Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[Glider]

Just an obvious statement. There is no doubt that the RAF lost more fighters than the Luftwaffe, but to then extend this to say that the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs. fighter engagement on average is an unproven opinion.

The Luftwaffe fighter’s primary target were of course the RAF fighters. The RAF primary targets were the Luftwaffe Bombers who shot down a good number of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that attacked them.

What the split is I do not know and it’s probable that more RAF fighters were shot down by German fighters than vice versa but even there the tactical situation was different. It would be very misleading to look at the losses and assume that fighter/fighter combats resulted in the loss ratio shown on the charts.

Straight fighter/fighter combats where the numbers were broadly even were rare, if only because the RAF avoided such combats, as the bombers were the priority.

There was an interview shown on the TV a few months ago where an RAF BOB pilot was asked if the German bombers were defenceless. He pointed out that he had been shot down by a He111 and had to crash land after being hit by a Ju88 so he thought that they could take care of themselves. Either that or he was a poor fighter pilot but as he had survived the war, he was probably at least average.

[Crumpp]

Luftwaffe won the fighter vs. fighter engagement on average

It is hardly unproven opinion but is a fact. Statistically the Luftwaffe won the fighter vs fighter battles.

You even agree!!!

it’s probable that more RAF fighters were shot down by German fighters

BTW..same arguments were posted on the Ubizoo board by the "blue" side about the Luftwaffe fighter losses in 1944 from the daylight bombing campaign.

I believe you participated!

The Luftwaffe fighter’s primary target were of course the RAF fighters. The RAF primary targets were the Luftwaffe Bombers who shot down a good number of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that attacked them.

This whole community outlooks of "red vs blue" is totally whacked and makes any kind of intelligent discussion of history or aircraft performance impossible.

Nobody gives a rats ass about anything other than what is going to make their favorite better to stroke their own online ace fantasy.

I knew somebody would illustrate the point.

[Crumpp]

I mean right now the spit turns better than anything

It will never reflect reality as long as the stability and control characteristics of these two airplanes is not modeled.

Anybody who can run the math will tell you that especially if you simplify things by using symetrical airfoil formulation with a cambered wing.

It is a fact that many Bf-109 pilots believed they had a turn advantage over the Spitfire.

Why? The Bf-109 had better stability and control where needed for turn performance. It was equipped with ant-spin devices in the form of LE slats so a pilot could reef the aircraft around with confidence. In practical terms, those LE slats alone contribute to a pilot being able to extract more performance. It's stability and control characteristics made it a better gun platform that a pilot could extract maximum performance. Who cares if it stalls, it is not going anywhere and recovers easily.

The Spitfire pilot had very low stick force gardient, very little stick travel to work with, and a extremely harsh stall/spin which could kill him in the right circumstances. It was a twitchy gun platform with a dicey stall.

Which airplane would you want to be at tree top level trying to get maximum performance? A plane that is going to dip a wing a few degrees and keep flying or the one that is going to invert and spin?

[Crumpp]

What I mean by pilots being able to extract more performance?

Well, pilot skill is the largest contributor to airplane performance. Each pilot will get slightly different results based on the enviromental factors and their skill level.

Here is the range of stall speeds pilots achieved on the F6F Hellcat during the JFC.

Until the Stability and control characteristics are modeled, the Spitfire will be a frankenplane.

[Crumpp]

what I'm getting at is, unless we fix them all at once

I couldn't agree more. It is no fun for anybody if one side is over modeled. The reality is these aircraft were equal dogfighters and the result was based on pilot skill.

It is hardly a "simulation" much less a "good game" if that is not reflected.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a fact that many Bf-109 pilots believed they had a turn advantage over the Spitfire.

Why? The Bf-109 had better stability and control where needed for turn performance. It was equipped with ant-spin devices in the form of LE slats so a pilot could reef the aircraft around with confidence. In practical terms, those LE slats alone contribute to a pilot being able to extract more performance. It's stability and control characteristics made it a better gun platform that a pilot could extract maximum performance. Who cares if it stalls, it is not going anywhere and recovers easily.

The Spitfire pilot had very low stick force gardient, very little stick travel to work with, and a extremely harsh stall/spin which could kill him in the right circumstances. It was a twitchy gun platform with a dicey stall.

Which airplane would you want to be at tree top level trying to get maximum performance? A plane that is going to dip a wing a few degrees and keep flying or the one that is going to invert and spin?

