PDA

View Full Version : FW-190



Pages : [1] 2

Gigg1esworth
08-09-2007, 04:47 PM
From my first couple of flights in the FW-190 I've learned that becoming capable in this fighter will certainly take some practice. Unlike a 109 it doesn't like the vertical and can stall VERY easily but it is fast, versatile, has an amazing roll rate and enough firepower to blow up the sun. So far I've become quite good at deflection shooting in it, assuming of course I can get lined up for a good shot; Offensive and Defensive ACM is quite troublesome for me, any 190 pilots out there with some tips on dogfighting in a 190?

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 04:58 PM
Pretty basic stuff:

- never drop speed below 450 km/h ( exeption beeing you in a vastly superior postition).

- don't try to safe ammunition, you would have to fight for hours to use it

- don't linger somewhere. Stalk your prey and move
on if there are no targets to pick

- never get down with Spits or Las or Yaks; you can stomp them with ease without danger: why fight?

BBB_Hyperion
08-09-2007, 05:12 PM
raditor = 4
pitch manual = 90 %

keeps your engine running without overheat when you keep the speed up.

Jaws2002
08-09-2007, 05:23 PM
Dogfighting is not very healthy in FW-190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Speed is life.
Do everything at higher speed. Climb, turn at higher speed. If you are slow in 190 everyone and his cousin can out fly you.
After take off, fly away from the battle and allow yourself time to climb without overheating the engine. You don't want to get into a fight with a hot motor. Make sure your engine is cold and ready to fight when you get into fights.
Always keep some altitude so you can dive if in danger, or to regain speed quick.
190's are fast planes and you can in many occasions get away or drag your opponent to your team mates.
In dogfights try to think different then in other planes. To attack or avoid an attack try to roll more then you turn. You can avoid a fast bounce by rolling and changing direction fast rather then just pulling hard on the stick.
Practice deflection shooting from many different angles. Because almost all planes turn better then you, most of the time you won't get a clean six o'clock shot. So don't wait for that perfect shot, if you think that you have a chance to hit him shoot. You have a lot of guns and tons of ammo in 190's and you can sometimes kill a plane with one brief pass.
Try to get to the fight above the rest of the planes. When you are not in direct combat climb or cool down your engine. Or both.
If you have a lighter plane (Spitfire, Yak, La5/7) close on your six DON'T GO UP. This is how he'll chew you up. You go in a zoomclimb when you know you are much faster then him and have some distance.

Gigg1esworth
08-09-2007, 05:23 PM
Alright thanks.

BBB_Hyperion
08-09-2007, 05:32 PM
Trimm the plane down helps a lot to keep speed. Tradeoff climb is less (without constant pull) but you can exchange speed for it.

Davinci..
08-09-2007, 05:48 PM
Like everyone says, stay fast.

And that basically means turn only when you need to. Turn to make a shot, dont turn to get into a position to make a shot. Stay fast, rads closed at all times in a combat area, unless you "need" to cool, 100% pitch at all times, switch to auto if you "need" to cool. For example in a dive, once you pass about 600km/h switch to auto pitch, you wont gain any speed staying in 100%, but you will cool your plane faster. Once level again, switch back to 100%, you'll stay much faster, much longer.

Above all be patient. The mistake most pople make is trying to force a fight, instead of waiting for a good situation to develop itself. Dont run cowboy style into a furball, because your likely to get bounced from above, choose your targets wisely, swoop in pick them off, and keep moving. And if you dont get the kill on the first pass, resist the urge to try and "finish them off"(unless you "know" you are alone), one pass will often cripple an enemy ac, and make them rtb(even if you dont get the kill outright). Everything should be a "drive by shooting".

Get alt when ever possible. With alt(or enough speed advantage) you can actually "fight" in it. But again, stay fast, zooms and climbs, never pull to hard or you'll just bleed more speed then you need to.

Im a 190 pilot by trade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif its a hell of a ship, if you really understand its strengths/weeknesses. For noobs it will chew them up and spit them out, and send them running back to their spits/las, but once you get the hang of it, its as good or better then anything in the air hands down.

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 06:28 PM
Some good advice here from some very good Fw 190 players.

All I would add is play with your convergence - I set mine to 400m and it helps with head ons and deflection shots, find out the best supercharger height for each particular Fw 190 variant and know its best altitudes. At some heights your faster than your opponents at others your slower. Its not always best to run away at sea level depending on whats chasing you.

Learn how to use the Fw 190s roll in close combat. Instead of turning with a bandit use the vertical and cut your opponents turn radius by rolling inside him then dive down and fire some lead in to his flight path if you do this correctly you can stay and fight with inexperienced Spitfire and La pilots indefinately because you are creating energy while climbing while they bleed energy by constantly turning. The trick of how to do very well in dogfights with the Fw 190 is to learn how to do this manuver effectvely. On the defensive run! close rads and trim down. Very few planes can stay with you in a long chase except the P 51 and the Tempest V. If you know you will definately be caught start rolling like mad. If you force an overshoot all you need is one gunnery opportunity and chances are the bandit will be fried.

Viper2005_
08-09-2007, 07:27 PM
Never forget that the objective of aerial combat is to kill the enemy, not to fight him.

Gigg1esworth
08-09-2007, 07:38 PM
So after a few more sorties in the Wulf I've noticed some common themes:

1: I always come out of a fight between 500-1000m
2: Assuming I can't outrun the attacker I get raped in defensive combat
and
3: I almost always blow some poor *******s La-7 in two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Common trends for 190 pilots?

FritzGryphon
08-09-2007, 08:41 PM
1. FW-190s only attack fighters attacking other FW-190s.

2. FW-190s should only attack the highest enemy fighter. If the enemy descends too far, you break off the attack, and see rule 1.

3. The minimal altitude for a FW-190 to fight is equal to the altitude required to perform a 900km/h+ dive to the nearest friendly flak.

4. If you are caught by an enemy fighter at low level, see rule 1. If no other FW-190s exist, fly straight toward friendly flak while mildly stick stirring. If no friendly flak exists, fly straight towards enemy flak while mildly stick stirring.

5. The FW-190 can only be killed by headshots and crashing. Keep your head down and plane as far away from the ground as possible.

