Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?

[JG52Krupi]

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

What do you mean ? I mean whats the background to that idea ?

[robtek]

The problem with the evaluation in this report is imo, that it seems that the british fighters had to come out as the better ones and so the ability to turn was the priority.
The other tactics, which might have favored the 109, weren't evaluated.
Other than that this test even proves that it took experienced pilots to outturn a 109 in a Spitfire because of the sensible high speed stall characteristics.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by IvanK

What do you mean ? I mean whats the background to that idea ?

It highlights the many non-advantages of the 109 which the axis big lie has told through persistent compliant to 1C for the past 10 years. The question to ask is really, if the report is not to be believed then why would the authorities publish it to their side? This would only lead to inaccuracy and death of their own pilots - not a good idea if you're fighting for life and death.

Meanwhile robtek claims that only experienced Spitfire pilots could out turn the 109. Laughable.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Osprey

.....

Meanwhile robtek claims that only experienced Spitfire pilots could out turn the 109. Laughable.

Maybe you should actually read the report before proofing your ignorance.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

Maybe you should actually read the report before proofing your ignorance.

Here we go again - yep, the Spitfire was a rotten fighter and inexperienced pilots could not handle its peculiar stall characteristics, nor were they able to turn with the wonderful 109 for fear that they might stall, spin, crash and burn. It's possible that hundreds of Spitfires were lost this way, yet were counted as combat casualties because it happened over the sea or enemy territory. Let's face it, the Spitfire was that skittish 1960s-1980s Porsche 911 in which the back end would slide 180° in wet weather at the least provocation, while the 109 was the sweet-handling Toyota GT 86 of the fighter world.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Here we go again - yep, the Spitfire was a rotten fighter and inexperienced pilots could not handle its peculiar stall characteristics, nor were they able to turn with the wonderful 109 for fear that they might stall, spin, crash and burn. It's possible that hundreds of Spitfires were lost this way, yet were counted as combat casualties because it happened over the sea or enemy territory. Let's face it, the Spitfire was that skittish 1960s-1980s Porsche 911 in which the back end would slide 180° in wet weather at the least provocation, while the 109 was the sweet-handling Toyota GT 86 of the fighter world.

Yes, here we go again against the fantasy Spitfire some would like to have.

Here are two excerpts from the report which prove that i didn't get my opinion out of thin air:

1st) page 15
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned
inside the Me.l09 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to
pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however,
the Me.l09 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests,
merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.


2nd) page 18
The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot
to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As
mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.l09 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in
many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on
the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and
spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being
chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

Those facts were shouted to death by some people in another thread.

If the Spitfire is realistic simulated it has enough advantages that it doesn't need fantasy values proposed by some tunnel vision fans.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by robtek

Yes, here we go again against the fantasy Spitfire some would like to have.

Here are two excerpts from the report which prove that i didn't get my opinion out of thin air:

1st) page 15
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned
inside the Me.l09 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to
pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however,
the Me.l09 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests,
merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.


2nd) page 18
The gentle stall and good control under g are of some importance, as they enable the pilot
to get the most out of the aircraft in a circling dog-fight by flying very near the stall. As
mentioned in section 5.1, the Me.l09 pilot succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire in
many cases, despite the latter aircraft's superior turning performance, because a number of the
Spitfire pilots failed to tighten up the turn sufficiently. If the stick is pulled back too far on
the Spitfire in a tight turn, the aircraft may stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and
spin. Knowledge of this undoubtedly deters the pilot from tightening his turn when being
chased, particularly if he is not very experienced.

Those facts were shouted to death by some people in another thread.

If the Spitfire is realistic simulated it has enough advantages that it doesn't need fantasy values proposed by some tunnel vision fans.

Well done point made

Ok threads closed.

Its obvious there's a continuing red v blue bashing theme (understandable seeing as its a red v blue sim) but its from the same members across any thread they can see fit to ruin.

The report has not been read by those participating in this thread in a disruptive manner, it's just being treated as another slagging match between members.

You are continuously disrupting the forum and will receive infractions/bans in future for such actions.

