Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Oh, I don't think anybody has trouble acknowledging the superior aerobatic qualities of the Spitfire for making loops and other aerobatics pleasing to the eye, and as such its a superior aerobatics plane but all of that is completely useless feature for air combat, which is the very reason why the 109 is generally superior as a fighter.

I remember the interview of an italian veteran about the planes he had flown.
Talking about the italian planes he said that they were well looking, with good aerobatic characteristics (italian pilots were famous for their flying skill)... he was smiling as he thought those things where useless in a war...

When he talked about the 109 he changed his expression: "that was a real war machine..." he said.

In the same interview another italian veteran who flew the 109 said that the Mustang was their dangerous enemy, since he could outturn them very easily (!!! )

[Osprey]

I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.

I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.

@Von Bruhl
Couldn't find your stats but mine are

37 missions, 16 kills, (0.43), shot down or hit and forced RTB twice.

So, who are you online?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.

I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.

I don't think I've missed the point: I understand that Spitfires had some advantages, mainly energy retention... if we take for example the Goring's order to close escort the bombers, in that case the Spitfire would be the better plane since it can defend itself better staying in the same airspace (defending the bombers). Instead the 109s can only dive away.

But here we are talking of close escort (that 109s clearly can't do... neither any US fighter) that's the only environment in where I can think a more manouvrable plane has a real advantage.

And Spitfire keeps that advantage if you switch the 109 with the 262, a flying brick with no aerobatic skill at all.

The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.

Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...hs/#stickforce

[Ernst]

If we would go on quotes for proving anything i would like to present:

"109s kill ratio."
- According to Edward Sims' "The Fighter Pilots", the Luftwaffe claimed about 70000 victories, for the loss of 8500 pilots KIA, 2700 POW and 9100 wounded in action, for a total of ca. 20000 losses. Not knowing the real numbers, we could speculate there were another 20000 pilots who bailed out OK, that we arrive at a 70000:40000 kill ratio for the Luftwaffe, or 1.75:1. That's not bad at all considering the catastrophic finale.
- From April 1941 to November 1942, the Luftwaffe scored 1294 confirmed victories for about 200 Me 109 lost in combat. During this period, the Luftwaffe almost exclusively used the Me 109F. They identified their victims as 709 Tomahawks, 304 Hurricanes and 119 Spitfires, plus others/unidentified.

In time, before some answer que post with more quotes i would like to explain my point. I do not believe we ll arrive in the truth based in this kind of quotes. I am sure that there a plenty margin for disagreement when we go on quotes of both sides.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Ernst

"109s kill ratio."

And the link to Battle of Britain and 'Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics' is?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.

I believe Osprey's point was that the aerobatic ability of my aircraft becomes extremely important when I encounter enemy whose speed, climb and rollrate is superior to mine.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Robo.

I believe Osprey's point was that the aerobatic ability of my aircraft becomes extremely important when I encounter enemy whose speed, climb and rollrate is superior to mine.

In a defensive way, yes, but there also only to a certain point.

Case in point is the war in the Pacific, where two philosophies regarding air war clashed. The japanese, with a focus on individual skill in very aerobatic planes vs. the US, standing for team tactics and planes more greared for speed.

The outcome was pretty clear.

The problem with maneuvering is that it costs energy. That is something no fighter pilot wants to give up just so, especially in a sky swarming with enemy fighters.
Now we all know you often find yourself in a situation where you have no chance but to give up energy to get a mission done, and in those cases good maneuverability has its merits.
But in general something already went terrible wrong when you have to employ tight turns in airwar, and good aerobatics won't offset the advantage of a faster plane to engage and disengage at will. It will maintain the initiative, while the aerobatic plane cannot act, just react.

That, btw, is one major and very obvious reason why both the Spitfire and the 109 in their later marks went for more speed, not more maneuverability.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

In a defensive way, yes, but there also only to a certain point. (..)

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.

I agree completely with what you say about fighter development and speed vs. maneuvrability doctrine, good post btw, there is no problem with that. It's just I am staying at BoB topic and I am concerned about the reality depicted in the sim, not the actual WWII.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.

I agree completely with what you say about fighter development and speed vs. maneuvrability doctrine, good post btw, there is no problem with that. It's just I am staying at BoB topic and I am concerned about the reality depicted in the sim, not the actual WWII.

I am not so sure if that really is the case. Many people confuse tight turning ability with maneuverability in general. The first case, I agree, the Spit (and Hurri) have the advantage. But in a close in dogfight that does not just involve flying circles around each other, but all kind of maneuvers using all 3 axis of space, things like acceleration, roll rate, climb rate and mass inertia also play a huge, if not even bigger role.
Here the 109 actually has the edge even in a 1:1, if, and that is a big IF, the pilot knows what he is doing. A better weight to hp ratio and less drag in the 109 does not hurt that plane, either.

Fact is, the 109, despite it's advantages, is rather easy to fly, but it takes a lot of time and expirience to master it. But here we all are pros after years of flight simming. So I do not really wonder about your expiriences.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Absolutely. But the exactly the defensive way was very important for the RAF. Due to 109 characteristics, the LW fighters do have initiative in the sim. I really had to practice evasive actions and get better at the defensive tactics in order to be succesful RAF pilot in the sim (= survive and meet mission goal + do some damage if possible). Yes, I can cruise at 18k at ATAG and pick my fights, but usually, there are ground targets to defend and you simply don't have the option of having an energy advantage all the times, just like the real pilots. Hence my point with aerobatic characteristics being useful sometimes, it's in fact the only characteristics where RAF fighters excel but the game does not seem to reflect this.

The RAF itself had a very disillusioning view of the usefulness of aerobatics in air combat. The following is from the Spitfire II Pilots manual.

In view of this, personally, I find it rather ironic all these Mike on his site for example goes into great lenght about how excellent the Spitfire's aerobatic qualities were compared to the 109E (he quotes the same manual which a few pages later flatly states that aerobatics are useless as combat manouvers). What does it help you in combat if you can make tidy loops while the other guy can't..? A loop is quite possibly the worst manouver ever in combat, as it slows you down and make a perfect target of you.

Please note that under aerobatics, I (and the RAF as well) mean loops, finely executed rolls and other similiar stuff used for displays. A rather different thing than briskly executed, often uncoordinated combat manouvers which are 'untidy' exactly for the reason so that they are difficult to follow.