Energy Maneuverability

[335th_GRAthos]

As I had guessed.

WinXP will unfortunately not take you very far I am afraid. Most likely you will need to upgrade to Win7 and at least a 4core CPU and a good graphics card (2Gb VRAM or more).

As you gain experience, you will begin to realise the constraints...

I also wonder why 1c does not provide us with data, I asked and got the reply I posted earlier.

Enjoy flying!

[JG14_Josf]

As I had guessed.

I do not know what that means.

As to the advice of moving up to Windows 7, again off-topic, the advice is sound enough since that was the way I went to actually get the game to work.

As to the other advice, or challenge, to actually fly Combat Maneuvering I can reply to anyone including TUSA/TX-Gunslinger whose handle sounds familiar in my long term memory concerning those efforts to discuss the topic on the IL2 Forums if not earlier.

So far in Clod our Squad, which is now a combination of JG14 and IV. JG53, has our first organized mission scheduled on the ATAG server for tonight, Sunday, and we plan on Simulating a small scale, escorted, bomb raid on an airfield or radar station - type mission.

This is off-topic too.

In preparation for that mission I have spent time with the Squad and time alone off-line, becoming more familiar with the game. Our teamwork is returning to some semblance of effectiveness in Combat Air Patrol, Hit and Run, Drag and Bag, Mutual Support, Line Abreast Formations, etc. On my own I have repeated a Target Practice Off-Line Drill (Training) with Single Player Quick Missions involving a mid altitude frontal attack on a formation of light twin engine bombers. Bombers that look almost like a twin engine Bonanza, King Air or whatnot.

The gunnery is more difficult than IL2, so far, as expected, and during this Drill I can shoot at multiple air targets from many angles since the King Air type twin bombers have meek gunners and top down or bottom up attacks tend to avoid the tracking capacity of the A.I. gunners, as expected.

During the continuous zooms and dives during the repetitive Gunnery Drill it is becoming clear that the Flight Model, and Pilot physics model (or whatever is the term for modeling black out and alterations in control of the plane) are not the same as in IL2, and to me, so far, the feel of control, loss of control, buffet, stall, slowness of response to control inputs under load, etc., are better that IL2, including the Stall, as exemplified by the methods used to recover from a Stall, or the methods used to avoid a stall: there appears, so far, to be more feedback (sound or response time = I do not have Force Feedback but if there is a good Force Feedback stick then I think this game may drive me to get one) on the edges of the flight envelope, which allows the pilot to remain in the flight envelope while utilizing those "signs" that inform the pilot of impending departure (buffet for example).

That brings me to the point at which the topic may return into view as the Gunnery Drills I have been running may include an ending Windup Turn Test as described in the Navair Web site. In other words I have begun to quantify Corner Speed for the 109.

So far, with the 109, I have Corner Speed (Pilot g limited not plane g limited) at about 350 km/h indicated. If I fly at 400 km/h for the Windup Turn Test the plane, so far, buffets and eventually sticks into a more or less coordinated diving turn, where the airspeed indicator is showing a needle that is dancing around, and my ability to smooth the turn out is as yet not refined enough to nail down an Instantaneous Maximum Performance Turn well, but the initial test confirm that 400 km/h is definitely above the pilot g limited Corner Speed since it is possible to grey out the pilot.

So far I have not blacked out the pilot as was possible in IL2, where the screen goes black (or grey if the software was exploited in some versions I've heard) and the pilot is no longer able to control the controls of the plane for some time that could "feel" like an eternity.

I've tried to target 300 km/h as Corner Speed in at least one Windup Turn Test so far and so far that appears to be under Corner Speed since the effort to reach black out was an effort that found buffet, severe buffet, and then stall before grey out was even possible.

Returning to Naviar, to return solidly on the topic, the following is a restatement of the definition of Corner Speed and a restatement of the Windup Turn (for anyone who may be interested in the topic):

6.3.4.6 CORNER SPEED
The significance of the corner speed can be seen in figure 6.15. At the speed corresponding to the intersection of the lift boundary and the structural limit, the minimum instantaneous turn radius and maximum instantaneous turn rate are achieved. Thus, VA is the speed for maximum turn performance when energy loss is not a consideration.

6.4.1 WINDUP TURN
Instantaneous turn performance is documented usually with the windup turn technique. In this technique the load factor is smoothly and steadily increased with constant Mach number. The end point of the data run is the accelerated stall or the structural limit, whichever is reached first. To perform the windup turn, momentarily stabilize at the desired Mach number. Set the thrust for the test as you roll into a turn and smoothly increase load factor. As load factor and drag increase, reduce the pitch attitude in order to keep Mach number constant. Use bank angle to adjust the pitch attitude. When the limit condition is reached, record the g level. Increase the load factor no faster than 1/2 g/s to minimize the effects of unsteady flow.

In the game, in place of "record the g level" is a condition of simulation whereby the user of the software will either find black out or the user of the simulation with find the stall.

If the user of the simulation finds black out, then the user of the simulation has found out where the game software determines Corner Speed for that plane, but only if the user of the software (any user) can't reach black out at a slower speed.

If one user of the game software (without cheating some way) can fly slower and reach Black Out at a slower speed, then that user will be turning a smaller radius at a faster rate than the user of the game software who cannot pilot the plane at a slower Corner Speed.

If one user is hamfisting the controls, or has very poor hardware, or for whatever reason (other than comparing a cheater with an honest player) is stalling at the same speed than another user flying at black out (or in grey out, which should be before severe buffet), then it is the Player that is not "feeling" well, not the software playing favorites, assuming that both pilots are flying the same plane configured the same way, with the same amount of fuel, total weight, flap setting, etc.

This is where the rubber meets the road, and the Forum users are no longer fighting with English words, and the game software users are fighting with simulated airplanes in simulated air combat: back to the topic.

The region of buffet, or that place in the real (or well simulated) flight envelope where Maximum Turn Performance, Maximum Lift, CL Max, highest turn rate, lowest turn radius, lowest Corner Speed, and highest g limit (pilot not plane limited) is FLOWN, and to go past the initial instances of buffet, to fly beyond the beginning of buffet, to hamfist the controls past the most efficient angle of attack, and to enter well into the buffeting zone of wing angle of attack, is to reduce turn rate, increase turn radius, lower g load, and slow down below Corner Speed IN FACT.

So...practice may make worse, or more experience may help in finding the TRUE Corner Speed as the developer has modeled into the present form of the Software.

That may be what this means:

As I had guessed.

I don't know what that means, I guess that I am supposed to guess what that means, so that is my guess - in English.

That is off-topic.

On topic is that the 109 Corner Speed, so far as I can tell, is about 350 km/h indicated and relevant to about 2,000 meters altitude in a shallow diving Windup Turn Test Off-Line where this pilot was well into the buffet zone during that test, so that One test so far may be well off the precisely identified software coded Corner Speed.

If someone can fly the 109 in a Windup Turn Test at 300 km/h and reach black out, then they may be doing the test with a lighter fuel load, which is entirely possible, since I have so far done all my testing starting with full fuel.