6. The FW-190 turn radius is just small enough to fit inside a cloud.

Vanderstok
08-10-2007, 01:48 AM
This is all good advice, which I have known and practised for some time now. However, my problem is not which tactics to use but how to set up an attack properly? When I fly at 3000 or 4000 m I have difficulty in spotting the enemy below. Often I will see a number of dots circling each other. How do I know which ones are the enemy? Once I dive down to check I will have lost the surprise and have burnt too much energy thus my attack is over before it has even started!
This is something that's been bugging me for some time now.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ratsack
08-10-2007, 02:05 AM
Firstly, check the colour of any tracers. Blue are Axis; etc.

Secondly, learn to recognize the low-resolution Level Of Detail (LoDs) models of the various planes. Bf 109s and La5s are quite distinctly different from Spits, for example. On a server with settings like WarClouds, you should be able to ID a plane by its LoD long before an icon becomes visible.

Thirdly, you have to position yourself in anticipation of what the bottom dwellers are going to do next. This is much easier than it sounds, because the fools who TnB on the deck are nothing if not predictable. The object of the game is to set yourself up so that you can scream into ID range on the contact in a position where:

a.) they cannot see you;
b.) you can exit without coming into their view; and
c.) you can - if you choose - go for the kill.

For me, that means trying to get into a position above a turner so that when I dive into him, I end up on his low six. That means I have to plan my dive so I aim for his FUTURE LOW SIX. That's what I mean by anticipating what the silly idiot is going to do.

Fourth, be careful with your height advantage. If you have too much vertical separation, you will be going so fast when you get into contact range that you will not be able to do anything useful. Black out city.

There are a few other things you might try, but that's enough for a start.

cheers,
Ratsack

Manu-6S
08-10-2007, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Vanderstok:
This is all good advice, which I have known and practised for some time now. However, my problem is not which tactics to use but how to set up an attack properly? When I fly at 3000 or 4000 m I have difficulty in spotting the enemy below. Often I will see a number of dots circling each other. How do I know which ones are the enemy? Once I dive down to check I will have lost the surprise and have burnt too much energy thus my attack is over before it has even started!
This is something that's been bugging me for some time now.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The chasing planes aren't Germans (if there aren't G2 in the planeset).

I do this:

- 4000-5000m over clouds:
I found that is more easy to spot planes using clouds that looking at them direcly on the texture: above all I can't see Spits and Tempests on newest map.

- Wait for planes to ambush:
But remember to not closing on too much since the "sound radar".

- If you see dots chasing one single plane far under you and he's manouvring, don't go down:
The guy should learn from his mistake, and however it's difficult to help him with all that movements. Expert FW190 player go straight. If you have to return to base you can obviously make a single pass.

- Clouds are really usefull for FW190 pilots:
Then I fly p51 I know that I must not to leave to the 190 a single chance to shoot at me. Since in a FW190 you pass great time extending with guys chasing you, if you are alone you can use the clouds to take advantage position (angle fighting here): if the chasing pilot is expert he'll gain altitude, so you can't touch him but you can escape. If the guy is an average pilot he'll chase you last vector and he'll die.
I can't wait to see the new clouds system of SoW.

PS: I use these tactics only in DF servers where I care of my "virtual career"...

WOLFMondo
08-10-2007, 02:46 AM
Turn fighting with Spits on the deck is the best way to fight with a 190.

RegRag1977
08-10-2007, 03:30 AM
Hi Gigg1esworth,

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Go here and take a look at this thread, there you can download some tracks on how to fly the Anton...Pay paticular attention to Fatcat's posts for they are really well explained...
CWOS members are really nice guys with a lot of experience to share! You will learn a lot from them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=13743 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13743)

BBB_Hyperion
08-10-2007, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Turn fighting with Spits on the deck is the best way to fight with a 190.

That is only a hobby for 190 pilots when in right mood or the spit pilots getting bored and leave the game else(to built up more confidence to ruin it later on)). Not sure if it was entirely fun for the spit pilots tho pressing refly most of the time can be boring and losing in turnfight vs a 190 in a spitfire could easily get you a bad reputation as vpilot.

Feathered_IV
08-10-2007, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Vanderstok:
However, my problem is not which tactics to use but how to set up an attack properly? When I fly at 3000 or 4000 m I have difficulty in spotting the enemy below. Often I will see a number of dots circling each other. How do I know which ones are the enemy? Once I dive down to check I will have lost the surprise and have burnt too much energy thus my attack is over before it has even started!
This is something that's been bugging me for some time now.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Try to fly the FW like it was on rails.
Don't bother hunting directly over the scrum. Get up nice and high and position yourself somewhere over the enemies route to the combat area.
You will have a chance to hit isolated aircraft in the middle of their battle climb, when their speed is lower and their situational awarness is impaired.
Make your pass and go back up to altitude. If you miss, watch them break, twitch dive and climb etc. The more they wriggle, the smaller their relative situational awareness will be.
When they calm down and start flying a level course again. Hit them a second time.

Never let yourself get sucked into a tail chase. You will be too vulnerable. Never, ever follow an enemy down to make sure of the kill. If they escape below, chances are they'll crack up on landing anyway. When you get a shot, don't be stingy with the ammo either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WOLFMondo
08-10-2007, 07:08 AM
In all seriousness, the 190 is best flown with a wingman. People say that about allot of aircraft but its more true for the 190. Two 190's can dominiate any other pair of aircraft (in a semi realistic scenario) in this sim under 6000m. Two Antons working together is probably the most worrying thing an allied flyer can encounter.

The best thing I did when learning the 190 was flying with some very good 190 vpilots and picking up tips from them while flying wing with them. You can be a below average dogfighter but with a wing man and some time become very deadly in the 190 if you work together.

Xiolablu3
08-10-2007, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Gigg1esworth:
So after a few more sorties in the Wulf I've noticed some common themes:

1: I always come out of a fight between 500-1000m
2: Assuming I can't outrun the attacker I get raped in defensive combat
and
3: I almost always blow some poor *******s La-7 in two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Common trends for 190 pilots?

In order to get out of a bad situation :-


If the fight is not going your way then dive away at full throttle, just rolling a little at 1 sec intervals so he cant line up a deflection shot, until you are out of range, dont push and pull as that will slow you down.

ALways try and stay above 2000m or more so you can use this escape manouvre.

Providing you are not below about 300kph, you should be able to outrun most planes in a dive.

Try and dive towards your friendlies or your base/flak.

I suggest you get online as soon as possible onto some historical servers such as Ukded2 where there are frienldy players who will answer your questions and help you out. Here you will be able to hone your FW190 skills in planresets such as FW190A4 vs SPitfire V and FW190D9 vs SPitfire IX, which are pretty much in favour of the FW190 as long as you are a competent FW190 pilot.

