Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday Update, April 13, 2012

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Friday Update, April 13, 2012 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31097)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409223)

Let's put this one to bed shall we.

The Spitfire roll rate was improved dramatically with metal ailerons. The 109 could only out roll the Spitfire at low speeds, at high speeds it locked up. At present in the game the controls for the 109 don't seem to lock up anywhere near as much as they should. Hopefully this will get fixed.

I don't know if this graph represents fabric or metal ailerons
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif

"The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda. In this case, the graph from the actual British 1940 report was cropped, hiding the fact that the (early) Spitfire (with fabric ailerons) required far higher stick forces to roll at high speed than the 109E.

The full graph - which was cropped for obvious reasons on Mike Williams's wwiiaircraftperformance 'website' - can be seen below:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...s/image040.jpg

The full British trial report can be read here:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

The Germans had also tested the Spitfire and Hurricane against their fighters. In agreement with the British testing team, they concluded that the Spitfire was inferior in roll to the 109E. They also found that the Spitfire had longitudal stability issues:

"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming."

Can be read at full here: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

Given our experience of the often doctored and manipulated reports on Mike William's website, I would advise caution and not to take them at face value.

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.

*Mods, ban me now, but with God as my witness, I speak the truth. He is a LIAR. A disruptive, sick in the head lunatic. Plain and simple. Proper nutter. :confused:*

Whatever, Kurf. No, you're getting the time of day. You are a Liar. You should be *bleepin* ashamed of yourself. That is all.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin77 (Post 409165)

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Martin,

excellent post, thanks for quoting your sources directly (what text are the other 2 quotes from plz ?)

what you implied with those statements however goes directly against what the conclusions are/were from the allied comparison of those 2 aircraft performance (spitfire of BoB era vs 109), and the large amount of 1e person reports from both allied and german pilots of that era who had flown these 2 planes in combat.

if what you say was true, the german pilots would have been instructed by their superiors before flight in BoB "dont worry about ze spitfire, you are faster, can climb and turn better, and if he tries to out-turn you just put out ze slats and you always have him for sure !" , which obviously is not the case. instead i will quote you back some Galland, whom i am sure you must have high regards for and with his experience is able to give an OVERVIEW of facts regarding the 109-spitfire relationship at the time of BoB.

Quote:

Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable"

and when he was being tasked with protecting bomber formations (rather then go on free hunts where the 109's could build an advantage prior to starting an engagement).....

Quote:

in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to Göring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".

that isnt conclusive factual proof of anything, but since you are using anecdotal information from very experienced pilots, i am countering you with direct words from one of the most experienced and highest regarded german pilots of the BoB era, the master himself :)

the key point of those allied comparisons is that if both pilots are of equal high skill and experience level, and both can push their planes to the limit (including the german pilot w his slats out to improve low speed handling), then the spitfire should come out slightly better in turn rate

obviously an experienced 109 pilot who is confident at these near stall speeds with his slats out will be superior to an average spitfire pilot who doesnt similarly push his aircraft, but that is not the point. what we need is direct factual information of the aircraft with both pilots being equal, and then have this implemented in CoD (and documented by a program like il2 compare). once each main aircraft has its own strength/weaknesses correctly represented, we can start to recreate historical engagements online (where pilot skill and experience then becomes the dominating factor determining outcome)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)

Great post, but there seems to be something wrong as I don't see the original documents/scans that were attached to your post.

I know you wouldn't make an ass of yourself, calling someone else many horrible things, without having a point other than to slander someone.

Guys ... there propaganda in both sides, don't fall by it.

We should navigate through it and find the true, only with that we can make the most amazing Simulator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian *fanatic* Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest *perpetual repeat offender* whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including*deliberate falsification of information to suit his needs*, harassment, and also been banned repeatedly from various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated misinformation campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist nonsense He is a complete and utter Menace to those seaking a logical rational debate on any ww2 aviation related matter.

mods please note: just edited the possible infraction causing wording out of his post :)

RCAF_FB_Orville, i was about to say something similar when i saw his name pop up :) ........

dear casual forum readers,
- if you are new to these forums, you have just encountered kurfurst, who has the dubious title of lufwhiner-nr1 in these circles, and it is a title he cherishes (yet doesnt comprehend) . he has been repeatedly found out to deliberately use misleading and false information on numerous occasions, and his aggressive intolerant and malicious conduct towards many other forum users has over the years resulted in him being banned repeatedly from most of the main aviation forums that deal with ww2.
- given the amount of information he has accumulated over the years to drive his obsession, he will occasionally come out with something factual and correct, but only ever consider that possibility after carefull examination of all the facts with the highest degree of suspicion and caution, and even then on most occasions you will find out later you have been misled and tricked into accepting something that doesnt turn out to be true in the end. so reader be aware, and approach with great caution at your own risk ! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 409381)

mods please note: just edited the possible infraction causing wording out of his post :)

RCAF_FB_Orville, i was about to say something similar when i saw his name pop up :) ........

dear casual forum readers,
- if you are new to these forums, you have just encountered kurfurst, who has the dubious title of lufwhiner-nr1 in these circles, and it is a title he cherishes (yet doesnt comprehend) . he has been repeatedly found out to deliberately use misleading and false information on numerous occasions, and his aggressive intolerant and malicious conduct towards many other forum users has over the years resulted in him being banned repeatedly from most of the main aviation forums that deal with ww2.
- given the amount of information he has accumulated over the years to drive his obsession, he will occasionally come out with something factual and correct, but only ever consider that possibility after carefull examination of all the facts with the highest degree of suspicion and caution, and even then on most occasions you will find out later you have been misled and tricked into accepting something that doesnt turn out to be true in the end.so reader be aware, and approach with great caution at your own risk ! :)

Right on Zapista good call-
As for Mr K. --Just another Internet egoist who possibly has only 'virtual friends' for which to communicate with--- pity!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 409333)

It appears there's a lot you don't know Grathos, you missed something in the graph but you've assumed to the benefit of the 109. What a surprise.......

The difference between you and I is that I am interested in the facts of the matter whereas you are interested in items that benefit the 109, ergo, you online. Please please please go away from here and spend your days on Kurfursts site which I am sure will have you most aroused.

"ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα"
Socrates (as quoted by Plato)

It take your wording as very insulting Osprey.
I respect that you are allowed to have your point of view but turning to personal offense when there is nothing better to do is not the way.
Still it may be your way, everyone has a choice.

And my choice is the ignore button.

~S~

Why does every thread on this forum turn into an OT bickering fest? Very unappealing.

MAC

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 409375)

+1

He genuinely is. It's funny how he undermines the graph I posted showing roll rate, but posts and IDENTICAL graph showing roll rate plus some other stuff that nobody was talking about.

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.