More weight will move the Accelerated Stall line to the right on a Maneuvering Diagram (accelerated stall line), assuming that I understand Energy Maneuverability well enough.

Note: If a plane was loaded very heavy the Maneuvering Diagram (accelerated stall line) moves so far to the right that the 1 g stall is past Top Speed Level Flight and the plane can never take off on Earth, it can roll down a runway going all around the planet and never reach the Corner Speed or even the Take-off speed, since it is so heavy that the wings stall before 1 g. How would that look on an EM Chart?

Since more weight will move the Accelerated Stall line to the right on a Maneuvering Diagram, which is merely a record of how changes in weight cause the plane to stall at a higher speed (less weight) or lower speed (more weight) the heavier plane (same plane with more weight loaded) will have a higher corner speed, which means it will turn a larger Maximum Performance Turn Radius, and the heavier plane will turn a slower Maximum Performance Turn Rate, and the heavier plane (same plane loaded with more weight) will reach the SAME pilot g load unless the game software changes the pilot g load tolerance as the plane is loaded with more or less weight and that returns to the warning concerning Game Developer Transparency and how to get around the lack of information made available.

Windup Turn Tests document Corner Speed. Some users/players/gamers/flight sim pilots/combat flight sim pilots, whatever, may be better (not cheating) at reaching the Software CODED Corner Speed compared to another player - all things being equal (not cheating or not using a different fuel load, different testing altitude, different plane, etc.) - all things being equal except the Game CODED software as it was CODED by the developer and not re-CODED by the player who may mod the code to get a better Corner Speed (any exploit not yet know by anyone other than the person doing the exploiting).

Some players can be trusted as players who would never cheat, other players can be trusted as players who will always cheat if they are afforded any opportunity to cheat.

That is off-topic.

This is on-topic:

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?

My initial, rough, tests peg the 109 Corner Speed (heavy with fuel) in between 300 and 400 km/h, at about 350 km/h.

Note: Changes in weight may not change Corner Speed significantly within the normal ranges of Combat Weight for any given plane while changes in weight may be more significant concerning changes in Sustained Turn Performance which may be a function (theory on my part) of that all too familiar squaring factor of drag as airspeed increases.

Sustained Turn Performance is flown at a much lower airspeed compared to Maximum Turn Performance and therefore the Total Drag is exponentially higher (square with velocity) at the higher Corner Speed relative to the lower Sustained Turn Performance (lufberry circle) Speed - if I have this understood.

JG14_Josf offers an initial estimate of 109 Corner Speed to be 350 km/h.

Flying slower than 350 km/h is increasing the difficulty of reaching black out before stall.

Flying faster than 350 km/h is increasing the ease at which the pilot can generate enough g force to black out the pilot instead of stalling.

Maximum Turn Performance is the condition of flight where the higher g force is generated at the lowest possible airspeed, and then the turn radius is the smallest possible turn radius, the turn rate is the highest possible turn rate, air speed is slowest while g force is highest (pilot not plane g limit).

That is on topic.

[SlipBall]

Jose I have wondered what became of you...should liven the place up

[JG14_Josf]

It is good to hear from those who share the interest in World War II Air Combat (if I am not reading too much into the welcome responses).

I saw Gunslinger (text only) on the ATAG server last night.

These are off topic (but welcome) words.

Stuff that is not welcome are, of course, the words that can be accurately measured as being unwelcome, sparks intending to light flames, diversions, whatever, they are actually against the rules and yet they still happen? <-----more off-topic stuff, but possibly a good separate (diverted) topic.

Back to the topic:

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?

During our combined squad night on the ATAG server, last night, we flew an initial Ground Attack Mission, we hit a Radar Station and we returned to base.

Then we played around some at the German Ships near the French coast, and we tested out our teamwork on a steady supply of Spitfires entering the area one or two at a time.

I drug around a few Spitfires, two of my wingmen collided with each other at one point, but for the most part teamwork won that prolonged battle.

As far as Level sustained turning or climbing (from the deck) turns: the Spitfire had our heavily loaded (with fuel) 109s handily beaten. The Spitfires could get on our sixes from being in front of us with relative ease, so for my part, having a Spitfire in front of me, where the Spitfire knows I am going to shoot, and then that Spitfire is suddenly behind me, as it can turn so good, I then go relatively straight, and call in my wingmen, who then are soon shooting at the Spitfire going straight and level behind me.

Sustained turn performance, so far as I can tell, is a Spitfire advantage, measurably, obviously, and without any controversy whatsoever. I think this Clod game offers the Replay or Track Recording Option, so such things can be well documented.

Everyone in our squad, during those fights on the deck, reinforced the accurate understanding: Spitfires turn better than 109s in those types of turns which are not Corner Speed turns.

Those are turns that are turned at speeds that are under Corner Speed, and that means, specifically, and without controversy, turns made where there can be no blacking out of the pilots, because the planes cannot generate enough lift to generate enough g force, to the limit of the pilot g tolerance, at least not in the 109s, at least not with the 109 pilot g limit, not at speeds under about 350 km/h, such as was the case in our experience on the deck last night.

We were busy during turning fighting stall, we had no trouble with any blacking out, not in those fights where the hard deck, the lower hemisphere of our flight envelope, is ground or water.

No diving to gain speed without having to first climb once the fight degrades down onto the deck.

The Energy Fight is cut in half, and the ground or water level cuts it in half, leaving no diving for speed at that point, in that type of TEAM fight.

Lots of "I've got a drag."

"Where are you."

"At the point going inland, heading for the airfield."

"Got it, turn right and I'll cut the turn."

"So will the Spitfire, how close is the Spitfire? I'm not turning to look."

"Not too close, but fade left first, then right, I'm cutting the turn now."

"I see tracers."

"Don't worry, he is begging for you to turn hard, fade left, then right and you have him served up on a platter for me, thanks."

We joke, because it is funny, to hear how things can then be turned around by some people into the 109 being over-modeled, because the Spitfires pilots who are all alone, no teamwork, able to out turn us almost 2 to 1 (but we are full of fuel), and because we know how to drag, and because our top speeds are at least equal, if not better (I don't know, I can't look behind when dragging to see if the Spitfire is gaining in straight and level flight, and if I turn, he can cut the turn and close with angles/geometry, not higher top speed, which is, in fact, more Specific Excess Power at that point), but, but, but, somehow, according to some people, the Spitfire is better than the 109?

How? Not in turning Sustained Turns - where energy loss is not a factor.

We laugh at the claims of Superior Game Performance Coded into the Game, favoring the 109, because, we suppose, our opponents refuse to use their advantages to advantage when fighting against efficient teamwork, and so they blame their deficiencies on the game code?

That same night, and before the fight hits the hard deck, a Spitfire was saddled up on Hertt (my historically primary wingman), and in this case the Spitfire is again at advantage in ability to out turn the heavy fueled 109 flown by the capable 109 pilot.