SPitfire IX vs FW190A6/A8 is much harder and really only for veterans.

It helps to have some knowledge of 3d and trigonometry to fly the FW190 well and use your speed.

Feathered_IV
08-10-2007, 08:51 AM
Yep. Once you've gotten used to the way things work, you'll then be ready to use the 190 on the full-switch servers. Thats where the joy is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BBB_Hyperion
08-10-2007, 02:14 PM
Full Switch is too easy spit won't turn away on approach. Better start training on fr settings and then join some externals on locked pit servers for a challenge. Not only that you can be seen when you approach ruining any surprise but some extra approaches are needed to fly the aircraft to full extent which you don't necessary need on the fr servers . FR allows to fly sloppy and you don't pay for errors at once. While you have no chance to hide when something went wrong on the other approach.

Gigg1esworth
08-10-2007, 03:18 PM
Well I just bagged my first kill online in the Wulf. Blew both the spitfires wings right off, poor ******* didn't even see it coming. Very pleased with myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
08-10-2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Gigg1esworth:
Well I just bagged my first kill online in the Wulf. Blew both the spitfires wings right off, poor ******* didn't even see it coming. Very pleased with myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

traitor.
But seriously... kill P-38s, they make a nice boomboom. You can take em apart piece by piece. Cool as hell

K_Freddie
08-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Don't believe all that you hear...
Anything is possible... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Freeze this movie (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/UsAndThem.avi) when the LA5 crosses the gunsight -> FW speed = 200kph



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
08-10-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Gigg1esworth:
Well I just bagged my first kill online in the Wulf. Blew both the spitfires wings right off, poor ******* didn't even see it coming. Very pleased with myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well Done!

Remember, its all about conserving speed, straight lines, Zoom climbing and diving.

If you find yourself yanking the plane about like a Spitfire, then you are going to be dead very quickly. You can 'force' the FW190 into some quite tight turns, however you can hear her buffeting hard against the air and watch the speed drop off quickly, unlike better turning planes which will make the turn much smoother.

FW190A4 vs SPitfire Vb you basically have advantage or parity everywhere except for elevator turns. Stay in the vertical, long sweeping zoom climbs and dives when you attack, as were the FW190 tactics back in the day. DOnt get caught trying to do a hard horizontal turn, the SPitfire will be on you in a second.

MOst important is to keep your speed and energy, actually shooting down the enemy comes second. If you dont get him in your first dive/attack, then you can always zoom back up and do it again. However if you lose your energy/speed in your first attack trying desperately to get the killer shot, pushing and pulling hard, then you are going to have to dive away to escape after your first pass.

You can dogfight Spitfires, but dont do it in the traditional 'close in', horizontal turning dogfight way. You want to be staying in the vertical, using long, drawn out, sweeping manouvres which conserve speed and energy and use your advantage of better zoom climb and dive.

As long as you keep your speed/energy, you can make as many passes as you want at the enemy - make this your No1 priority.

M_Gunz
08-10-2007, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
In all seriousness, the 190 is best flown with a wingman. People say that about allot of aircraft but its more true for the 190. Two 190's can dominiate any other pair of aircraft (in a semi realistic scenario) in this sim under 6000m. Two Antons working together is probably the most worrying thing an allied flyer can encounter.

The best thing I did when learning the 190 was flying with some very good 190 vpilots and picking up tips from them while flying wing with them. You can be a below average dogfighter but with a wing man and some time become very deadly in the 190 if you work together.

Best advice right there. Target that turns hard from the leader is set up for the mate.
It works best with the fast movers with the hottest armament, FW's are ALL that!

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 01:30 AM
The other thing you can do is practice offline against Ace AI. The AI doesn't behave like human opponents, but you can set up fights in QMB that are quite challenging.

A good one to start on is a QMB (any map) against two Ace Spitfire IXs at 3,000 m, with you flying a Fw 190 A-8. This will be quite easy for you to win, because the enemy wingman just dawdles around after his leader, and only gets aggressive if you're stupid enough to get between him and his leader.

After you've mastered that one, try the same set up but with the two AI Spitfires in different flights. So instead of a single flight of two enemies, you have two flights of one. In this configuration the AI behaves much more like human opponents. Both of them will try to kill you, all the time, and not just the leader. They even support each other – unintentionally – by keeping up a constant attack.

This arrangement will teach you defensive ACM very quickly.

As you master it, set up more enemies in different planes, and move it to different altitudes so you learn your plane better.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
08-11-2007, 02:17 AM
Although I dont have too much experience in a FW190 vs the AI (always playing online) I would actually think that FW190A8 vs 2 Ace Spit IX's would be quite hard.

Ratsacks probably an ace who can down SPits easy from experience.

Personally, I would recommend FW190A4 vs Spitfire Vb for starters. This should actually be quite easy once you are flying the FW190A4 to its strengths, even for a pilot new to the Fw190.

Its a battle you cannot win by flying the FW190 in the conventional 'turn fighter' way. You HAVE to use the tactics we have been discussing, so its a good place to start.

Once you can comfortably beat the AI at
FW190A4 vs SPitfire Vb and
FW190D9 vs Spitfire IX,

then move onto the FW190A6/A8 vs Spitfire IX which is harder IMO, the Spitfire has a far better climb rate than the late Antons, whereas in the earlier mentioned matchups the climb rates are much closer, its easy to lose the advantage and just end up running away.

Thats why the guys are suggesting a (human) wingman. In this situation you can drag the SPitfire around at will thanks to your higher speed, and eventually to a teamate/wingman.

One more thing, I always take the FW190A6 over the FW190A8 as I feel its a better fighter. I am not sure why this is, possibly weight difference, it just seems much better vs SPitfires and LA5's.

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 02:34 AM
The A-6 is the better fighter. It's faster than the A-8 at most altitudes, and it turns slightly better.

I suggest the A-8 precisely because it is the worst. If you can do it in an A-8, you're doing OK, I reckon.

Regarding defensive moves, which is the part most Fw 190 A drivers find hardest, the trick is not to go turning, but use the roll rate of your plane to keep the bandit on your 12/6 line as you use little elevator inputs to stay out of his plane of maneuver and line of fire. These little elevator inputs give you a little bit of lateral separation to work with as you roll. it goes a bit like this:

You keep your wings at about 90 degrees to his as he tries to get a bead on you, then;
* apply a little elevator, and;
* his shot is miles wide;
* he tries to turn toward your new line, but;
* you easily out roll him, and;
* keeping him in that relative angular position;
* you apply another little elevator input;
* he yanks on the stick again, trying to cut your angle; and so on.

