|
|
#81
05-02-2012, 06:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Bobika. 
|
|
#82
05-02-2012, 07:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Case in point is the war in the Pacific, where two philosophies regarding air war clashed. The japanese, with a focus on individual skill in very aerobatic planes vs. the US, standing for team tactics and planes more greared for speed. The outcome was pretty clear. The problem with maneuvering is that it costs energy. That is something no fighter pilot wants to give up just so, especially in a sky swarming with enemy fighters. Now we all know you often find yourself in a situation where you have no chance but to give up energy to get a mission done, and in those cases good maneuverability has its merits. But in general something already went terrible wrong when you have to employ tight turns in airwar, and good aerobatics won't offset the advantage of a faster plane to engage and disengage at will. It will maintain the initiative, while the aerobatic plane cannot act, just react. That, btw, is one major and very obvious reason why both the Spitfire and the 109 in their later marks went for more speed, not more maneuverability.
__________________
Cheers
|
|
#83
05-02-2012, 07:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Interesting, you got the point but didn't see it all the same. We call that "failing to see the woods for all the trees".
|
|
#84
05-02-2012, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There was nothing fancy about it, but it had the all things you need in war. Easy production, easy maintaince, simple flying. Plus a package of guns and speed to catch up with the target. Really, nothing more is needed imho. A fighter is just a gun platform. The Yugoslav air force who already had experience of the Hurricane which in 1938 was a high performance machine, plus some German pilots, didn't find it simple. The rest of his statement I basically agree with
|
|
#85
05-02-2012, 07:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The point is that many people on here quote off their experience and lecture about tactics to others as if that person knows nothing at all and that they have never been shot down themselves. And this is it, THEY HAVE been shot down, therefore they would have been in the wrong position at that time regardless of their experience. This is the randomness of war, you can't always pick that advantage. When in the position of equality or disadvantage the Spitfire is ahead of the 109 - this is a great strength. For either type they are both deadly when they have surprise. "Ceteris Paribus"
|
|
#86
05-02-2012, 08:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I agree completely with what you say about fighter development and speed vs. maneuvrability doctrine, good post btw, there is no problem with that. It's just I am staying at BoB topic and I am concerned about the reality depicted in the sim, not the actual WWII.
__________________
Bobika.
|
|
#87
05-02-2012, 09:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here the 109 actually has the edge even in a 1:1, if, and that is a big IF, the pilot knows what he is doing. A better weight to hp ratio and less drag in the 109 does not hurt that plane, either. Fact is, the 109, despite it's advantages, is rather easy to fly, but it takes a lot of time and expirience to master it. But here we all are pros after years of flight simming. So I do not really wonder about your expiriences.
__________________
Cheers Last edited by Bewolf; 05-02-2012 at 09:12 AM.
|
|
#88
05-02-2012, 09:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
When the 109 is cornered into a slow turning fight and its leading edge devices are deployed it has lots of induced drag from the slats, the spitfire does much better in that enviroment.