Hertt cannot simply turn inside the Spitfire turn. That is what the Spitfire can do, if we are saddled up in our 109s on Spitfires: the Spitfire can turn inside and escape, we cannot, we see this, we know this, this is not now, in this game, subject to arbitrary argument, or contention, this is an obvious fact.

Hertt forces an overshoot.

I note, and I communicate the fact, with congratulation.

"Good work Hertt, that was a classic overshoot."

Are the 109s able to slow down faster than the Spitfires to force an overshoot despite anything that the Spitfire pilot can do unless the Spitfire pilot expects an overshoot maneuver and begins to slow down before the 109 pilot, or did Hertt merely cut the throttle while the Spitfire pilot kept his throttle at full power?

That was done while Hertt had room to dive for more speed after the overshoot? It was close the ground, but I don't remember exactly, and I did not record a Replay file, I don't know how to, yet, record files, or even for certain if the game allows it.

New game, same tactics and maneuvers, same need to figure out what works and what does not work.

Lower sustained turn performance does not automatically equate to lower corner velocity as demonstrated by the Maneuvering Diagram supplied by the Korean War example.

If, on the other hand, the Maneuvering Diagram supplied by the World War II era Spitfire and 109 example, shows an obvious advantage for the Spitfire over the 109 in both Sustained Turn Performance and Corner Speed, if I can read those Maneuvering Diagrams accurately, and if those Maneuvering Diagrams are accurate, not merely "calculated", and not involving Spitfire pilots who do not know how to turn a 109 with leading edge slats, or any other such possible reason for inadequacies in the production of the Maneuvering Diagram, if on the other hand, Sustained Turn Performance is a Spitfire advantage AND a lower Corner Speed is a Spitfire advantage, then that remains to be known, by me, in this game.

How about 2 numbers taken from the World War II era Maneuvering Diagrams, to compare a 109 5 g turn with a Spitfire 5 g turn, where we can assume that both pilots would be blacking out if 5 g is exceeded in flight?

Bf 109: 250 MPH (True)
Spitfire: 223 MPH (True)

Assuming much, including the assumption that I can read the chart, the obvious advantage is a lower 5 g Corner Speed for the Spitfire.

Note: The World War II era Maneuvering Diagrams shows some very interesting differences when compared to modern Maneuvering Diagrams not the least interesting being the numbers on the left side are not the same Turn Rate (degrees per second) used in modern Maneuvering Diagrams such as the Korean War example or the examples provided by the Navair documents. The World War II era Maneuvering Diagram lists Time to Turn a 360 degree turn in seconds on the right side of the Maneuvering Diagram.

5 g Corner Speed
Bf 109 = 14 seconds (approximate due to diagram imprecision)
Spitfire = 13 seconds

Sustained turn (assuming that the curve shown on the chart as Angle of Straight Climb is convertible, by some measure, with the sustained turn time on that Diagram)
Bf 109 = 25 seconds
Spitfire = 18.5 seconds

During the time between our Squad Mission Event and my early arrival on the ATAG server I worked on my ability to fly the heavy loaded (fuel) 109 in turns over the channel.

The 109 in this game favors a left hand turn, which may be a modelling feature intending to model Prop Wash/ P factor/ Propeller Torque Effect.

I noticed a need to push heavily on the left rudder to center the ball and keep the aileron control centered in left level and left climbing turns above the stall and at the beginning of the buffeting area of the flight envelope. I also noticed that using top rudder on right hand turns, or no rudder, appeared to keep the ball centered, and I could avoid having to move the stick left in a right hand level or climbing turn.

I also noticed that severe stall could be avoided with a quick closing of the Power Lever (throttle in a 109 does more than just cut the air/fuel mixture) and quick reversal of the stick and rudder, and a need to reverse stick and rudder again to avoid the spin momentum (?), as the spin would slow down in one direction and then (if not caught) the spin would turn the other direction.

Corner Speed turns again confirmed a 350 km/h indicated airspeed at the grey out and accelerated stall convergence condition or that data point on a Maneuvering Diagram - again heavy with fuel.

I see a need, now, to begin quantifying relative unloaded dive and unloaded zoom performance between our 109s and those pesky Spitfires that have, on occasion, showed up, so far, on the ATAG server while our Squad is patrolling the high and mid altitudes where we can again begin practicing our teamwork in various Mission Profiles.

Which plane can unload from level flight and dive like a powered dart at a greater rate of acceleration?

Which plane can then zoom climb to a higher altitude after an efficient turn at the bottom of the dive, near corner speed, to then begin an unloaded zoom climb to maximize altitude gain, when the fights may go vertical, such as was described very well in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw?

So far the obvious advantage in slow, turning and burning, or Angles Fighting, favors the Spitfire.

What about Energy Fighting in the Vertical?

Which plane is the better plane?

Is the Spitfire Double Superior or Single Superior?

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

The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, and anyone who can demonstrate otherwise can, in fact, prove me, and those other users of the game in my squad wrong - PLEASE.

The 109 is Single Inferior, for sure, without controversy, in this game, as the 109 is less able to Sustain higher g, higher turn rate, smaller turn radius, when energy loss IS a factor.

What about Corner Speed?

What about Energy Fighting Performance Advantages such as unloaded acceleration and deceleration in vertical maneuvering?

To be continued

[TomcatViP]

Josf, you shld take the Hurri as a ref.

The Spit in CoD is just a a sweet for capricious children (the "hula Hoop queen").

Fight are much more interesting that way (HurriVsBf). You'll even see that the 109 turn a tad too well in fact

Interesting read though. Please goes on !

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

We laugh at the claims of Superior Game Performance Coded into the Game, favoring the 109, because, we suppose, our opponents refuse to use their advantages to advantage when fighting against efficient teamwork, and so they blame their deficiencies on the game code?

Hello Josf, welcome on forums.

Very interesting post. I agree the teamwork is essential and many Allied pilots are flying rather unorganised (not on comms etc.) and low slow. On the other hand, it seems you only started to fly this particular sim and as you see, with basic drag and bag tactics, using 109 superior speed, climb and firepower, you can suceed quite easily. This is not really the case with e.g Spitfire, deploying equal skill and experience even.

If you really want to prove your point, I suggest you take Hertt and try surviving against a pair of decent 109 pilots in Hurricanes or Spitfires. I agree with all theoretical information you posted in the lengthy post of yours, but in my opinion, you happen to be commenting on the FM situation in the sim (and tactics) based on a few online fights on a 109.

The reason you would not be as succesfull in a Spitfire is simple - the game really portraits a massive (and not historical) performance gap. It is much better in recent patch, but the RAF is still no match for good 109 pilots.

[JG14_Josf]

Robo,

Thanks for participating in this Topic. If you could please consider rephrasing your viewpoint I would appreciate the effort since my confusion concerning your viewpoint is unsolvable without your help.

In the memory I have so far, concerning the limited experience I have with the game, the 109 pilots I know were nearly shot down several times by 1 Spitfire fighting against 4 of us working as a team.