[winny]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

Harsh evaluation, some truth in it though. Depends which side of the fence you are on. They didn't test above 18,500 feet because the 109 didn't have oxygen. The 109 is also a little suspect performance wise, it's the same machine they did the Hurricane performance trials with, if you look at the results from that report the 109 performed better. The Spitfire comparison was done 6 months after the Hurri one and there were 2 forced landings in between.

To dismiss it as BS is harsh, it's far from a " The Spitfire is wonderful the 109 is rubbish" report.

Read it. It is slightly biased in some sections, particularly the pilot's thoughts, but the actual data is sound, and I didn't see a problem with the method, accepting the altitude issue, in my opinion if they'd have tested the 109 at it's peak fighting altitude then it would have thrown up some interesting results, and probably wouldn't be subjected to being called BS.

It is what it is, performance trials upto 18,500, because that's what they did.

If you read it there's a description of the combat tests they performed, maybe you could highlight where you think they were 'flying it wrong'.

For me none of these discussions come down to Spit vs 109. The history is there anyone can make their own judgement/ preference. I don't care which was 'better' I simply posted it because it was relevant.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

The way this game has represented the Spitfire and Hurricane displays either a complete lack of research or a complete bias.

The facts are there for all to see.

The RAF, equipped with a force which was 2/3's Hurricanes, shot down more than 1/3 more aircraft than the Luftwaffe, despite being outnumbered more than 3-1 and despite having to deploy 2/5's of its fighter force in areas of Britain which weren't under attack. In the decisive month of August for example, the Luftwaffe official records admitted losses of 774 aircraft, compared to British acknowledged losses of 426. This despite the Germans having more Single engined fighters available than the British, not even counting the available twin engined fighters, and the 1200+ bombers. The British were also focused on shooting down bombers, not fighters, were forced to climb up into combat and were almost without exception, outnumbered in every engagement.

Any examination of performance data shows the Spitfire IA using 100 octane was the superior aircraft to the 109E3 at altitudes up to approx. 16,000 ft. It was as fast or faster, climbed as well, turned better and rolled similarly. The 109E4 didn't come into use until October of 1940, and even then, it was available in tiny numbers. This game is supposed to be representing the BoB until September 15th, so it shouldn't even be in the game. (why is this plane on the online servers in unlimited numbers???) Both German and British evaluations show the Hurricane and Spitfire easily outturned the 109, Werner Moelders, the leading German Ace, later appointed to command the entire Fighter Force is very clear in warning German pilots not to turn with either British plane, and his evaluation was of the 109E3 versus the two speed pitch version of the Spitfire, far inferior to the later constant speed versions. The British evaluations were numerous and conclusive. (see previous post for one)

There was a reason the phase "Achtung Spitfeuer!" came into common usage among German pilots. (although Hurricanes shot down nearly as many 109's as Spitfires, and the tendency to report all British fighters as Spitfires was common) The symptoms "kanalkrankheit" or 'Channel Sickness' had considerable numbers of the Jagdfliegers out of action by the end of the battle. The German fighter pilots were confronted with aircraft which were more than capable of shooting them down and the fear that generated was actually physically disabling. And that was despite the RAF being told whenever possible to ignore the German fighters in favour of attacking bombers.

Why can this group of developers not get the Flight models of the British aircraft right? Everytime we get a new version, they get worse. There seems to be a stubborn refusal on the part of these Russian developers to acknowledge fact. Is this bias? A relic of the old competition of the cold war? Whatever it is, it has no part in what is supposed to be an objectively modelled SIMULATION.

The typical 'on the deck' engagement we see on the servers in CLIFFS OF DOVER is nonsense. The German aircraft were not competitive down low against the Spitfire and the advantages they had versus the Hurricane were nearly nullified. There was a reason the Luftwaffe reverted to sending its Fighters in higher and higher as the battle went on, by the end the escorts were coming in at 10,000 meters, to take advantage of their better performance up high. As mentioned, the 109's were faster and climbed better than all British Fighters over approx. 5500 meters, their advantages versus the more numerous Hurricane were magnified. The German bombers came in at this altitude anyway, no reason to go lower. Only when the German fighters were assigned to Jabo attacks, after daylight bombing ended were the Germans making low level attacks, and that resulted in heavy losses.

This game should see a situation whereby the Germans come in high, stay high with their bombers and only the foolish end up in fights on the deck.

The current situation whereby we see 109's on the deck zooming circles around the Spitfires is complete nonsense.