Each time he yanks on the stick, you let him inch a little further forward on your 12/6 line: towards your nose and a quick death. By the time the average Spit pilot catches on that he's about to lose what he thought was a turning fight with a Focke-Wulf, it's too late. At this stage you will often see quite good examples of panicky over-control as the guy who thought he was offensive realizes he was actually the prey all along.

It's well worth the effort of learning.

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
08-11-2007, 01:52 PM
SOunds interesting, I cant quite picture what you mean in my head, but I am sure I will work it out eventually.

If theres a Spitfire on my 6, or above and about to attack, (the soobner you see him the better) I just usually flip and dive towards my lines/nearest teamate. Your team mate is appreciative of the easy target and you take down another enemy. Your dive rate and higher top speed will ensure you leave him behind.

Making little roll movements every second or so if hes within gun range to stop him lining up a deflection shot, until hes out of range. I try and imagine myself in that SPitfire as I travel straight.

*Iwould be lining up the shot now and about to fire
*I make a little roll to mess up his aim
*I would be lining up the shot NOW
*Imake a little roll to mess up his aim.
*repeat until out of range.

As rolling hardly slows you at all compared to elevator movements, you constantly picking upspeed and widening the gap.

It works surprisingly well for me. Never having been shot down by a Spitfire for about a year now whilst in any FW190.

La5FN's, P51's and P47's are what I fear the most and are usually the planes that get me.

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 05:45 PM
Xio,

Check PMs, mate.

cheers,
Ratsack

Gigg1esworth
08-11-2007, 07:20 PM
I'm having a fair bit of trouble with the ace Spitfire Vbs in my A4, even 2v2. After the merge what's the best initial maneuver to make? I usually pull a split S to reverse and close on the spits but by the time I do they've already turned back high across me in which I then pull an immalmen but even then by the time I get my weapons to bear they've already cut well across me.

BillyTheKid_22
08-11-2007, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Don't believe all that you hear...
Anything is possible... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Freeze this movie (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/UsAndThem.avi) when the LA5 crosses the gunsight -> FW speed = 200kph



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



Great nice!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Davinci..
08-11-2007, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Gigg1esworth:
I'm having a fair bit of trouble with the ace Spitfire Vbs in my A4, even 2v2. After the merge what's the best initial maneuver to make? I usually pull a split S to reverse and close on the spits but by the time I do they've already turned back high across me in which I then pull an immalmen but even then by the time I get my weapons to bear they've already cut well across me.

This isnt at all suprising... Im a pretty damn handy 190 pilot myself, and a simple spitvb on ace ai, will usually knock me out of the sky pretty easily.
Online on the Winds of War server, which is full real. Im 46 to 3, in my 190 a4, against spitv's. They are no match for me.... but..

Offline, that ace ai, would thump me 7 times out of 10, if i try and "fight" it "straight up". sure i can do headons,and and cheese the ai(do the things the trips the ai up..)hit and runs, and kill it within the first couple turns no problem , But to actually fight it straight up like i would online...(like from a co alt merge) dosnt work. Fighting in the vertical is usless, it will simply zoom right up on you, and blow you out of the sky with ease. I cannot "generate" an advantage(alt) through vertical manouving like i would online. It just eats right through it..

Gigg1esworth
08-11-2007, 08:26 PM
Well good to know I'm not alone with the sucking in 1v1 with the Ace AI.

WOLFPLAYER2007
08-11-2007, 08:30 PM
Simple but useful advices:

1- Dont get in a turn fight, you wont win

2- Come from above, hit it hard, go away

3- do everything with speed, the fw190 has an exceptional roll rate, so learn how to use it.

Davinci..
08-11-2007, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Gigg1esworth:
Well good to know I'm not alone with the sucking in 1v1 with the Ace AI.

You know whats weird? i used to be able to go 1v4 against ace ai la7s no problem in a p51(havnt tried it in a while). And id smoke em no problem, but a single ace ai spit. bends my a4 right over.

Ratsack
08-11-2007, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Gigg1esworth:
I'm having a fair bit of trouble with the ace Spitfire Vbs in my A4, even 2v2. After the merge what's the best initial maneuver to make? I usually pull a split S to reverse and close on the spits but by the time I do they've already turned back high across me in which I then pull an immalmen but even then by the time I get my weapons to bear they've already cut well across me.

Without seeing a track it's difficult to say. Firstly, however, try doing the match up using the Fw 190 A-5 or A-6 against Mk IXs. Mk Vs fight at speeds so far below the Fw 190's optimum that you'll probably get eaten trying to mix it with them. Conversely, the A-4 in the game is a ground attack version running at low boost (1.32 ATA instead of its proper 1.42 ATA). If you want historical A-4 performance you must use the A-5. Sad but true, and Oleg has confirmed this himself.

Now, try this at the start. When you see them as dots, turn off to one side, preferably your right and place them at your 10-11 o'clock. As they get closer to you, they'll be closing towards your 9 o'clock. While they're still well out of gun range, enter a shallow dive, roll left and start a gentle turn towards them, so you keep them between your high 10 and 9 o'clock.

It is critical with this turn is to have just enough vertical component in it to throw off their aim. You must either dive or climb a little: make sure you're out of their plane of motion or they'll shoot you down in the first pass!

If all goes well, the bandits will cross your tail in a dive, heading away from you at your 5 o'clock. You are climbing.

Now we can talk about the reverse. We have to rewind the clock a little here, because you should have started the reverse before the second bandit crossed behind you. It is all about timing. You can start this reverse two ways: reverse your bank from left to right (i.e., roll 180 degrees right) and pull back on the stick; or keep rolling left until they're on your 12/6 line (i.e., roll 180 degrees left), and pull back on the stick.

Remember, during that initial merge, they went past slightly nose-down. Your turn towards them took you past them slightly nose-up. This means their turn was tighter and your turn was wider. In this reverse, the shoe is on the other foot: gravity is making your turn tighter and theirs wider. Secondly, because you started your reverse slightly earlier than them, you've got a head start into the turn. Thirdly, because your rate of roll allowed you complete your reverse faster than them, your head start is increased.