Had we had Spitfires and the 1 enemy was flying a 109, on the deck, Hertt would probably have taken that one 109 down in the first few minutes if not sooner, and we would be crying the blues, as usual, because Hertt is so greedy that way.

When there were 2 Spitfires at once, against 4 of us, the incidences of us nearly being shot down increased and this can be attributed to those unorganized pilots using their advantages used by them to their advantage during those fights. They could turn and burn like no tomorrow, and we could not turn and burn nearly as well.

What advantages?

Sustained Turn Performance Advantages.

My point is that I now know, beyond any doubt, that the Spitfire in this game has a Sustained Turn Performance Advantage, at the very least, over the 109, when the 109 is nearly full of fuel.

I don't know how that cannot be clear to anyone, since I repeat that often, in my lengthy offerings on this forum.

Which plane, in the game, has a lower corner velocity?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of acceleration in level flight from stall to the point at which acceleration is anemic?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of unloaded (minimum drag) acceleration in vertical maneuvering (going down, or trading altitude for speed, which is a net loss of energy due to drag and the fact that the thrust to drag ratio on WWII planes is less that 1 to 1)?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a slower rate of unloaded (minimum drag) deceleration in vertical maneuvering (going up, or trading speed for altitude, again a net loss of energy for the same less than 1 to 1 thrust to drag ratio)?

Probably the Spitfire.

The Spitfire is so far the better Angles Fighter when energy loss is not a consideration, but it is not yet accurately measured by me, or anyone in the squad I fly with, as to which plane is superior in this game when the fight goes vertical – as far as I know so far.

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

We already know that the Spitfire is Single Superior in Angles Fighting as far as any fights that are on the deck, without the capacity to trade altitude for speed.

You quote my words concerning the often repeated laughter shared among the people in my squad, and perhaps you do not understand my words as much as I do not understand your words.

We have a lot of fun in these World War II Air Combat Simulations. I met Hertt in the 1980s, flying Air Warrior On-Line, and so this is not new fun for us, this is well known fun for us; we share an interest in World War II Fighter Combat Simulation.

How about specifics concerning my lack of understanding concerning what you offer here in this thread on Energy Maneuverability?

On the other hand, it seems you only started to fly this particular sim and as you see, with basic drag and bag tactics, using 109 superior speed, climb and firepower, you can suceed quite easily. This is not really the case with e.g Spitfire, deploying equal skill and experience even.

Allow me to cut that thought off with an experience I have where I can answer what I think your viewpoint is in those words, but I may be confused.

In the first place the teamwork effort is not easy, at all, it is very difficult, and it often goes very wrong.

In the second place I do not know anything about which plane has a Superior Climb rate, at any altitude, nor do I know about any advantage in firepower, since, so far, I've seen many hits, very many hits, and almost impossible to survive numbers of hits, going into these Spitfires, and they keep fighting us despite all that damage, sometimes. These things can, I assume, be recorded on track files so as to leave no room for controversy, confusion, opinion, subjectivity, or anything other than an obvious fact demonstrated precisely and unambiguously.

In the third place we have been involved in many on-line Wars where the planes are being blamed for lack of success earned by our opponents as if the game hands us our well earned victories and the challenge has been, more than once, for us to trade planes, and then see who is handed the win by the game CODE, and we win again.

What does that prove time and again?

So...if I have your viewpoint understood, which may or may not be the case, then the challenge you offer is the same old challenge, let me, or anyone in my squad, or any combination of anyone in our squad, fight you, or any Spitfire user of the game (virtual pilot), or any combination of any Spitfire flying team, and switch planes, to see who is being handed the victories handed to whomever by the game CODE, as the game CODE favors one plane with Sustained Turn Performance Advantages, that being the Spitfire, and the game CODE favors the other plane with whatever the other plane has as an advantage that I am not yet aware of in FACT.

If things move along in this game as they have in other games I see us testing our relative performance advantages against the opposition eventually. I can share your conclusions concerning climb, firepower, and speed advantages at that point, in those cases, and meanwhile I can assume that you know what you reporting to me in FACT.

Is the Spitfire maximum climb angle the same as the 109?

How much is the Spitfire maximum climb rate less than the 109 and are the fuel loads the same, and are the pilots using the maximum climb rate engine settings, control surface positions, the best climb angle for maximum climb rate, correctly to get the maximum climb rate out of the Spitfires or the 109s?

I don't know, and so I'm asking.

I could respond with a sound bite, to keep the discussion down to a minimum number of symbols of text, but that is not my interest here, I am here to share what I know with anyone similarly interested, and I do so in the effort to gain some valuable information from other people who know things I do not know, not yet, or things I may never know without seeking, and then gaining help from other people.

This is not really the case with e.g Spitfire, deploying equal skill and experience even.

Not actually being at a table to see you winking at me, I am confused as to what the winking means. If you care to join a form of discussion in the virtual world of Simulated Air Combat then you can show me how much better the 109 is compared to the Spitfire, we can meet in fact, on a server, plane to plane, in the game, once I fly the Spitfire a few times, or even for the first time, and that can prove something, and that sounds like a lot of fun to me. You can wink at me with superior 109 firepower, and there won't be any more confusion on my end, as to what you mean to say, exactly.

If you really want to prove your point, I suggest you take Hertt and try surviving against a pair of decent 109 pilots in Hurricanes or Spitfires. I agree with all theoretical information you posted in the lengthy post of yours, but in my opinion, you happen to be commenting on the FM situation in the sim (and tactics) based on a few online fights on a 109.

That sounds like someone assuming something about Hertt and I, and what Hertt and I could possibly do as a team when we are being challenged to fly Hurricanes or Spitfires against 109s, even when the 109 pilots may have been flying as a team for some 30 years in various on-line World War II simulations such as Air Warrior, Warbirds, IL2, and now this game, so I ask again, since I don't really know, as I may be confused when I read your welcome contribution to this Topic: are you assuming something about Hertt and I and if so what exactly are you assuming?

What type of fight do you think will be the type of fight that will educate Hertt and I concerning the inferiority CODED into the Spitfire or Hurricanes as the Spitfire and Hurricane is going to be flown by Hertt and I against a 109 Rotte, or wing pair, in this game?

What type of fight?

If it is a fight started with a cold merge at the same altitude and same speed then what do you think Hertt and I are going to do, tactically, when we are handed planes that have been CODED with a remarkable Sustained Turn advantage over the 109, which is the case with the Spitfire?

Will we work to bracket the opposition as we enter the merge?

Will we concentrate on a 2 on 1 tactic first, or will we lose the initiative immediately and will we find ourselves each in a 1 on 1 battle after the first 90 degree turn?

Will we find advantage in vertical maneuvering or will we have to concentrate on horizontal angles fighting tactics?

Can we both lead turn at the merge from our bracketed positions?

Will we be defensive as the fight may last longer and will we be in positions to employ team tactics such as the split, half split, sandwich, and thatch weave to effect?

Will we be desperate and in need of forcing overshoots?

