrepresentation to deal with as mud is slinging in this form of obvious, measurable, deception.

If I made a claim that the Spitfire was "double superior" then it could be proven with a quote such as:

Which plane is the better plane?

Is the Spitfire Double Superior or Single Superior?

The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, that is uncontroversial.

So...logically, and reasonably, why would I be asking a question if instead I had made an "unsubstantiated" claim as my forum enemy (why he is targeting me for misrepresentation I can't know, exactly) endeavors to attack my character publicly?

My guess is that the Spitfire will turn out to be Double Superior. I want to be wrong.

That may be as close as I am able to become that which my forum enemy claims me to be in his mind as he publishes these personal attacks upon my character.

Note how a guess on my part is not a claim on my part, and again why would I continue to be asking these questions if instead I were making claims as my forum enemy claims (unsubstantiated).

Did I miss something written by me on this forum, something that could be misinterpreted to be what my forum enemy claims is credited to me as a character flaw?

ON Topic so far:

Spitfire is coded in the game to be Single Superior at least.

Spitfire, at least, has an accurately measurable Sustained Turn Performance Advantage in the order of about 25% better Sustained Turn Performance compared to the 109 in Cliffs of Dover.

How does that fact turn into personal attacks upon me as forum members target me for misrepresentations such as this:

When you make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinions and statements such as "double superior spitfire" expect people that actually have experience in this sim to tell you are wrong, and even laugh at you.

The tactic used here is a flanking maneuver, a diversionary tactic, it is a variation on deception, it is also called a Man of Straw, as somewhere, someone, has made these unsubstantiated claims, but who has done so, where is this person, where are these claims?

I can guess things, and I can even offer up my guesses of things, and even while I guess things, I can state, without room for misinterpretation, that I do not know if the Spitfire is Double Superior, as I ask for the information that could support, or substantiate, any claim from anyone, anywhere, who may claim that the Spitfire is, or is not, Double Superior.

Where is this Man of Straw who has made these unsubstantiated claims?

Look left, and there is vapor.

Look right, more vapor.

Smoke and mirrors?

The Spitfire may yet turn out to have a Corner Speed advantage, which would be another significant Performance Advantage for any fighter plane that may fight any other fighter plane where the significant Performance Advantage might approach the significant measure of a 25% Advantage.

If the Spitfire does have a corner speed advantage, then how much is that advantage?

The 109, as far as my testing goes so far, when loaded with fuel, near the 4 kilometers altitude range, turns at the margin of stall and black out at about 350 km/h.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

Personal attacks, exemplified by my forum enemy, who resorts to deceit as a means of accomplishing some goal of some kind, discredit, whatever, are not welcome, and they are in fact against the rules.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

That question is on topic.

How can anyone claim that any plane is Double Superior or not if Corner Speed isn't even known?

I can't, so I don't make such claims, instead I ask questions, and if someone had something to offer, on topic, then reasonably, the on topic question could be answered accurately.

[ATAG_Colander]

Josf,

You'll find the answers to all those questions here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com

[JG14_Josf]

Hi

Welcome

Please ignore the trolling members, they are well known, and most posts have been removed already.

Try to keep upbeat as some of the usual suspects have already tried to "upset" the thread with thier usual agenda, keep on topic and have fun.

Try to get as much stick time as you can, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ?

On a similar note............

If I remember correctly IL2 1946 FW190 pilots were told to hunt in at least pairs against enemy aircraft,
as they were unable to fight alone against Spitfires and P51's (forum consensus) dictated that nothing was wrong with the aircraft performance,
its just that FW190's were not to hunt alone due to being inferior to Allied FM's.

So why do axis have to fly in pairs against single allied aircraft ? ............ its an old question that's been around many years.

Fresh air!

Thanks and I do appreciate the honest welcome from those who honestly welcome my participation on this forum.

Topic question:

Try to get as much stick time as you can, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ?

That was very obvious as the first versions of the IL2 game were very well documented in specific performance areas such as dive acceleration, the first versions of the game were modeled with each plane diving the same acceleration rate, no difference at all.

Players had to work with what was in the flight model, and it was a fun game, very good for eye candy for sure.

Somehow the code was changed and there were differences in dive speeds, so it was as if a whole new simulation occurred in actual fighter combat (simulated) and the fights then went vertical instead of either/or hit and run or angles fighting.

Then the game started to change the g force tolerance limits on specific pilots, as far as I can tell that is what happened, and then when the players were able to adjust those Code lines one plane was one way one day and the same plane could be opposite the next day.

I had to get out of that mess awhile ago. The people who changed the code knew exactly what they were changing so they knew what to do in combat while those who didn't yet understand the changes were significantly powerless in combat, and about the time the targets figured things out the flight model changes again.

Weird?

Hardly.

Thanks for dropping in.

If I remember correctly IL2 1946 FW190 pilots were told to hunt in at least pairs against enemy aircraft,
as they were unable to fight alone against Spitfires and P51's (forum consensus) dictated that nothing was wrong with the aircraft performance,
its just that FW190's were not to hunt alone due to being inferior to Allied FM's.

So why do axis have to fly in pairs against single allied aircraft ? ............ its an old question that's been around many years.

It seems as if any effort to actually quantify, as in precisely quantify, the actual significant performance variables, such as Corner Speed, is unwelcome for some reason.

Why?

If it is a given that Sustained Turn Performance favors one plane, why is that deemed to be insignificant by someone?

Is that nonsense or are there honest reasons for people who resort to personal attacks to keep accurate information bottled up?

If they resort to deceit, can you expect to get an honest answer?

Flying in pairs can be nothing more than a decision to cooperate with someone else in an effort to simulate very effective tactics and in some cases, such as on-line wars, where there is a mutual desire to simulate World War II combat, not just quake type flying, the instances of 2 versus 1 are fewer, and the instances of 2 versus 2, 3 versus 3, etc., are more numerous.

Setting that aside, and not diving into the Energy Maneuverability aspect of team fighting, I do want to communicate something that I think you are trying to communicate with your welcome words in this Topic.

When a plane is Double Inferior, inferior in both angles and energy fighting, it may yet be modeled with a Top Speed advantage. That was the case with many versions of IL2 and the 190s.

Shaw published an opinion concerning what can be done with a plane that is Double Inferior and it went something along the lines of leave the thing in the hanger, or be restricted to only hit and run tactics or team tactics.

Does that sound familiar?

I think that there is a general desire for a Double Superior plane even when the only advantage afforded the opposition is a top speed advantage.

I have hopes that this game is not that way.

A good wing team flying Stukas can win every battle against a single Spitfire IX pilot, so long as they know enough to attack before the Spitfire wheels are up.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

As already stated in CoD structural G and its penalties are not modelled, only blackouts and elevator authorities are limiting factors.

Wrong.

Airframes bend in RL and when stressed they bend in IL2COD. I hope you don't think 46's wings flying off is how it happens in real life? Perhaps you could tell us what sim has structural G's modeled right? I'd like to play it.