Energy Maneuverability

[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.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Compared to flying 46, you don't have much worry in a 109 in this sim. I've been mainly flying blue as of late, and the only time the spitfire gave me the real adrenaline rush and fear was when we had the super fast IIa. I enjoyed that quite a bit.

As Robo has said (which I agree with as a 109 driver) there isn't a red plane I'm worried about while flying. I can fly like a complete idiot and quite honestly not worry about being shot. Play it a bit more and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

[JG14_Josf]

Play it a bit more and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Anyone,

Is that an ambiguous references to fears or worries concerning what can or cannot happen when using this game? No one but 109 pilots are having fun with this Word War II Combat Flight Simulator? Spitfires are targets and 109s are invincible, so long as the average idiot knows enough not to fly a Spitfire and knows enough to fly a 109?

What is the point?

I don't get it.

Why not concentrate on this Topic while in this Topic or start a thread titled something appropriate to the general concept of 109s being super planes and Spitfires are mere targets?

If that is the point then why is that point finding its way into this topic?

The point of this Topic is to discuss Energy Maneuverability that is specific to the Cliffs of Dover Program.

So far I have concluded on my own and have managed to confirm from another user of the software the fact that the Spitfire is at least Single Superior in Angles Fighting as measurable with Sustained Turn Performance and that part of the flight envelope can be plotted on a standard EM Chart where Turn Rate is measured on the vertical axis and Air Speed is measured on the horizontal axis, and that Sustained Stall Line is a condition of flight where Specific Excess Power is ZERO.

I cannot confirm the degree at which the Spitfire Corner Speed outperforms the 109 corner speed nor can I confirm that the Spitfire Corner Speed is slower and therefore better than the 109s, but contributions to this thread confirm that fact.

I cannot confirm the fact that blackout occurs at a specific g load for a 109 pilot.

I cannot confirm the fact that blackout occurs at a specific g load for a Spitfire pilot.

I cannot confirm the fact that the g load limit for the Spitfire pilot is, or is not, the same as the g load limit for the 109 pilot.

Those are things relevant to this topic.

I can see that tactics and maneuvers can be relevant to this topic.

My hope is to report specific engagements of future uses of the software, the game, the simulator of World War II Air Combat, where those missions we fly may be applicable to Energy Maneuverability, which won't be Hit and Run tactics where our flight is always higher and faster than the opposition so there will be cases where the opposition is higher and faster attacking our fighter planes and that is not a worry for us: it is the name of the game when missions include missions other than Free Hunting missions where the object is to maintain superior position (camping, cherry picking, whatever) and employ superior position and then escape before superior position is lost i.e. Hit and Run Tactics.

Case in point:

Mission for today, Tuesday, on the ATAG server, involving 4 109 Fighters from IV.JG53 on Free Hunt Patrol as ordered by the Staffel Leader Wotan.

I had much trouble in applying the Hot Fix with WinZip, failing to get the game started, having to uncheck some property in the zipped file according to WinZip, eventually joining the action, and we ran an official scored mission.

The server included, at the time I joined, 9 Red, and 8 Blue people. The server is set to generate A.I. which is a big help with low numbers, giving us something to do, as our flight vectored to intercept inbound enemy bombers.

Hertt and Saipain Shot down 2 each. I shot down 1. Wotan had connection difficulties and decided not to risk an attack.

Those bombers are fast and we ended up in an ill advised pure pursuit after an initial head-on attack. I had planned on an under and up attack, but the fast bombers are fast so we had trouble maintaining pursuit, let alone angled attacks or repeat head-on attacks.

The defensive gunners appeared to be ineffective, which was unusual compared to earlier flights against bombers on or off line.

I unloaded my entire cannon supply and much of my machine gun ammo, first into the center, then into the right engine, then the left engine as the bomber dove slightly, and then when the bomber left engine caught fire it banked left and spiraled down vertically into the ground.

Had there been a Spitfire Escort hovering in advance of the bombers, higher, then that Escort Flight could have capitalized on our narrow attention span, diving in with surplus energy, or smash, and the hunters could have become the hunted, despite any feeling we may have had concerning our invincibility.

At that time the Spitfires could have employed their Angles Fighting Advantages, their possibly better Corner Speed (lower airspeed at maximum g) and we could have been bounced, shot down because we did not see the attack in time, or we could have seen them in time and we could have tried to defend against attacks by higher and faster fighter planes, and then we could have been unable to shoot down 5 confirmed enemy bombers during our second official mission with the new software.

As Robo has said (which I agree with as a 109 driver) there isn't a red plane I'm worried about while flying.

Worry? This is not the Topic titled Things to Worry About.

This Topic is the Energy Maneuverability Topic.

Do you know the Spitfire Corner Speed or the 109 Corner Speed?

If you do then please consider contributing to this topic.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Josf - Did you happen to read what I said? You're asking questions over the simplest of statements. I've flown this sim for over 2000 hours. One can imagine that my experience, along with individuals like Robo, have led me to that very simple observation that I posted before your last remark.