As you complete your reversing roll, place the bandits along your 12/6 line and pull towards them. Because you are now higher than them, you will be slightly inverted (i.e., your wings will be past vertical), and your turn toward them will pull you into a dive. They will be pulling toward you, climbing up. You must make a judgment early in this manoeuvre. You must judge whether your turn is going to give you the shot, or whether theirs will give them the shot. What you do next depends on that judgment.

More later.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Gigg1esworth
08-11-2007, 11:34 PM
Thanks for the post Ratsack, the thing I'm not quite sure about is when you talk about keeping them at your 10/9 o clock in the turn. They close at me from my 10 in the initial encounter shifting across to 9 o clock, I put the plane into a gentle dive and begin a gentle turn towards them trying to keep them at my 10/9 o clock but they just cut sharply in and latch onto my 6.

Found some more tips and tricks on M4T: http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=306

Ratsack
08-12-2007, 01:37 AM
Gigg1esworth,

Check PMs.

cheers,
Ratsack

MrMojok
08-12-2007, 01:39 AM
Ratsack, I want to hear it too!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Brain32
08-12-2007, 04:42 AM
With the FW190 against AI Spitfire(and even against humans) don't go after their six, cut their flight path and use high angle deflection to blow them.
Also in a FW190A you don't want to be between 3000m and 4000m(with some models(like FW190A8) it's even worse and you are toast between 2000m and 4000m) because this is where the SpitfireIX is faster and climbs so much better you will have a feeling you are stationary in the air.

Anyway most of the time when in a FW190 I don't go for enemies six, it's pointless as most of them can instantly pull massive deg/sec you can't follow. Always go for high angle deflection, low angle tracking shot is useless anyway as the target is behind the barTM at correct deflection angle.


Originally posted by: Xiolablu3
Never having been shot down by a Spitfire for about a year now whilst in any FW190.

Do you first help Spit pilots on your server to install the game for the very first time? Awwwwwwww http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Manu-6S
08-12-2007, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by: Xiolablu3
Never having been shot down by a Spitfire for about a year now whilst in any FW190.

Do you first help Spit pilots on your server to install the game for the very first time? Awwwwwwww http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain, I think the Xiola's uberness with 190 is that he's usually flying in server with externals.

F6 is a great help because you can avoid even those 4 bullets of the ambushing Spit that PK you or make your plane to lose 100km/h (= dead meat).

Brain32
08-12-2007, 05:06 AM
Well OK I don't know exactly how that works, I guess if he sees them miles away it's understandable. Lack of speed is not an excuse for Spits because as unbelievable as it sounds, you can actually convert altitude into speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I guess he sure does not have "forrest shooting at him" effect, damn I hate that...

Ratsack
08-12-2007, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
...

I guess he sure does not have "forrest shooting at him" effect, damn I hate that...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack

Manu-6S
08-12-2007, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I guess he sure does not have "forrest shooting at him" effect, damn I hate that...

Sure not, and I hate spits even for that issue, above all on maps with "extreme" texture (Normandy, new Africa, "Italian" map, well all the new maps).

I don't know why them and Tempest must have different Lod from the other planes.. ok Tempest is a "new" model, but in the same package there is the Ju88 that is bigger at 700m than at 400m...

If I see dots they are german, american or russian (but the latter disappear over forest, spits disappear over any terrain in my PC).

Probably the last I flyed seriously (3 weeks ago) I was chased by a Spit9 flying a A8 and passing my view from right side to left side after a smooth turn (to see behind with TIR) I TOTALLY lost it and after 5 seconds I could see it again.

After the 4th time I disconnected... I was really pissed off.

HayateAce
08-12-2007, 06:54 AM
You kidding?

Defensive is noob easy for the faireyW@ank RunNinety. Point craft directly away from attacker, stir stick and let the bogus DM do all the work.

This is the number one reason the lesser-skilled players have glommed on to the runNinety from day one.

Ratsack
08-12-2007, 07:04 AM
Somebody needs a hug...

Matz0r
08-12-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I guess he sure does not have "forrest shooting at him" effect, damn I hate that...

Sure not, and I hate spits even for that issue, above all on maps with "extreme" texture (Normandy, new Africa, "Italian" map, well all the new maps).

I don't know why them and Tempest must have different Lod from the other planes.. ok Tempest is a "new" model, but in the same package there is the Ju88 that is bigger at 700m than at 400m...

If I see dots they are german, american or russian (but the latter disappear over forest, spits disappear over any terrain in my PC).

Probably the last I flyed seriously (3 weeks ago) I was chased by a Spit9 flying a A8 and passing my view from right side to left side after a smooth turn (to see behind with TIR) I TOTALLY lost it and after 5 seconds I could see it again.

After the 4th time I disconnected... I was really pissed off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand the minimalistic LOD of the spit, sure it's a small plane but so is 109 and it got one of the biggest dots in the game. The Seafire and the MkVIII are even worse as their wings disappear at certain ranges. The cloaking abilities makes the Spitfire much more dangerous than it's excellent performance.

Spaturnio
08-12-2007, 07:20 AM
BTW, when you mention "zoom climb", how step should it be to be effective in a 190?
How many (broadly) deg do you point the nose of your plane over thwe horizont line: should I look for the vertical plane or just extend away looking for the a bit of height in the process?

What about the A9 model?

Manu-6S
08-12-2007, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
BTW, when you mention "zoom climb", how step should it be to be effective in a 190?
How many (broadly) deg do you point the nose of your plane over thwe horizont line: should I look for the vertical plane or just extend away looking for the a bit of height in the process?

What about the A9 model?

In 109 I point my nose totally up (90?) while in 190 in keep my nose at 45? until the speed drop to 320-350Km/h since in this plane pointing the nose down is a too slow manouvre.

The A9 is a monster (not only for the ability to place mk108s in the wing's roots): I take it over the Dora anytime.

About LoD, I posted this in my forum time ago: I was chasing a Tempest at 400m but I was using DirectX instead of OpenGl.

Switching the driver I got better results but it's still difficult for me to see them and Spit . It's easier to see 109 (infact I recognize them from far) and even russian (since they have similar LoD - probably because of old models - but they disappear on forest with their green skins)

Where is the Tempest? (I know it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5078/grab0001sl5.jpg

Xiolablu3
08-12-2007, 11:00 AM
RAtsack, thanks for the pms mate, interesting read.

F6 padlock certainly helps when flying the FW190 because you rarely get bounced, its ALL about plane specs. YOu see a SPit coming with externals and you have time to flip and dive and use your superior acceleration and speed to escape.

