Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[ATAG_Snapper]

What I'd like to see is actual field tests of the aircraft in question (Spits, Hurries, 109's, 110's -- for starters). I've done a little bit for the Spit Ia and IIa at altitudes where presently most of the fighting takes place: sea level, 5,000 feet, and 10,000 feet. I discovered some anomalies with the IIa's flight model: it's different (worse) online than offline when you start climbing to 5,000 feet and above to 10,000 feet. At sea level the online vs offline FM for the IIa seem the same. OTOH, the Ia compares closer to each other offline vs online at various altitudes, which kind of rules out some kind of "atmospheric" differences between the online vs offline environments. Don't know why.

This testing can be a little tedious and given the state of flux these beta patches are in right now, it could be a lot of work for nought at this point.....so not recommended. I don't have any real stick time on the 109's nor 110's, so I don't believe I'm capable of doing a credible job of extracting the maximum performance from these aircraft.

I'd be the first to say my data is up for challenge. Others have done some quick informal tests of their own which seem to correlate very closely, but all are welcome to check and report in their own right.

Online if I am co-alt/co-e with a 109 at 5,000 feet or above, I will turn tail or try to lure him down lower. At sea level "the fight's on" AKAIC. My greatest challenge is keeping the 109 in sight -- the sun's glare is murder. Lose sight = lose fight. Re-acquiring tally on a streaking 109 is vital for survival, and I will not fly a straight course for more than a few seconds at a time until I can. At full overboost maximum speed is achieved at 2800 - 3000 rpms, but care must be taken to periodically (and frequently) ease up on boost & rpms during a dogfight/chase/evasion or you will damage your engine -- especially at 5,000 feet & above, even at full Auto Rich Mixture and 100% open rad (I keep mine at 50% - but not sure rads are fully modelled; 0% open will overheat your engine quickly though).

Accurate deflection shooting is key in using the Spitfire's superior turning rate to offensive advantage. Learn your convergence(s) and trajectory to use to deadly advantage when the faster 109 is flashing by you (as they seem to do). A few hits on their elevator is all it takes.

Personally, I believe ALL flight models are off -- LW and RAF both. I'm no test pilot, I'm no aeronautical engineer (clearly). But I can hop into a Spit or Hurri and fly to a set of parameters (climb, dive, level, turn, etc at various alts & speeds) to see for myself what each can and can't do. Hence my discovery of offline vs online discrepancy of flight modelling for the Spitfire IIa. The devs can say all the want about what flight charts they're using, but I'm only convinced by what actually IS.

As the coding is refined for added performance and stability, I'm hoping the devs can then focus more on accurate FM's universally. We as a community can then increasingly be called upon to conduct our own hands-on field tests and report hard data that the devs can, I trust, put to good use in massaging the FM's further.

NOTE: Anyone actually measure the air speed indicator for accuracy? I did! It is. (IMHO). Methodology: Used google maps to get geographical distance between the tip of "The English Point" (Dungeness) and the tip of "The French Point" (Point Gris Nez). Flew over Dungeness at treetop level and trimmed to a set speed for level flight, then headed towards France. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the tip going feet wet, then held steady speed and course at wavetop level. Hit the stopwatch as I flashed over the surf at the tip of Point Gris Nez. The elapsed time agreed within seconds of what simple arithmetic said it should've been. Good enough for me for sea level measurements, at least.

[Icebear]

Originally Posted by csThor

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

Wir fuerchten die Hoelle nicht und geben nicht Ruh........

[von Brühl]

Originally Posted by ReconNZ

The 109's are the only planes that didnt get spanked in the new patch, what the hell is that all about???

They also did not get the speed increase they were stated to receive.

[Seadog]

Spit I and Me 109 performance:

[theOden]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Spit I and Me 109 performance:
..

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

[JG5_emil]

Originally Posted by theOden

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

Indeed ha ha!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by theOden

It's a graph from internet so it must be the truth.

The source for each line is given and all of them are available in the internet. So it shouldn't be a problem for you to check the values and report any anomalies.

[Flanker35M]

S!

But I see the problem right there. Now people look at that graph and see thick blue line faster than Bf109E. But forget to check a "minor" thing..it is with 12lbs boost not the lower continuous power. And on that the Spitfire is slower than Bf109E. And it seems, according to that graph, that Spitfire and Bf109E were quite evenly matched regarding speed on power settings below WEP or overboost. But again can not stress enough that should not take the 12lbs curve as the absolute speed of Spitfire as it could not run that setting indefinitely but for a limited time like Bf109E it's WEP.

[von Brühl]

If those are taken from spitfireperformance.org, weren't those papers proven to be photoshopped a while ago?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by von Brühl

If those are taken from spitfireperformance.org, weren't those papers proven to be photoshopped a while ago?

If it was proven, you certainly can present the proof for this claim.