__________________
 Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
|
|
#89
05-02-2012, 09:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
However, the above pilot accounts describes the early manual propellor pitch system of the 109E, and this was superseded already in late 1939 by a fully automatic (CSP) system, which governed propellor pitch with a single lever system, and made tinkering with engine controls unnecessary. I am sure a number of early aircraft still had manual propellor pitch early in the Battle, especially those which converted to 109E early and still had early production machines, but the situation was hardly worse than in Fighter Command, where fighters for some time had to struggle with inefficient 2-pitch propellors. German pilots were instructed to make full advantage of this disadvantage of RAF pilots: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html The Spitfire and partly the Hurricane have two-pitch propellers. Climbing away with the Bf 109 and Bf 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or even higher speeds of about 280 – 300 km/h. On aircraft with two-pitch propellers with low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, and on the other hand with high blade angle high boost pressure – therefore in other words, performance loss. The trend of system automatization was carried over to the 109F-K, which had additional automatic system (oil and coolant radiators). Much like the Fw 190, engine controls were automatic and relived the pilot of additional workload, in contrast of British aircraft, where RPM, boost needed the pilots attention, as well as setting the mixture to the correct position. The British described and acknowledged the advantages offered by a fully automated system as follows: 10. The Me.109F, altough very similiar in appearance to the Me.109E is much superior in all-round performance. The fact that the airscrew is fully automatic, and the oil and coolant temperatures thermostatically controlled, helps to make the aircraft a simple fighting machine, as the only things then occupying the pilot's attention in combat are his throttle, flying controls and guns. It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well. British 109G evaluation: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ts.html#sumres 7. The cockpit is simple. A number of technical controls such as regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant radiator and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch control have been made automatic and need no attention from the pilot. The pilot is then able to give more attention to fighting tactics, teamwork, navigation and practical flying. 8. The shortcomings of the aeroplane are, the weakness of the ailerons at high diving speeds, the weakness of the undercarriage, the stiffness of the tail trimming gear at high speeds, and skittishness during landing and take off. Recommendations. 9. The small size of the 109G remains a prime reason for its good performance. It is recommended that British aeroplanes should be designed to be small, but that skittishness on the ground should be prevented by having a nosewheel undercart. 10. British cockpits should be freed of auxiliary technical controls which need the attention of the pilot, and the regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch should be controlled by reliable automatics. Quote:
The following is an excerpt from a Yugoslavian pilot, who probably had a fairly good insight, as they Yugo airforce operated a wild mix of airplanes - P-47s, Hurris, Spits, 109Gs, Yak 3 etc. »The main shortage of Jak 3 was its obsolete technique. Its cockpit was spartan, everything had to do be done manually. Particular problem was when you had to get air compressor into its second gear when rapidly changing altitude. In such situations engine is not receiving the right mixture of air and fuel and is loosing power, so you had to be very concentrated in doing it all synchronized and in exact moment. The same applies for the oil cooler which was adjusted with an mechanical wheel, during the dive the cooler had to be closed and during the climb opened as the engine needed more air. All of it was automatio on the Messerschmitt. In Jak 3, throttle handle and the propeler pitch handle were beside each other and you had to move them simultaneously, so all the time you pulled the throttle you had to think about the pitch. So imagine when you are in a midst of a combat, chasing and being chased, turning the wheels, setting the handles, adjusting the pitch, setting the gunsight and at the same time manouvring and trying to hit your enemy. Messerschmitt had it all automatic. Messerschmitt had leading edge slots to prevent it from stalling and Jak stalled even on highest speed. In sharp turns Messerschmitt provoked a black-out and that was not possible with the Jak since he would stall. On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces which would become »shaded«. Therefore it was neccessary to give a hard contra with the food pedals, full gas or sometimes to lower the gear. Messerschmitt had the electrical loading of weapons, and Jak mechanical, I remember how it clicked. In all, Jak 3 had marvelous flying performance and excellent manouvrebility, it was invented for peacetime flying and aerobatics, but you had to have »a hand« for it. On other hand Messerschmitt was much more simple to fly, especially in air combat, of course once you learned to cope its small rudder on take-off and landing.