I saw Hertt manage that in a 109 already and if there is a Sustained Turn Performance advantage, instead of a Sustained Turn Performance disadvantage with the plane Hertt is flying (he has a better turn fighting Spitfire instead of a worse turn fighting 109) then it stands to reason that it will be easier, not harder, to force an overshoot, turn the tables, and then be on the offensive instead of being on the defensive in a desperate situation.

If by this challenge that you appear to be offering us, Hertt and I, we find out which plane has the lower corner speed, and we find out which plane has the faster rate of unloaded acceleration, and which plane has the least unloaded deceleration in vertical maneuvering, then we will find that out, and I don't think we will be spending any time in such a fight finding out which plane has the higher Top Speed in level flight, nor which plane will reach the higher altitude in the shortest time at a maximum performance climb angle that may actually need to change slightly if the climb rate is to remain at the maximum rate through various altitudes and conditions assuming the game is coded with the need to adjust for changes in altitudes and air density air fuel mixture, supercharge gear changes, and whatever.

If we take up the challenge, and that is why we loaded the game onto our computers, in fact, then we will learn a thing or two, and what we learn will not be subject to verbal arguments on a forum, the proof will be demonstrated, in fact, and recordable, if possible, on track files.

I once took the time to record Training Track Files with Hertt and I demonstrating how, for example, the half split works, and this training track file was taken from a typical on-line session, on a typical fun mission we were on awhile ago, in the game IL2.

I have recorded Training Track Files alone, also, demonstrating how the Barrel Roll Attack works, for example, and for another example I have demonstrated how Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique works in one of the version of IL2 when one plane, the 109, was not double inferior to the other plane, at that time, which was the P-51, in that game.

The Sustained Turn Technique as described by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat is not what the name may appear to suggest, meaning that it is not a Angles Fighting Tactic, at all, and it is not a Luffberry Circle type of maneuver where the pilot is maximizing a Sustained Turn in Level Flight where Energy Loss is not a consideration.

The Sustained Turn Technique is possible with a Single Inferior Energy Fighter when there is a marginal advantage in unloaded acceleration and there isn't a terribly inferior (higher) corner speed.

Track Files work a whole lot better at describing The Sustained Turn Technique (or the barrel roll attack) compared to the use of diagrams or words in English.

Back to your welcome words on this Topic (words that could be reworded to help me understand what you intend to communicate without my misunderstanding):

The reason you would not be as succesfull in a Spitfire is simple - the game really portraits a massive (and not historical) performance gap. It is much better in recent patch, but the RAF is still no match for good 109 pilots.

Now you are challenging my capacity to interpret historical data?

On this forum there is a document that I found, just a few days ago, a document that I had previously not found, and a few things are reported in this document. I can link the document if you care to read it, assuming that you have not yet read it, which is an assumption on my part based upon your words above.

In that document the British pilots flying the captured 109 state that the 109 did not tend to spin in a stall, and that was, according to them, a historical advantage for the 109.

Have you flown the 109 in this game?

Does the 109 in this game tend to spin when stalled?

In that document the British pilots flying the captured 109 (what fuel were they using?) found that the 109 climb ANGLE was much superior to their Spitfires and Hurricanes and in mock combat the 109 could easily gain altitude above the Spitfires and Hurricanes because of the steeper climb angle, so the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots would wait for the 109 pilot, a British pilot, to dive down and back into the fight.

I think that that document makes it clear, or documents a FACT, that the Maneuverability Diagrams for the Spitfire and 109, also found on this Forum, are CALCULATED plots on a diagram, and they are based upon a captured 109 flown by British pilots, and those British pilots complained of aileron snatching resulting from leading edge slat deployment.

This is interesting historical information.

Did you know that a 109 leading edge slat deployment problem was understood by the German pilots when those leading edge slats were not properly maintained?

Is it a fact that poorly maintained aircraft do not perform well?

What about the fuel used in the planes captured by the British when the British documented the performance of the German planes in the vital effort to accurately determine relative performance variables that existed at those times between those specific planes tested?

Does a high performance engine run correctly on the fuel that the engine is designed and tuned to run on or can any fuel be used when the right fuel is not available?

The Germans used synthetic fuel made from coal on their aircraft and there are documents I may still be able to find where these fuels were tested for relative octane rating and other variables to quantify the relative performance of the synthetic fuels used by the Germans during World War II.

If you have better, more accurate, useful, and factual information concerning relative historical performance between any version of Spitfire and any version of 109, then you have, in my opinion, a Standard by which that information is already set, and that Standard is documented on that Energy Maneuverability Chart, where, apparently, the plots on the chart are based upon a captured German plane flying climb tests, with a plane that is possibly not maintained correctly, and possibly not using the fuel it was designed to use, and then the chart is calculated based on those climb tests at the climb angles used by the British pilots, and that is a Standard of Excellence in the effort to know which plane is historically better, and why, and exactly why, so if you can do better than that Standard of Excellence, then please do, please provide better, more precise, more relevant information that measures relative historical performance.

To me those 109 and Spitfire Maneuverability Charts are the best sources of relative combat performance available to my knowledge, so far, despite the obvious lack of confirmations concerning the specific methods used to plot that vital data on those charts.

That is history, and that is not the game.

The game is what it is, as were the planes handed to the pilots in history, they ran what they brought into the fight, and that is what we do too.

We have been challenged, more than once, to fit our uber feet into the unter shoes and more often than not the grass has TURNED out to be greener on the other side of the pond.

This time things may be different. I don't know yet.

I do know, as a matter of demonstrable fact, that the Spitfires are decidedly superior in Sustained Turn Performance when the 109 is loaded with fuel.

I also know for a fact that the 109 is modeled with a vicious tendency to spin when departing the flight envelope.

Most of my confusion concerning your welcome response in this topic concerns these last words:

The reason you would not be as succesfull in a Spitfire is simple - the game really portraits a massive (and not historical) performance gap. It is much better in recent patch, but the RAF is still no match for good 109 pilots.

You rate my performance before I even have a chance to perform anything. How is that possible?

You make a claim of massiveness without nailing down anything that can be measured as being massive or less than massive.

You make a reference to the past without nailing down anything specific concerning the past.

But I am left with what appears to be a challenge, and it is a challenge that I am prepared to meet in case the rubber actually does meet the road.

Unless my life is ended in a car accident, or some other unfortunate (for me) event, the future will include my decision to load up a Spitfire and see what can be done in one, soon enough, and therefore the relevant question here, it seems to me at least, is who and what will my opponent bring to the fight?

The fight could, possibly, be recorded on a track file, and then there is no longer any room for misunderstanding or confusion?

I can learn a whole lot when reviewing what I can or cannot do in a fight against a superior opponent when generously given the opportunity to learn these valuable lessons.

Tuesday is on our Squad schedule for a return to the CLoD Word War II Air Combat Simulator game, and I think we will be trying out the ATAG server again. High command (Wotan) has yet to issue orders.

Tonight, it seems, we fight again.

Knowing what I know now about the advantage of Sustained Turn Performance in the Spitfires, I can say to Wotan, if he orders us on close bomber Escort, that "I want Spitfires for my wing." since I could then use that advantage in turning and burning around those bombers.