However it works both ways, its also harder to shoot things down, as they see you bouncing them also.

I realise its much easier to get bounced on servers without externals, and if I did most of my flying on these servers, no doubt I would have been bounced and shot down a lot.

However, I dont have trackIR, just a simple joystick with a hatswitch, and for people without trackIR they are at a big disadvantage vs people with TRAckIR. I like to be on a level playing field, so I prefer flying with externals and padlock. I find it very hard to manouvre in a dogfight and also use my thumb to look around. Most people on Warclouds fly with TrackIR. Its something I will never buy.

MAybe I should explain that comment a bit more :-

'MOstly flying on a server with cockpit on, no enemy icons, exernals on, I have enever been shot down by a SPitfire in a year whilst in a FW190.'

I think it says more about the planes specs than my flying. It has a much better dive and top speed than the Spitfire, so I am always able to escape an attacking Spit. Other planes ike the LA5FN,P47,Tempest and P51 can catch me often.

Gigg1esworth
08-12-2007, 11:01 AM
It's...IT'S NOT THERE.

Xiolablu3
08-12-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I guess he sure does not have "forrest shooting at him" effect, damn I hate that...

Sure not, and I hate spits even for that issue, above all on maps with "extreme" texture (Normandy, new Africa, "Italian" map, well all the new maps).

I don't know why them and Tempest must have different Lod from the other planes.. ok Tempest is a "new" model, but in the same package there is the Ju88 that is bigger at 700m than at 400m...

If I see dots they are german, american or russian (but the latter disappear over forest, spits disappear over any terrain in my PC).

Probably the last I flyed seriously (3 weeks ago) I was chased by a Spit9 flying a A8 and passing my view from right side to left side after a smooth turn (to see behind with TIR) I TOTALLY lost it and after 5 seconds I could see it again.

After the 4th time I disconnected... I was really pissed off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand the minimalistic LOD of the spit, sure it's a small plane but so is 109 and it got one of the biggest dots in the game. The Seafire and the MkVIII are even worse as their wings disappear at certain ranges. The cloaking abilities makes the Spitfire much more dangerous than it's excellent performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 109 is a very old model and appears as an easily visible low-res cross in the distance. The Spitfire's curved wing and high-res model makes it harder to see as it blends in with the trees.

Still, I have no problems seeing it on my system.

WOLFPLAYER2007
08-12-2007, 11:12 AM
You guys are so funny, no matter if it is a Spitfire or a 109...they will become junk if they dare to fight with me.

Brain32
08-12-2007, 11:24 AM
However, I dont have trackIR, just a simple joystick with a hatswitch, and for people without trackIR they are at a big disadvantage vs people with TRAckIR.
Not really, all you need is a bit of practice, I only have a very worn out Saitek EVO, no pedals, no TrackIR, no fancy stuff and I do very well on FR or close to FR setting servers.
In time the thumb just goes all over the hat switch like it's the most natural thing you can do with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Whirlin_merlin
08-12-2007, 12:38 PM
As someone who has watched Xiola fly many time I have to say his success comes less from externals and more from discipline.

He stays high and only commits when he's weighed up the odds. He also gets out of there at the right momment.

If only I had that self discipiline.

M_Gunz
08-12-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
...

I guess he sure does not have "forrest shooting at him" effect, damn I hate that...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too.

I can't play without at least limited range icons due to the cloaking effect of many planes.
It's one of the changes I want most in SOW is the view system. More of the same will be a
killer for me, why upgrade PC just to see planes DISAPPEAR while I watch at less than 1/2 mile?

The difference in hardware will "only" be about $700-$800, maybe more. Better things I can
do with the money, I already have IL-2:1946.

Manu-6S
08-12-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
As someone who has watched Xiola fly many time I have to say his success comes less from externals and more from discipline.

He stays high and only commits when he's weighed up the odds. He also gets out of there at the right momment.

If only I had that self discipiline.

Of course, I have nothing against Xiola, it's a nice poster and I'm sure that he's a good pilot too.

The problem is only the "never been shot down in a year": in full switch server you WILL BE bounced by plane that you don't see, no way how great is your SA... and with FW's DM (don't listen what Hayateace always states) you need a pair of hits to be PK or, anyway, slower than the enemy.

I use TIR since 3 months, before I was a NewView addicted.

Xiolablu3
08-12-2007, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
As someone who has watched Xiola fly many time I have to say his success comes less from externals and more from discipline.

He stays high and only commits when he's weighed up the odds. He also gets out of there at the right momment.

If only I had that self discipiline.

Of course, I have nothing against Xiola, it's a nice poster and I'm sure that he's a good pilot too.

The problem is only the "never been shot down in a year": in full switch server you WILL BE bounced by plane that you don't see, no way how great is your SA... and with FW's DM (don't listen what Hayateace always states) you need a pair of hits to be PK or, anyway, slower than the enemy.

I use TIR since 3 months, before I was a NewView addicted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your nice comments WHirlin, and I agree Manu that I would certainly have been bounced on a full real server and shot down many times. - its something you cant avoid.

I should add that I have often played full real servers in the past, and quite enjoyed myself, but at the moment I just prefer the constant action of an externals server. YOu can always find the enemy quickly and easily if hes in range, and also its much easier to locate the ground targets. Its just full on action, and thats what I am into right now. I totally realise its not quite as 'real' with externals on (everything else is basically the same as Warlclouds settings) but its where I have most fun, and I decided thats what computer gaming should be about.

Right now I get bored flying around for an hour looking for the enemy. Or taking off with bombs and flying around and around down low as a sitting duck looking for the ground targets to bomb, only for someone with no intention of helping the team win the map, but is there purely to buff up his stats, to drop out of the sky and shoot you down as an easy kill.

The reason I am so confident on the abilities of the FW190 and that the Spitfire isn't 'all that' is because I can see myself leaving SPitfires in the dust everytime I play. I am not guessing what they are doing, I can see them. This means when people complain about the abilities of SPitfires, I cannot help but think that they are misjudging the situation somehow. Sure it turns and climbs amazingly well, and its easy to fly - just like the real plane. But the price it pays for this ability is a slow top speed, and poor dive, which is a major hindrance to me. I am forever getting run down in 109F4's (mkV) and FW190's (mkIX) when I fly a Spitfire.

I also dont understand why the people who slate SPitfires for being 'too good' dont fly it all the time and have it as their favourite plane? If they do very well in it then surely they should fly it a lot?!? WHy all the wierd kind of hate for the plane? I do best in a FW190, so its my favourite plane. If I did best in a SPitfire then it would be my favourite plane.

I dont get it.

Jaws2002
08-12-2007, 04:43 PM
Only the people that don't fly it at all think is such a magic plane. I for one can't fight my way out a paper bag with the spit. Specially against 190's. Fighting 190's in spitfire is very frustrating. Most of the time you just can't catch them and in many cases someone else will come and bounce you while you are chasing him.
You sure can outturn the 190 but most 190 drivers out there won't give you that chance. If the 190 you were chasing starts to turn is time to check your six because he's about to set you up for his buddies.

Is the same with the other people that call the German planes uber. Only a few of those are left since most of them are flying both sides often enough to know there's no magic bullet in this game.
All planes are killers and targets in the same time.

Manu-6S
08-12-2007, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I should add that I have often played full real servers in the past, and quite enjoyed myself, but at the moment I just prefer the constant action of an externals server. YOu can always find the enemy quickly and easily if hes in range, and also its much easier to locate the ground targets. Its just full on action, and thats what I am into right now. I totally realise its not quite as 'real' with externals on (everything else is basically the same as Warlclouds settings) but its where I have most fun, and I decided thats what computer gaming should be about.

Right now I get bored flying around for an hour looking for the enemy. Or taking off with bombs and flying around and around down low as a sitting duck looking for the ground targets to bomb, only for someone with no intention of helping the team win the map, but is there purely to buff up his stats, to drop out of the sky and shoot you down as an easy kill.


Oh, I totally agree... it depends on how you want to have fun: I enjoy to cover my targets intercepting enemy or to take an AG loadout to bomb enemy convoy. I like to chat with other guys in my side (usually the side with less pilots) and coordinate bombers-escorts.

I try to take all as a realistic simulation: for example in ubermission (+50 players) with my italian friends I flied a Ju88 for more than a hour to reach the objective and return to base, all with full switch... I was heading my squad (4 ju88 and 4 Fw190 as escort) on the objective by pure navigation.
The same way I flied a A6M2N for an hour over sea to locate a carrier or 1 hour and an half covering a important site not knowing if the enemy was directed there (he didn't).

If you want fast action you have to choose external, but in this way you aren't simulating (at the best level that Il2 can simulate): you have not to take care of important matters like SA. So you aren't flying that plane like a real pilot (with the limit of game, of course), you are only playing in it.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sure it turns and climbs amazingly well, and its easy to fly - just like the real plane. But the price it pays for this ability is a slow top speed, and poor dive, which is a major hindrance to me.


You say "just the real plane": ok I accept the Spit's FM... can I claim that FW190 don't fly like "the real plane"? or P38 or the later 109s (argh!!)or, again, P39 (!!!)?
One of the think that I hate in Oleg's Spit (my opinion) is that they have not modelling flaws: autorecover, overheat, invisiblity, uber resistance to damage (if not dewinged they can fight for 10 minuted with engine smoking withou losing speed), no PK, no wing or nose (!!!) in some model. You see: all pro and no flaws. It's too slow... we are lucky, at least is not overmodelled in that aspect...


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I also dont understand why the people who slate SPitfires for being 'too good' dont fly it all the time and have it as their favourite plane? If they do very well in it then surely they should fly it a lot?!? WHy all the wierd kind of hate for the plane? I do best in a FW190, so its my favourite plane. If I did best in a SPitfire then it would be my favourite plane.


I can speak for myself as always.

Look, I play PES since '98: my favourite team? Romania and Cech Rep... I know that using Brasil or Argentina or France I can win easily, but I don't choose these teams.

Why? because usually people who choose Brasil use only R10 to dribble all the players and reach the goal, or use Henry speed all the time.

Simply it's too easy to win and doing this your skill will not raise. I always stated that if blue pilots and red pilots (spitfire pilots, use american planes' pilots are different) switched their rides the blue side would win easily. Because to be competitive in a 109 or 190 you have to learn to fly, while in a Spit the thing isn't so important.

I don't want to call names but I know pilots that are really strong in Spitfires but sucks in all the other planes simply because they fly them like they were Spits.

And the "2 noobs, one in Spit the other in 109" is easily proved.

And BTW I don't hate Spitfire itself: I loved that plane, the real one... I hate his rappresention in Il2.

Spaturnio
08-13-2007, 08:44 AM
For how I see things in Il-2 the only BIG fault in the Spit model (except for stealth qualities) is that they don't drag apropriately when manouvering or zoom climbing compared with other models.
Most of the Late russian planes suffer from this same behaviour.

The 109 is in the middle IMO and right on spot, while the FW190 and the P-51 are in the worst position: as soon as you touch commands your speed drops as hell.
Another BIG issue with the 190 is that it doesn't Accelerate as the real one is supposed to (most of you, I see, use Manual PP) in front of so many different sources pointing out how amazing the acceleratio of the Anton was...

I also think this fault has to be merged in the way the Game engine is written (read: impossible to change) or, Oleg either would be deaf and blind or have some personal issue with Kurt Tank. Probably it's a problem of Lighht weight VS HP, aiming at reaching the max speed of that model.
On the contrary, the heavy and powerfull fighters has to drag a lot to avoid reaching sound barrier and thhis reflects on the flight enevelope.
About the Mustang I hear a lot of people (some of which have flown on Spit annd Bf-109 too) pointing out that the Mustang is a truck, easilly outtunrned by british and german planes, so you have to stay fast if you want to take advantage of those laminar wing flows.

We have to wait for BoB and see if Oleg is taking care of the problem.

gkll
08-13-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
For how I see things in Il-2 the only BIG fault in the Spit model (except for stealth qualities) is that they don't drag apropriately when manouvering or zoom climbing compared with other models.
Most of the Late russian planes suffer from this same behaviour.
.....

We have to wait for BoB and see if Oleg is taking care of the problem.

Why do you have this feeling about this 'problem'? Is it based on a review of wingloading, powerloading and oswald factors? Wing profile and lift capabilities? Induced and parasitic drag characteristics? Or is it just a feeling?

My feeling is that the spit should in fact be the best WW2 fighter for this much debated 'e-retention', and my feeling is based at least on a review of some of the most influential factors on this capability, and some basic understandings of how aero works.

I guess I feel like pushing back on the relentless pressure against the spit, it has demonstrably a good fit with hard data such as climb rate and speed, people are left with other complaints when these are shown to be in line with other planes in game.