I think both planes had very noticable pre-stall symptoms. 109 had slats which help at slow speed turning and high angle of attack and gave plenty of warining to the pilot other hand Spitfire had lower wing loading and wash out at the wing tips which casue also plenty of warning to the pilots and airleon control with stall. I have no doubt that Spitfire turns better then 109 but probalby its need little more carefully with elevator ( much more sensibility) then 109 to flying at the egde. I understand then much more experience pilot in 109 could turn with novice in Spitfire who dont feel the plane deeply.


Here is nice opinion Spitfire MK1 pilots from BOB time:

" If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."


And from Spitfire pilot notes:

"General Flying: “This aeroplane is stable. With metal covered ailerons the lateral control is much lighter that with the earlier fabric covered ailerons and pilots accustomed to the latter must be careful not to overstress the wings. Similar care is necessary in the use of the elevators, which are light and sensitive.

For normal cruising flight the radiator shutter should be in the minimum drag position.” ( interesting about radiator position and engine temperature)

Stalling: “At the stall one wing will usually drop with the flaps either up or down and the machine may spin if the control column is held back.

This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.
”

[CWMV]

I do think its quite funny that spit pilots notes and official docs are regarded so highly, but an official doc that shows the 109 maxed out at 500 kph on the deck is debated and discarded.
Oh well, carry on.

[Crumpp]

And from Spitfire pilot notes:

It has been debated ad nauseum.

It is a fact the RAE had no stability and control measured standards outside of opinion and feelings. I have all the reports that Gates submitted during the war trying to get the RAE on a measurable standard. Every one of them reports the early mark Spitfires as unacceptable by a measureable standard.

The NACA had measured standards which the Spitfire did not meet. The stability and control characteristics are documented, measured, and reproducable for a game.

There is also no question the stability and control characteristics are just as important as the standard subsonic aerodynamic formulation for determing the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft.

The Pilots notes ALSO say:





Opinion was strong enough to include multiple warnings describing longitudinal instability and what would become in the post war, unacceptable stability and control characteristics.

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

I think both planes had very noticable pre-stall symptoms. 109 had slats which help at slow speed turning and high angle of attack and gave plenty of warining to the pilot other hand Spitfire had lower wing loading and wash out at the wing tips which casue also plenty of warning to the pilots and airleon control with stall. I have no doubt that Spitfire turns better then 109 but probalby its need little more carefully with elevator ( much more sensibility) then 109 to flying at the egde. I understand then much more experience pilot in 109 could turn with novice in Spitfire who dont feel the plane deeply.


Here is nice opinion Spitfire MK1 pilots from BOB time:

" If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."


And from Spitfire pilot notes:

"General Flying: “This aeroplane is stable. With metal covered ailerons the lateral control is much lighter that with the earlier fabric covered ailerons and pilots accustomed to the latter must be careful not to overstress the wings. Similar care is necessary in the use of the elevators, which are light and sensitive.

For normal cruising flight the radiator shutter should be in the minimum drag position.” ( interesting about radiator position and engine temperature)

Stalling: “At the stall one wing will usually drop with the flaps either up or down and the machine may spin if the control column is held back.

This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.
”

This is what I think the most closest to my own thinking on this subject. The spit can turn tighter (significantly lower wing loading) but it takes at least a seasoned pilot to do so.

Due to the leading edge slats the 109 flown to the edge could turn with a spit pilot who does not fully go to the edge himself as turn performances are close albeit in favour to the spit.

I am not familiar enough with CloD in order to tell if and how well this is implemented.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

This is what I think the most closest to my own thinking on this subject. The spit can turn tighter (significantly lower wing loading) but it takes at least a seasoned pilot to do so.

Due to the leading edge slats the 109 flown to the edge could turn with a spit pilot who does not fully go to the edge himself as turn performances are close albeit in favour to the spit.

I am not familiar enough with CloD in order to tell if and how well this is implemented.

Storm don't forget that wing loading does not say anything abt CL.

Wing loading is a tool to compare similar wings design. It's not valuable when in particular the thickness of the wing differs.

For example comparing Hellcat, FW190, Bf109 or Corsair wing loading is relevant as all those plane have near 15% thickness.

For example try to compare the D520 wing loading (with full mil eq.) with that of the Bf109E and you'll find that the 109 turn as better what we know is actually not true (the D520 had an 18% thickness ratio)

Sadly a lot here put this argument frwd just because it looks like tecky (especially on IL2 arguing that the 51 was a poor turner)

Edit : Hve a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading