Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn. So if a Cessna Corvalis and a Boeing 747 are going 200 knots and banks 60 degrees, they will both make the same rate and radius of turn.

Yes this is true. For a graph of a hypothetical situation, but if it was actual dogfight, the Cessna would outturn the 747. I understand what you're saying though.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

So that diagram shows the Spitfire cannot realize a sustained turn performance advantage until it reaches the portion of the envelope the Bf-109 cannot fly in anyway.

Diagram shows something that did not exist in real life and luckily it does not exist in the sim either. Spitfire can realize the turn performance advantage at almost any moment unless the speed difference is largely in favour of the 109 - at which point the 109 pilot won't try to enter a pure turning competition (and that's what we're talking here about) anyway.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Then the Bf-109 must reduce its angle of bank in order to match speed and the Spitfire can sustain a higher angle of bank in that portion of the envelope.

First pilot to reduce the angle of bank is very likely to lose the (turn)fight. If the 109 pilot gains speed and climbs we haven't got pure turnfight anymore and we can't speak of sustained turn either. Of course, in real virtual dogfights this is exactly what happens and both pilots usually fly yo-yos and the turn is egg-shaped rather than a circle etc. There is much more to it in actual combat. Sustained horizontal turn rate is still very important when it comes to TnB and this is where Spitfire beats the 109. (still depending on the pilots of course).

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If a Spitfire enters a turn fight with a Bf-109, the Bf-109 can force the Spitfire into this low speed realm. The Bf-109 will simply outturn or match any Spitfire that tries to remain at the same speed or maintain velocity.

I suggest you start flying these combat flight sims, while you're hangin around on the forums you might as well want to actually try what you're typing in here. It won't work I am telling you now

Originally Posted by Crumpp

So both pilots have to make a choice. The Spitfire pilot can choose to hold onto his airspeed and be shot down. The Bf-109 pilot can choose to follow the Spitfire into the low speed realm and be shot down.

This is as wrong as it can get mate

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Bf-109 pilot can precisely attain and hold a target load factor to achive maximum performance.

Any pilot can do that. Of course pilot skill plays a huge role in here, too. There are more tricks in how to outturn your opponent and win the edge. This is where the human factor comes in. But speaking strictly of the machines and the sustained turn potential, Spitfire would be the winner at typical TnB speeds. That's why any sane 109 pilot avoids TnB with a Spitfire.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Spitfire requires a skilled pilot to precisely achieve and maintain a target load factor in order to achieve maximum performance.

Actually it's the other way around. Average Spitfire pilot will outturn any average 109 pilot hands down when it comes to sustained turn. It requires exceptional 109 pilot (esp. engine management and stall control, very clean rudder) to outturn a decent Spitfire pilot in a proper turnfight.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Understand?

I understand that you have no experience with virtual dogfight. Your theoretical knoweledge is useful but you would die in combat if you tried to apply it.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Yes this is true. For a graph of a hypothetical situation, but if it was actual dogfight, the Cessna would outturn the 747. I understand what you're saying though.

In actual dogfight, physics does not change.

Diagram shows something that did not exist in real life and luckily it does not exist in the sim either. Spitfire can realize the turn performance advantage at almost any moment unless the speed difference is largely in favour of the 109 - at which point the 109 pilot won't try to enter a pure turning competition (and that's what we're talking here about) anyway.

See Above, the math is the math.

First pilot to reduce the angle of bank is very likely to lose the (turn)fight. If the 109 pilot gains speed and climbs we haven't got pure turnfight anymore and we can't speak of sustained turn either. Of course, in real virtual dogfights this is exactly what happens and both pilots usually fly yo-yos and the turn is egg-shaped rather than a circle etc. There is much more to it in actual combat. Sustained horizontal turn rate is still very important when it comes to TnB and this is where Spitfire beats the 109. (still depending on the pilots of course).

Right, and the Spitfire is outturned at higher velocity because it cannot sustain as high a turn rate at higher speeds.

I suggest you start flying these combat flight sims, while you're hangin around on the forums you might as well want to actually try what you're typing in here. It won't work I am telling you now

This is as wrong as it can get mate

Not an issue and has not effect with what happens in reality. It is hard to overcome the physics of the Bf-109 being lighter with the same power. This is an advantage where performance is thrust limited.


Any pilot can do that. Of course pilot skill plays a huge role in here, too. There are more tricks in how to outturn your opponent and win the edge. This is where the human factor comes in. But speaking strictly of the machines and the sustained turn potential, Spitfire would be the winner at typical TnB speeds. That's why any sane 109 pilot avoids TnB with a Spitfire.

Sure, it depends on the speed though.

Actually it's the other way around. Average Spitfire pilot will outturn any average 109 pilot hands down when it comes to sustained turn. It requires exceptional 109 pilot (esp. engine management and stall control, very clean rudder) to outturn a decent Spitfire pilot in a proper turnfight.

Maybe if they fix the stability and control it will be more realistic. Of course that will not change the speeds performance occurs....

I understand that you have no experience with virtual dogfight. Your theoretical knoweledge is useful but you would die in combat if you tried to apply it.

I admit I have limited knowledge about virtual airplanes. My expertise lies with the real ones.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I admit I have limited knowledge about airplanes. My expertise is lies.

fixed that for ya.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I admit I have limited knowledge about virtual airplanes. My expertise lies with the real ones.

Do you dogfight in the real ones? Do you dogfight at least in the virtual ones? Apparently not - that's all I am saying. I appreciate your theoretical knowledge of a/c engineering but you're simply wrong here. Not with the physics, there is nothing to argue about - but everything else you're saying makes no sense from the fighter pilot's point of view.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

In actual dogfight, physics does not change.

Of course not but what you're saying has nothing to do with the ability of the aircraft to turn in a combat situation. You got it right with the best performance velocities - and that's all the turnfight is. The fact that the 109 at say 400km/h can turn better than a Spitfire at say 250km/h is irrelevant. Useful in combat, but not for turnfight. It's called 'turn and burn' where the opponents get the best use of turn rate advantage. In this particular case, Spitfire has got the advantage.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Not an issue and has not effect with what happens in reality. It is hard to overcome the physics of the Bf-109 being lighter with the same power. This is an advantage where performance is thrust limited.

Lighter with the same power = better climbrate but not necessarily better turnrate in typical combat situations. The Spitfire though could still outturn the 109

If you could perhaps describe how exactly would you outturn a Spitfire Mk.I in a Bf 109E, I am very interested. Everything you are saying is true but you would be dead in a turnfight because you're wrong about what is important in actual combat.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by MusseMus

Coincidence?

There is some debate on this issue.. But one thing that I am sure of (99%) is the guage values are.. well.. not great! I have seen that they lag other values (see below), I think to simulate guage reaction times.. Also they have some strange offsets associated with them.. For example, the ROC reads around 65+ fpm while sitting still on the runway! So for those reason and more I have been leaning towards using the 3D world relative values (Z) over the cockpit guage aka indicated (I) values. They are not without issues either.. I say issue but it just maybe something we are not told about them yet, maybe the soon to be released read me will clear some of that up? Anyway the Z values seem to be the way to go for now IMHO.

[MusseMus]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

There is some debate on this issue.. But one thing that I am sure of (99%) is the guage values are.. well.. not great! I have seen that they lag other values (see below), I think to simulate guage reaction times.. Also they have some strange offsets associated with them.. For example, the ROC reads around 65+ fpm while sitting still on the runway! So for those reason and more I have been leaning towards using the 3D world relative values (Z) over the cockpit guage aka indicated (I) values. They are not without issues either.. I say issue but it just maybe something we are not told about them yet, maybe the soon to be released read me will clear some of that up? Anyway the Z values seem to be the way to go for now IMHO.

Yes it seems the Z value is the only reliable "gaguge" för speed. My point was that it seems like there is quite a big difference between the speed gauge in the spit and 109. Countless posts on this forum complain about the spit is going too slow in level flight and most of them draw this conclution from the speed gauge alone. I'm not saying they are wrong, but reading the speed gauge gives the impression that a 109 is travelling much faster than a spit, even if they are flying side by side.

[IvanK]

Don't forget the inherent display bug on all RAF ASI's .... that is the needle drops rapidly in response to G. You can drive the RAF ASI any way you want with minor applications of G. So any time you are pulling G the RAF ASI bug will result in a grossly low IAS that bears no resemblance to your real IAS. The German ASI's are not "afflicted" by this bug.

The current bug renders the RAF ASI totally useless as a manoeuvre/energy cue. its only useful in 1G flight.

[winny]

Here's a quote from the Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtis and 109E trial carried out by the Germans at E-Stelle Rechlin.

"Before tuning fights with the ME109E, it must be noted that in every case, that all 3 foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times"


Just thought I'd throw that in..

[klem]

Originally Posted by MusseMus

Yes it seems the Z value is the only reliable "gaguge" för speed. My point was that it seems like there is quite a big difference between the speed gauge in the spit and 109. Countless posts on this forum complain about the spit is going too slow in level flight and most of them draw this conclution from the speed gauge alone. I'm not saying they are wrong, but reading the speed gauge gives the impression that a 109 is travelling much faster than a spit, even if they are flying side by side.

You may like to know that (deep breath):

Z values for IAS, TAS are given in 'world co-ordinates' units, e.g. 130.5 means 130.5 world co-ordinate units. I did some tests of distances on the CoD map versus Google Earth and to cut a long story short 'world co-ordinates' are effectively in meters, e.g. if you subtract one from another (using pythagoras unless you travelled perfectly east or west) the distance is in metres.

In one set of Spitfire tests I did I registered 249.83mph (402.06kph) on the IAS gauge at 10,000 feet (thats a scripted-out value that is fed to the gauge graphic, the needle can't be read that accurately and the tooltip rounds to whole numbers). Using rough conversion 2% per 000 feet that's 299.79mph TAS or 482.47kph TAS. More accurately using Density altitude that calculates as 290.72mph TAS or 467.87kph TAS.

The Z values were 132.09 IAS and 134.92 TAS. Assuming these to be metres per second (nothing else fits) that's 475.52kph Z_IAS, 485.71kph Z_TAS.

More confusion because I understood the rough conversion to TAS is 2% per thousand feet which should put the Z_TAS at 475.52 * 1.2 = 570.62kph not 485.71. OR... Z_TAS should put Z_IAS at 485.71 / 1.2 = 404.76. If we trust Z_TAS the IAS begins to look right and Z_IAS wrong. If we trust Z_IAS the IAS gauge and Z_TAS are wrong. Conclusion? Who knows but Z_TAS and IAS gauge have more going for it, after all the IAS value has to come from somewhere.

so at 10,000ft
IAS mph....IAS kph.....Z_IAS kph......IAS kph (from Z_TAS) ...Z_TAS(kph).....TAS@D.A.(kph from IAS)
249.83......402.06........475.52.........404.76......................485.71.....................4 67.86 (remember TS@D.A. will be different because its calculated for a standard day)

Now you could argue that according to the Z_IAS value the Spitfire is travelling 18% faster than the IAS gauge says. Alternatively..... Z_TAS converted to IAS says the IAS gauge is near enough correct. If that's right then the small difference between IAS gauge and IAS from Z_TAS could be caused by atmosphere factors (standard day to CoD day).

We have to be sure we're testing these aircraft properly. With respect, "I tested it at 10,000 feet and it isn't as fast as it should be" is very subjective because:
1. It was being tested using the IAS gauge which now falls under suspicion (for ALL aircraft). Or does it?
2. It "isn't the same top speed as the historical" data because it isn't being tested at or converted to a 'standard day' which is how historical data is published. How many of you know that the default SL pressure for CoD on line is 995mb, not 1013.25 as on a standard day? And that doesn't take account of CoD's SL temperature which is never the standard day 15C.
3. We don't really know if/which IAS, Z_data or whatever is truly accurate but I'm more inclined to trust the Z data and particularly Z_TAS.

I have never tested the 109 but I will after the patch although it would be nice to have some other guys help.

[Crumpp]

Diagram shows something that did not exist in real life and luckily it does not exist in the sim either. Spitfire can realize the turn performance advantage at almost any moment unless the speed difference is largely in favour of the 109 - at which point the 109 pilot won't try to enter a pure turning competition (and that's what we're talking here about) anyway.

The diagram is accurate and uses industry norms for determining aircraft performance. Its does not fit any aerodynamic science that the Spitfire shoudl realize a turn performance advantage under all conditions.