That's why both I and Robo suggest you fly the sim a bit more and why we both suggested you'll come to the same conclusion. Again, I'm not worried about the why, the technicalities, the specs of why x is better than y. I just simply have the experience.

Edit: And the reason people, (including 109 pilots) are chiming in on this thread is because you are trying to say the spitfire is the obvious winner in almost all aspects of flight (in comparison of the 2). Which may be the case from your limited experience and observations thus far with Cliffs. But the reality is the 109 holds all the cards. Perhaps if you make your observations / tests after 1000 hours of online combat, you would see the same thing. Basically what I was saying in the 1st place.

Hopefully you'll understand what I'm saying this time. I don't know how I could make it any more simple.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by SG1_Lud

That was an extreme an unnecesarily aggressive post to someone new in this forum, who is saying, FYI, interesting things - may yo agree with that things or not - and sharing a flow of info. Post like yours are the reason that most experts won't want to enter debates like the OP is trying to, in certain places.

Actually Josf is quit familiar to many on this board as he posted similar posts over at the Zoo for many years.

[JG14_Josf]

Anyone,

The Topic title is Energy Maneuverability.

If no one has an interest in accurately measuring Energy Maneuverability then please consider leaving this Topic alone as if this Topic were Underwater Basket Weaving, since you have no interest in this topic.

Please.

There is no point I can see in continuing the ambiguous, subjective, opinionated, and baseless arguments concerning which plane makes which players happy or fearful.

The Spitfire is, in fact, until proven in some way otherwise, Single Superior in that it is coded in the game with a superior Sustained Turn Performance Flight Envelope against any fighter modeled in the game, including the 109.

The Spitfire, so modeled, is therefore ideally suited for angles tactics which include a wide variety of applications not limited to turn fighting on the deck where diving is no longer an option.

Supposing that there are, perhaps, readers who read these threads and they are not necessarily going to write in these Topics, for any reason, not limited to the reasons that may include avoiding "getting their hands dirty" as so often is the case when personal attacks are allowed and/or encouraged, but supposing that there are any readers on this forum who have an interest in Energy Maneuverability I will soldier on in the effort to discuss that topic, despite the diversions and despite the personal attacks.

Restating the original question:

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?

Before targeting that question with narrow focus of precise interest it was my decision to divert attention to a similar precise measure of Combat Aircraft Performance known as Sustained Turn Performance, the idea behind the diversion was to ensure that one interesting performance characteristic was not confused with the other interesting performance characteristic.

Sustained Turn Performance is interesting as it relates to the capacity to win Air Combat whereby one pilot is turning to shoot another pilot and one pilot can turn a tighter turn radius, higher g, faster turn rate, and do so at a slower air speed where energy loss is not a consideration or when Specific Excess Power is ZERO.

That advantage is decidedly coded into this sim as a Spitfire advantage over any other plane - as far as I know so far.

Confusing Sustained Turn Performance with Corner Speed can be done by someone who has experience in simulating Fighter Combat, and so my effort is to avoid such confusion.

Is the Spitfire coded in this game with both a Sustained Turn Advantage and a Corner Speed Advantage over the 109?

How about some perspective?

If the answer is yes, then how would the game be judged if the answer was no, whereby the 109 was coded with a Corner Speed Advantage?

Who would know?

Who has any inclination to precisely measure which plane has a Corner Speed Advantage?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

Perhaps that person read some of the personal attacks that fill these pages and he or she decided that the answer cannot be found here on this forum.

I don't know, but I may be more persistent.

109 = @350 km/h (fully loaded combat weight) Corner Speed

How about a relative understanding of the importance of Corner Speed in Fighter Combat for those who share an interest in such things, and decidedly NOT for those who prefer to spend their time attacking each other personally?

Suppose, for example, I am flying my routine pre-mission flights over the Channel, and the unexpected dot appears in my forward view, and it turns out to be a head-on merge at 6k meters with a worthy opponent flying an enemy fighter plane.

If I know that the 109 has a Corner Speed advantage can I use that knowledge to my advantage?

Yes, no, maybe?

If the Spitfire pilot is patrolling at 6k meters then the Spitfire pilot is probably not a gamer who has found a new toy, spawning in and running to the nearest fight, dying, repeating, as if quake was once worth playing but it became outdated and now this CLoD thing will do for a quick fix.

If the Spitfire pilot has a handle on Energy Maneuverability, and Fighter Combat in general, up at 6k meters, merging with me in my 109, will the bloke also have a keen awareness of which plane is coded with the lower Corner Speed, and how could I tell if there are any tell tale clues concerning such an understanding?

Assuming that the merge was not an early recognition made by the Spitfire pilot as to the fact that a 109 was passing, and assuming that both pilots pass on the same straight and level parallel direction opposite each other, without a Lead Turn, and without a Head-On exchange of firepower, what can be expected to be the next move by the opponent when it is a 109 against a Spitfire?

If one pilot is shot down then a mistake has to be made at some point.

What if both pilots pull up into a straight vertical zoom climb?