« As for the stalling qualities, the 109 had very good ones. See Karl Baur: Word came from the Luftwaffe out of Antwerp early in the spring of 1943 that many pilots had experienced spin problems with the Me109 G and had to bail out. Numerous airplanes had been lost. Karl Baur's first reaction: "This is almost a foolproof airplane. How do these guys accomplish that?" The Me 109 had a relatively high wing loading (32.2 lb/sq ft) and therefore stalled readily under heavy G forces but the stall was gentle and the aircraft exhibited good control under G forces. If the stick was eased forward the aircraft immediately unstalled with no tendency to flick over on its back and spin. While not totally spin proof it took a fairly ham fisted pilot to get into trouble in the Me 109. It took Karl several nerve wracking flights before he was able to get a Me 109 into a spin. Finally, after he had tried every possible dog fight maneuver, he had it figured out. It was during those split seconds before going into a vertical dive that it was possible to get this airplane to spin. Only rough flying inexperienced pilots were able to do it. Karl's solution to the problem was very simple. He advised: "Drop the landing gear boys, and the spin will end immediately." The dropped landing gear would appear to lower the airspeed and reduce the severity of the yaw (the movement around the normal axis of the aircraft, i.e. direction stability). Once the aircraft is not spinning (yawning) around its center of gravity the aircraft being in a nose down attitude accelerates and becomes unstalled. The US opinion on 109G-6: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/..._US_EB102.html f. Stalls and Stall Warning. Automatic Handly-Page type slots are provided on the outboard leading edges of the wing. They extend at about 240 KPH indicated. The airplane`s stall characteristics are good with little tendency to fall off on either wing. No specific stall checks were made but it is believed the stall with wheels down and full flaps is about 150 KPH indicated. The British also agreed (RAE report of 1940, quoted above): When doing tight turns with the Me.109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2½ and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about ½ g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch ; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling. Please note however that the 'suddenly flick over on to its back and spin' is how the Spitfire stalled, altough its stall speed was lower, once the stall occured, it was very violent. and also of interest: When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely [b]because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning. The good stalling characteristics of the Bf 109E did not escape the French either, who have tested the very same plane, Bf 109 E-3 WNr 1304. it against the D.520 and found: B - Maneuvrability in combat The D.520, in close combat evolutions (maneuvres) seems to stall more than the Messerschmidt 109, holding on the air by his wing-slats. The stall of the D520 is very brutal and start always to the left; it is indeed serious in the combat to the right, the Dewoitine 520 pilot making almost a full roll; as result, the combat should ALWAYS be started to the left, at least if the choice of the turn direction is possible. It would seem to me that the more benign stalling characteristics of the 109 as opposed to the Spitfire (or Yak 3, D.520) consisted a definite advantage in turning combat, as it gave 109 pilots had the confidence to fly near the stall and get the maximum out of the aircraft. Quote:
The RAE actually wrote: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html 4.5. High-Speed Dive. – The aircraft was dived at 370 m.p.h. and all three controls were in turn given a slight displacement and then released. No vibration, flutter or " snaking " developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a moderately large push is necessary to hold the aircraft in the dive, and there is a temptation to wind the trimmer forward. If this is done, recovery is very difficult unless the trimmer is first wound back again, owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator at high speeds. At 370 m.p.h. a considerable amount of pressure is needed on the left rudder bar to hold the aircraft straight, and if the rudder is displaced in either direction and released, the aircraft eventually banks and turns to the right. Small rudder displacements, sufficient to yaw the nose about 10 deg., give rise to no appreciable nose-down pitching moment. Large rudder displace-ments do cause the nose to pitch down, but as the rudder is very heavy at 370 m.p.h. they would not normally be used. The Bf 109 manual says, that before dive, the trim is to be left in neutral position, so during recovery, they simply need to release the stick into neutral position, and trimming position will assist the recovery from dive, which is then easy and fairly tight turns are possible. See AFDU tactical trials of Bf 109F-2 - this time they operated to aircraft correctly, with the controls trimmed for level flight. http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...S906_AFDU.html 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that altough the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible. In short, your quote tells us nothing that if the aircraft is operated against the prescribed manner - ie. trimming it into the dive instead against regulations. An analogue case is the Spitfire trimmed for level flight before entering the dive, against regulations. It had to be operated the opposite way, as the Spitfire manual tells the pilot to trim into the dive, otherwise blacking out or breaking the wings in dive due to pulling excessive 'g' with the over-sensitive elevator control is the likely outcome.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org 
|
|
#90
05-02-2012, 09:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 My point was that at this moment, the Hurricane is almost as fast as 109 and 109 is able to outturn a Hurricane. What I am saying is that the game does not reflect the known real life characteristics all that well. (we'll see how it will be after the patch). I understand what you're saying though and I agree - give me a fast plane that climbs and rolls well and I am a happy fighter pilot
__________________
Bobika.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