I hope that those English words, that giant wall of text, can manage to remove the room for too much reading between the lines.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Robo,

Thanks for participating in this Topic. If you could please consider rephrasing your viewpoint I would appreciate the effort since my confusion concerning your viewpoint is unsolvable without your help.

Hello Josf, sorry to confuse you. I really enjoy fighter aircraft tactics debates and being a keen virtual pilot I appreciate your effort in this thread. I don't know you at all and there is no subtext in my reply and you should read is as plain it was written. My point in general is, that perhaps more time in the sim is needed for anyone to embrace the FM characteristics in detail and both sides should be flown extensively before making any conclusions. All above with all due respect to your flying skill and theoretical knowledge.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

In the memory I have so far, concerning the limited experience I have with the game, the 109 pilots I know were nearly shot down several times by 1 Spitfire fighting against 4 of us working as a team.

With more experience with this sim you will find that one Spitfire is no match for four 109s on comms.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Had we had Spitfires and the 1 enemy was flying a 109, on the deck, Hertt would probably have taken that one 109 down in the first few minutes if not sooner, and we would be crying the blues, as usual, because Hertt is so greedy that way.

Not necessarily, if the 109 decides to fly straight there is nothing you can do.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

When there were 2 Spitfires at once, against 4 of us, the incidences of us nearly being shot down increased and this can be attributed to those unorganized pilots using their advantages used by them to their advantage during those fights.

It can also be attributed to your inability to use the 109 to its full potential yet.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

They could turn and burn like no tomorrow, and we could not turn and burn nearly as well.

Pretty much as expected. Mind you that in the sim it is indeed possible to outturn a Spitfire if 109 pilot happens to be of higher skill and Spitfire pilot of rather low.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Sustained Turn Performance Advantages.

My point is that I now know, beyond any doubt, that the Spitfire in this game has a Sustained Turn Performance Advantage, at the very least, over the 109, when the 109 is nearly full of fuel.

Yes indeed.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Which plane, in the game, has a lower corner velocity?

Probably the Spitfire.

Certainly.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of acceleration in level flight from stall to the point at which acceleration is anemic?

Probably the Spitfire.

109 (very much depending on pilot's CEM skill)

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of unloaded (minimum drag) acceleration in vertical maneuvering (going down, or trading altitude for speed, which is a net loss of energy due to drag and the fact that the thrust to drag ratio on WWII planes is less that 1 to 1)?

Probably the Spitfire.

109 for sure

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Which plane, in the game, has a slower rate of unloaded (minimum drag) deceleration in vertical maneuvering (going up, or trading speed for altitude, again a net loss of energy for the same less than 1 to 1 thrust to drag ratio)?

Probably the Spitfire.

Nope, the 109 wins hands down in this discipline.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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

You are wrong indeed. You will find that the 109 is far superior in the vertical level.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

We already know that the Spitfire is Single Superior in Angles Fighting as far as any fights that are on the deck, without the capacity to trade altitude for speed.

Of course, as expected.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

You quote my words concerning the often repeated laughter shared among the people in my squad, and perhaps you do not understand my words as much as I do not understand your words.

We have a lot of fun in these World War II Air Combat Simulations. I met Hertt in the 1980s, flying Air Warrior On-Line, and so this is not new fun for us, this is well known fun for us; we share an interest in World War II Fighter Combat Simulation.

I did not comment on the laughter in your squad at all, I also make funny comments while flying with my pals.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

How about specifics concerning my lack of understanding concerning what you offer here in this thread on Energy Maneuverability?

I am answering your questions and / or your assumptions and I am also suggesting flying the 109 and the RAF fighters in the sim much more before assuming anything more complex. You could easily make wrong assumptions as you actually happened to make.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

In the first place the teamwork effort is not easy, at all, it is very difficult, and it often goes very wrong.

It is not supposed to be easy. But if you do it for long enough it's not a rocket science either.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

In the second place I do not know anything about which plane has a Superior Climb rate, at any altitude, nor do I know about any advantage in firepower, since, so far, I've seen many hits, very many hits, and almost impossible to survive numbers of hits, going into these Spitfires, and they keep fighting us despite all that damage, sometimes. These things can, I assume, be recorded on track files so as to leave no room for controversy, confusion, opinion, subjectivity, or anything other than an obvious fact demonstrated precisely and unambiguously.

109 has got better climbrate as you will soon find out. Shooting is also a skill to be mastered in this game. Give it more time. Spitfire is very though (DM issues) but you can destroy it with one good pass.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

In the third place we have been involved in many on-line Wars where the planes are being blamed for lack of success earned by our opponents as if the game hands us our well earned victories and the challenge has been, more than once, for us to trade planes, and then see who is handed the win by the game CODE, and we win again.

Fair enough, but I suppose that was not the case yet in this particular sim. Yet you make lots of assumptions e.g. about the Spitfire without actually flying it. I hope you see my point now.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

So...if I have your viewpoint understood, which may or may not be the case, then the challenge you offer is the same old challenge, let me, or anyone in my squad, or any combination of anyone in our squad, fight you, or any Spitfire user of the game (virtual pilot), or any combination of any Spitfire flying team, and switch planes, to see who is being handed the victories handed to whomever by the game CODE, as the game CODE favors one plane with Sustained Turn Performance Advantages, that being the Spitfire, and the game CODE favors the other plane with whatever the other plane has as an advantage that I am not yet aware of in FACT.

I don't know what 'game CODE' is, I only believe that your assumptions would be much different if you've tried both sides. I don't offer any challenges, perhaps you misunderstood my post. If you keep flying this sim for a bit longer, we will certainly meet at some point, hopefully on TS. I really enjoy debates like this.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

If things move along in this game as they have in other games I see us testing our relative performance advantages against the opposition eventually. I can share your conclusions concerning climb, firepower, and speed advantages at that point, in those cases, and meanwhile I can assume that you know what you reporting to me in FACT.

I do know.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Is the Spitfire maximum climb angle the same as the 109?

How much is the Spitfire maximum climb rate less than the 109 and are the fuel loads the same, and are the pilots using the maximum climb rate engine settings, control surface positions, the best climb angle for maximum climb rate, correctly to get the maximum climb rate out of the Spitfires or the 109s?

I don't know, and so I'm asking.

See above, keep flying for longer, the answers are rather obvious.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

I could respond with a sound bite, to keep the discussion down to a minimum number of symbols of text, but that is not my interest here, I am here to share what I know with anyone similarly interested, and I do so in the effort to gain some valuable information from other people who know things I do not know, not yet, or things I may never know without seeking, and then gaining help from other people.

I am similary interested.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Not actually being at a table to see you winking at me, I am confused as to what the winking means. If you care to join a form of discussion in the virtual world of Simulated Air Combat then you can show me how much better the 109 is compared to the Spitfire, we can meet in fact, on a server, plane to plane, in the game, once I fly the Spitfire a few times, or even for the first time, and that can prove something, and that sounds like a lot of fun to me. You can wink at me with superior 109 firepower, and there won't be any more confusion on my end, as to what you mean to say, exactly.