Are they going to test how well they can turn from level to vertical?

Are they going to test to see which plane decelerates slower in an unloaded zoom climb?

Are they going to test to see who met who at a higher speed at the merge?

Is the Spitfire pilot going to dive and run away for mortal fear of a 109 nearby?

I don't know yet. I know what I do, and the first thing I do after such a merge is a slight level turn to gauge how fast the opponent will reverse, and this is part of what is turned in Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique.

If I turn and I am not yet at corner speed then I nose low to turn at corner speed.

How far from turning around, as I turn around, has the opponent progressed as the opponent turns around?

Did the opponent climb?

If the opponent is very quickly on my tail and shooting, then I made a mistake, obviously.

Is that even possible?

If the Spitfire was higher before I saw it, and I had been climbing and turning around at the altitude where I saw the Spitfire, then it could appear as if we two were at equal energy states when we both passed each other and when I turn around I have to drop the nose to get faster so as to gain enough speed to maximize my turn rate at Corner Speed while the higher Energy State Spitfire may be turning just above Corner Speed initially and during his turn, at 90 degrees for example, that Spitfire is at Corner Speed and his turn is remarkably tight in turn radius, his attack is then his nose aimed at my wingtip as the Spitfire approaches 90 degrees off my left, and I'm not yet at Corner Speed. The Spitfire may be at Corner Speed having to dive after the turn to then be in a position to Saddle up at equal speed, and at a much better position.

If I see that Spitfire gaining too fast I nose low and extend. If the Spitfire was much faster at the merge then the Spitfire may not have burned all the extra energy the Spitfire had over me at that time when I try to run from the fight. In other words my mistake was to fly over the channel slow and ONLY at 6k meters when a Spitfire pilot is cherry picking at higher altitudes and faster speeds.

What if, and this has happened repeatedly in my experience, in other Combat Simulators, both pilots zoom after the merge, to see which plane has the advantage in energy over the other, which is the case in Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique since the object of that Energy Maneuver, or tactic, is to encourage the opponent to bleed off too much Energy in the turn after the merge, while YOU minimize your energy loss, and so the idea is to encourage that zoom after a second merge, and if the maneuver works then the opponent has burned off too much energy and the opponent will stall first.

I've had those kinds of fights and it is a blast. Those kinds of fights almost never happen on Dog Fight Servers where quake players are spawning into the game for a quick fix, rushing to the nearest fight, anchoring the fight at that spot, fighting until dying, and counting the number of kills before death as a measure of success.

Those kinds of quake fights may be the rule, but there are exceptions, and energy fights do happen on Dog Fight Servers and the opposition knows what their plane can do relative to the other since those type of players are looking for the same type of fights, I call them energy fights, you can understand what I am trying to communicate or you can fail. You can have an interest or you can find what interests you elsewhere.

Those types of players, looking for energy fights, fly around high, they cherry pick, they hit and run, they camp at known spawn points, and if they choose a Spitfire that is what they bring to the fight, and if they prefer to choose the plane with the higher top speed, because they will run from a fight, then that is what they choose.

If they choose a plane with a slower Top Speed then more care is needed, but not much more care, when cherry picking, and choosing, where to fight, when to fight, and how to fight.

The Quake players, meanwhile, may have this to say, or that to say, about this or that, and who cares?

There are Topics for such things.

This is not that Topic.

Top Speed is one performance variable.

This is not the Top Speed performance topic.

Sustained Turn Performance is very important otherwise there would be no interest in knowing which plane can Sustain a tighter turn radius when energy loss is not a consideration (Ps = 0).

Corner Speed is a very important performance advantage even if the quake players have no clue about it.

Unloaded acceleration/deceleration is a very important performance variable even if the quake players have no clue about it.

These performance variables are on Topic.

1.
Sustained Turn Performance = Advantage Spitfire
2.
Corner Speed = Advantage Spitfire (not confirmed by me)
3.
Unloaded acceleration/deceleration (dive and zoom vertical fighting)

109 = 350 km/h Corner Speed
Spitfire = ? Corner Speed

The Sustained Turn Performance advantage held by the Spitfire is significant, in the order of a 25% advantage if the 109 turns 360 degrees in 25 seconds and the Spitfire turns 360 degrees in 18.5 seconds.

How much better is the Spitfire Corner Speed?

If the 109 has an unloaded (dive and zoom) Acceleration/Deceleration advantage, then how much is that advantage?

How can those advantages be measured?

Those advantages can't be measured by someone who only cherry picks on the quake players unless I have missed something.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

Compared to flying 46, you don't have much worry in a 109 in this sim. I've been mainly flying blue as of late, and the only time the spitfire gave me the real adrenaline rush and fear was when we had the super fast IIa. I enjoyed that quite a bit.

As Robo has said (which I agree with as a 109 driver) there isn't a red plane I'm worried about while flying. I can fly like a complete idiot and quite honestly not worry about being shot. Play it a bit more and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

This was haughty and a disservice? Wow

[CaptainDoggles]

Agree to disagree, then. That's how it came off to me.