There was no winking at all. All I was saying is that the performance gap in the sim is big enough for the 109 to win any co-e encounter with RAF fighter. Even exceptional Spitfire pilot would struggle against decent flown 109. Exceptional 109 pilot has no problem at all with RAF. Exceptional 109 pilot still wins against exceptional Spitfire pilot.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

That sounds like someone assuming something about Hertt and I, and what Hertt and I could possibly do as a team when we are being challenged to fly Hurricanes or Spitfires against 109s, even when the 109 pilots may have been flying as a team for some 30 years in various on-line World War II simulations such as Air Warrior, Warbirds, IL2, and now this game, so I ask again, since I don't really know, as I may be confused when I read your welcome contribution to this Topic: are you assuming something about Hertt and I and if so what exactly are you assuming?

Yes, I am very much assuming, that despite your overal skill and experience from other sims, you would get your bottom kicked in the above situation, assuming that the 109 pilots are above average.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

What type of fight do you think will be the type of fight that will educate Hertt and I concerning the inferiority CODED into the Spitfire or Hurricanes as the Spitfire and Hurricane is going to be flown by Hertt and I against a 109 Rotte, or wing pair, in this game?

Just join ATAG on red side and fight against some good and organised blue pilots. You will find soon enough who they are.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

If it is a fight started with a cold merge at the same altitude and same speed then what do you think Hertt and I are going to do, tactically, when we are handed planes that have been CODED with a remarkable Sustained Turn advantage over the 109, which is the case with the Spitfire?

Knowing the qualities of a 109 in the game, you will be boomed and zoomed until you get hit eventually and they you will limp home or die.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Will we concentrate on a 2 on 1 tactic first, or will we lose the initiative immediately and will we find ourselves each in a 1 on 1 battle after the first 90 degree turn?

Just try it.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Will we find advantage in vertical maneuvering or will we have to concentrate on horizontal angles fighting tactics?

You will be in a massive disadvantage in vertical fight soon. And that is what 109s will do. Fairly right so.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

Have you flown the 109 in this game?

I have flown all fighter aircraft in this sim extensively (100s of hours). Otherwise I would not dare to comment on the topic. I actually wonder how do you manage to do that after one night on ATAG.

We can discuss the 109 characteristics later if you wish - that I find very interesting.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

You rate my performance before I even have a chance to perform anything. How is that possible?

I am rating the possible (and obvious) outcome based on my experience with this sim. I also took your inexperience with this sim in account.

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

You make a claim of massiveness without nailing down anything that can be measured as being massive or less than massive.

I am sorry I did not provide any exact figures, I tried to reply in general. The performance gap is being discussed in too many topics on this forums, I suggest you read klems testing for the start.

[JG14_Josf]

Not necessarily, if the 109 decides to fly straight there is nothing you can do.

Robo,

I did not get very far into your welcome reply before I saw a need to be more clear rather than being less clear. The engagement to which the above quote is referencing is obviously not known by you or you would not have responded in that way, since your response has nothing to do with the words I wrote in reference to the engagement I experienced.

Why you may be concentrating on a specific level flight speed advantage is your axe to grind, for whatever reason you may want to do so, and as to how that axe grinding relates to this topic on Energy Maneuverability, and the specific engagement, or my specific comments, are your exclusive understanding at this point. I have no clue as to how your comment fits into this general discussion or my specific comments.

Had we had Spitfires, not 109s, in the specific engagement in reference, the 109 would have been shot down much sooner, probably by Hertt, and the point is that in such an engagement, 4 on 1, the Spitfire's advantages are significant advantages, as it can turn and burn remarkably better, and the remarks are specific, and the betterness is not specific to top speed, or hit and run tactics, had a different engagement been specified such as us flying along and having a single attacker attack once, one hit, and then leave the scene in a level straight line run.

Furthermore, assuming that the single attack by the single 109 upon our group of 4 thereby defensive fighters defending against the single attack by the single fighter, had we seen the attack, rather than being bounced, and having Spitfires, rather than 109s, we can more handily avoid the single attack, by the single 109, and then the single 109 is gone forever, or the single 109 turns, burns, and returns, with more or less energy burnt and that is actually the subject topic, being the topic of Energy Maneuverability.

How much energy is lost, relatively speaking, when plane A does the same thing that plane B does, and therefore which plane can stay and fight, or Angles Fighting (to borrow from Shaw), and which plane can't - i.e. Double Inferior.

Going back:

With more experience with this sim you will find that one Spitfire is no match for four 109s on comms.

So...we are inexperienced and we are shown to be of such poorness for our being almost shot down with 4 of us against 1 Spitfire. Do I understand what you are telling me?

Going back further:

My point in general is, that perhaps more time in the sim is needed for anyone to embrace the FM characteristics in detail and both sides should be flown extensively before making any conclusions. All above with all due respect to your flying skill and theoretical knowledge.

I have enough experience to conclude, without any room for any doubt (other than a possible improvement with light fuel loads), that the Spitfire in the game is Superior in Sustained Turn Performance which can be plotted out on an Energy Maneuverability Stall line at Ps=0, whereby the Spitfire will handily out maneuver a 109 on that Ps=0, level, or horizontal, sustained, turn.

If you can please either confirm or contend with that conclusion and please consider avoiding such an acknowledgement any further as my ability to read between the lines continues as your words appear to be changing the focus of attention from those facts to my level of experience instead. I do not appreciate that if that is your attention, and you can help me here by acknowledging the conclusion or contending with it if you think that the conclusion is in error.

Thanks in advance.

Backing up to the start (before I felt the need to interrupt the flow of information that is welcome from you):

Hello Josf, sorry to confuse you. I really enjoy fighter aircraft tactics debates and being a keen virtual pilot I appreciate your effort in this thread. I don't know you at all and there is no subtext in my reply and you should read is as plain it was written.

I can confuse myself well enough, so I don't need any help, so thanks. I am working at avoiding the reading between the lines, and to that end it would help greatly if you were to acknowledge the conclusion offered which is the obvious and accurately measurable conclusion that the Spitfire is at least Single Superior with the superior Sustained Turn Performance advantage that is coded into the game.

Moving back to the flow of information after the quote that broke my concentration, and now I will respond to each offering as I read each, as I no longer see any reason to read the whole thing first - before responding.

It can also be attributed to your inability to use the 109 to its full potential yet.

The point here, if my efforts are not understood, is to understand all the variables, well enough, and then conclude the facts as they are knowable, such as:

The Spitfire is at least Single Superior with a decidedly superior Sustained Turn Performance Advantage.

That is the one obvious fact I can confidently conclude so far, and the other variables, such as my present lack of skill is understood too, so I don't need any help in that department, that fact of my lack of skill is as plain as the nose on my face, but thanks, and you really don't need to remind me of that fact, like my nose, it is there all the time, a big nose.

Pretty much as expected. Mind you that in the sim it is indeed possible to outturn a Spitfire if 109 pilot happens to be of higher skill and Spitfire pilot of rather low.

I think I can take the "pretty much as expected" comment to be a confirmation in the conclusion made concerning the Single (at least) Superior Performance of the Spitfire over the 109 in Sustained Turn Performance, which is not yet conclusive of, or to be assumed to be, a lower (therefor better) Corner Speed performance advantage coded into the Spitfire over the 109? Can I take that as an acknowledgment or is that reading too much in between lines?

A Corner Speed advantage held by either plane is a significant advantage and I do not know which plane, not yet, has that advantage.

As to how poorly a Spitfire virtual pilot has to be in order to be out turned by a 109 or how good the 109 pilot has to be, well that is good news, because that is another thing found in the document reproduced on this Forum where the British were engaging in mock combat with a captured 109, where the actual British Spitfire Combat Pilots were failing to get close enough to the edge of their flight envelopes, where their Spitfires were subject to nasty spins, according to the document, and the 109 pilot, who was British, turned inside the British pilots turns, and he could do so without any tendency, according to the report, for the 109 to spin, even when departing the flight envelope.

I don't know if you read that document. It is very interesting.

Yes indeed.

I will now take that as a confirmation on the question of which plane is coded with the superior Sustained Turn Performance, that being the Spitfire.

Certainly.

There is where I have to trust your judgment, at this point, because I have found that the 109 is very tight in turning at corner speed, so I have yet to see if the Spitfire is even better, which would be remarkable indeed.

Note: Which plane loses altitude faster (dumps energy) during that turn at Corner Speed if the turn is such as described in Navair as a Windup Turn (extended beyond the finding of the data plot)? <----an Energy Maneuverability question and decidedly ON TOPIC.

109 (very much depending on pilot's CEM skill)

CEM, if I am not mistaken, means Engine Management, but there is more to it, and that is what I am here to find out, and it is very encouraging to find someone willing to discuss this stuff in any detail.

That is the subject of Level Flight Acceleration and that is a vital part in finding out which plane has a Specific Excess Power advantage and that is the stuff of the Double Superior area, the Vertical Maneuvering as opposed to the Horizontal Maneuvering, or the Energy Fighting as opposed to the Angles Fighting area since a loaded (wings are loaded to maintain level flight) acceleration advantage is understood to be an unloaded (minimum drag such as a dive) acceleration advantage and therefore an unloaded zoom climb (minimum drag again) deceleration advantage, which means that the 109 should then be very good at performing a Sustained Turn Technique against an eager Spitfire pilot, even if the Spitfire has a lower corner speed (advantage in corner speed).

Level Flight Acceleration tests are well described on the Naviar site, and I can cut and paste if needed. There are methods used to plot out that data and then use that data to build Energy Maneuverability information, such as Specific Excess Power information.

Level flight acceleration is the stuff of Total Thrust minus Total Drag as described by John Boyd and is formula which goes something like this:

Ps = V(T/W-D/W)

Level Flight Acceleration Performance Advantage is a Specific Excess Power advantage which means a higher total POWER to accelerate after Total Drag is subtracted during the flight conditions where acceleration is knowable.

If the plane is accelerating then Total Thrust is more than Total Drag - of course. How much more? Which plane has more Specific Excess Power? How much more Specific Excess Power does the 109 have over the Spitfire in Level Flight as one plane will accelerate faster than the other at which speeds from stall to Top Speed in Level Flight?

It stands to reason that the faster Top Speed indicates a faster rate of acceleration along the way from stall to Top Speed.

This information, this conclusion that the 109 is faster in acceleration in level flight, is the information that determines the Energy Fighting Performance Advantages, or Single Superiority of the 109, if the information is accurate, and I see no reason to doubt it, then the score card is:

Sustained Turn Performance/Angles Fighting/Horizontal Maneuvering/Single Superior Advantage goes to: Spitfire

Level Acceleration/unloaded dive acceleration/unloaded zoom climb deceleration/Energy Fighting/Vertical Maneuvering/Single Superior Advantage goes to: 109

Spitfire is by those conclusions not Double Superior.

109 is by those conclusions not Double Superior.

You are wrong indeed. You will find that the 109 is far superior in the vertical level.

That has to do with my estimates of probability, which are estimates, so the wrongness or rightness of my estimates are understood to be unknown variables.

It is encouraging to here of these conditions of Single Superiority, not that I have any argument about which plane should or should not be double superior historically, but because I know how the IL2 game started with a very simplistic Flight Model and this news is encouraging because the CLoD Flight Model may actually be an improvement in the ability to model Single Superiority of one plane, one plane being an Angles Fighter, and another plane modeled as an Energy Fighter, rather than the way the IL2 game was limited, where one plane was either/or Double Inferior or Double Superior originally, and then someone started messing with the program to attempt to fudge the Flight Model in such a way as to model Single Superiority, but I think that they ended up changing the threshold of black out on one plane relative to another plane and that is how the game developed, as far as I know so far.

Changing the individual pilots g force tolerance from 5 g to 6 g, for example, does not change the plots on the Accelerated Stall line Coded into the game, in other words the plane is the same plane, but the change in the individual pilots g force tolerance does move the pilots capacity to move up and right on that accelerated stall line, and up means (if you look at that Accelerated Stall Line on an Energy Maneuverability Chart) a higher turn rate, more degrees per second, but not necessarily a better turn radius, moving to the right is higher speed before blacking out - interesting stuff.

Note how the Korean War EM chart does not duplicate (as in calculated) the same shape of the Accelerated Stall Line, so it is possible, but remains to be documented, or otherwise concluded, that this new game CLoD, is of such a highly refined Flight Model, that individual Accelerated Stall Lines, of a character that is individual to the individual plane, and not a size and shape that "fits all", may be the case.

Imagine that!

Individual characteristics for each plane such that one plane may be Single Superior to another plane rather than every plane being either/or Double Inferior or Double Superior, and is that even possible on a Personal Computer, without having to adjust individual pilot g load tolerances?

I don't know, but this latest news in encouraging.

I did not comment on the laughter in your squad at all, I also make funny comments while flying with my pals.

Great! I have chores to do right now and I plan on returning to this discussion when time permits, no time for editing.

[Robo.]

Josf,

I believe I already managed to answer most of your questions. I am absolutely sure that simply by flying this sim (or playing this game, depending on your point of view) for a bit longer you would figure out yourself. Yes the Spitfire is better at TnB, yes the 109 is faster and climbs better. Yes I believe you guys are inexperienced in this particular sim if you had a single Spitfire giving you 4 as plenty grief as you describe. No, you should not turn against the Spitfires but yes you can outturn many not-so-good Spitfire pilots and all Hurricane pilots. Yes I am familiar with that report and yes I agree with what you said about it. Yes the actual mfp @ rpm settings are crucial for 109s optimal performance (as coded in the game) so if you tell me what yours settings were in a climb or TnB attempts versus Spitfires, I could comment. Otherwise, I have nothing else to add, I wish you good luck exploring this awesome sim and hopefully see you soon in the virtual skies.