Check out what IL2 compare thinks of the 109 G2 weight for example, it is only 10% over the empty weight, it sticks out like a sore thumb, whereas most aircraft (spit eg) are 25% over. And planes with big tanks go higher yet. If I have ever found a tweak in the game engine to 'balance' gameplay this g2 tweak is probably it, to provide at least one marginal turn fighter for the 'axis only' crowd.

Me, I'm a spit-dweeb of only moderate talent, the little I fly these days I am a target for all 190s..... But I don't complain (until perhaps now, and as an eg...) that the plane that arguably dove the fastest of all WW2 prop aircraft has a dive limit in game of 820 (Mr Spit). I just live with it, my opinion on this is that if Oleg gave the spit a realistic dive limit 190s couldn't get away in a steep dive. And the 190 boys are pretty bitter (on average, not Xio for eg) already.

I see no favors done for the spit, at all.

Manu-6S
08-13-2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Why do you have this feeling about this 'problem'? Is it based on a review of wingloading, powerloading and oswald factors? Wing profile and lift capabilities? Induced and parasitic drag characteristics? Or is it just a feeling?

My feeling is that the spit should in fact be the best WW2 fighter for this much debated 'e-retention', and my feeling is based at least on a review of some of the most influential factors on this capability, and some basic understandings of how aero works.

I guess I feel like pushing back on the relentless pressure against the spit, it has demonstrably a good fit with hard data such as climb rate and speed, people are left with other complaints when these are shown to be in line with other planes in game.

Check out what IL2 compare thinks of the 109 G2 weight for example, it is only 10% over the empty weight, it sticks out like a sore thumb, whereas most aircraft (spit eg) are 25% over. And planes with big tanks go higher yet. If I have ever found a tweak in the game engine to 'balance' gameplay this g2 tweak is probably it, to provide at least one marginal turn fighter for the 'axis only' crowd.

Me, I'm a spit-dweeb of only moderate talent, the little I fly these days I am a target for all 190s..... But I don't complain (until perhaps now, and as an eg...) that the plane that arguably dove the fastest of all WW2 prop aircraft has a dive limit in game of 820 (Mr Spit). I just live with it, my opinion on this is that if Oleg gave the spit a realistic dive limit 190s couldn't get away in a steep dive. And the 190 boys are pretty bitter (on average, not Xio for eg) already.

I see no favors done for the spit, at all.

Are you serious??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gkll
08-13-2007, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

Are you serious??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If you were serious you would supply at least a logical scenario about something overmodelled. You know, something based on say wingloading powerloading oswald factor induced vs/and parasitic drag..... instead Manu you are famous for professing love for the spit and simultaneously bashing the in-game spit, relentlessly. Based on?

I can make a case for correct e-retention based on real things. Can you make the opposite case based on more than your gut?

M_Gunz
08-13-2007, 01:06 PM
I can maneuver 190's and P-51 without bleeding more speed than they should but I have to be
careful about it and watch the speed since my chair gives me no feel of slowing down.
Fly without slip and don't go into stall, which your wingtips will show when you can watch
how far that is -- learning that outside combat, I know it cuts into play time but possible.
Perhaps some people still have all 100's on elevator? Mine starts at 44 and goes to 100 by
steps of +6 per slider and it works for me as long as I don't fixate away from the flying
totally. When I do, I get into awful speed bleed but I ain't surprised by it.

How fast should 190 accelerate and from what speeds? What is the expectation beyond "much"
kind of terms?

anarchy52
08-13-2007, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by gkll:

If I have ever found a tweak in the game engine to 'balance' gameplay this g2 tweak is probably it, to provide at least one marginal turn fighter for the 'axis only' crowd.

Oddly enough, in-game 109G2 matches turn times from soviet wartime trials perfectly.


I see no favors done for the spit, at all.
overheat, engine DM, e-retention...
you need glasses.

Sturm_Williger
08-13-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
...But I don't complain (until perhaps now, and as an eg...) that the plane that arguably dove the fastest of all WW2 prop aircraft has a dive limit in game of 820 (Mr Spit)...

I thought the P47 was supposed to be the fastest diver of WW2 prop aircraft ?

gkll
08-13-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:

If I have ever found a tweak in the game engine to 'balance' gameplay this g2 tweak is probably it, to provide at least one marginal turn fighter for the 'axis only' crowd.

Oddly enough, in-game 109G2 matches turn times from soviet wartime trials perfectly.


I see no favors done for the spit, at all.
overheat, engine DM, e-retention...
you need glasses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For e-retention do you have anything based on anything? Or as in Manu and others just a feeling? Spit had excellent powerloading and best in european theatre wing loading, this plus good oswald factor leads to low induced drag during hard maneuvering, good power leads to good acceleration after the turn. I don't get what people are on about the 'e-retention' stuff.... look at the numbers. Sometimes it seems they may just be repeating something they saw on the forum?

For overheat what is the issue? Don't all planes reset and give you the 5 minutes or whatever extra as soon as you get an 'engine normal' message after overheating? If they don't that wouldn't be fair... or is it you think the spit overheated in RL? Maybe post some tests where it did so? RL spit got to operating temperature and <then> climbed full power to 32,000 ft with the rads closed, hardly moved the temp gauge.... RL spit had big draggy rads that hurt top end substantially, maybe the engineers were tired of the overheating MK V's (RL and in-game) and put in enough rad for the IX. This is a choice the engineers can make specifically, if they want, you can always put in the rad you need to avoid overheating, generally you pay a drag penalty however, this appears to the route the spit guys took going from the V to the IX IMO.

Don't know about the engine DM, what is the issue?

P47 may have dived faster than spit, pitot tube stuff makes it unclear how fast some spits may have dived, fast enough to tear the prop off in one test anyways. The thing had a very high recoverable terminal dive speed, as a minimum would be similar to the 47? When I said 'arguably' I meant it is not clear, however you could certainly make the argument that the fastest recoverable dive speed ever for a prop engine anything was a spit. In-game many many planes can dive faster... that is the context.

I really don't get it, I get blown away by 190s on a regular basis in my infrequent flying, what do people want? Anyways its not such a big deal, but it does seem in character that a 190 thread turns into a spit-bashing thread.... I responded to that didnt start it.

Those who like 190s more than they hate spits can have their thread back, I've said what has been said a million time over already, repeating likely won't change anybody's mind......

PS interesting about the G2, I'll have to mull that over a bit. If the 109 needs to be underweight to pull the turn the RL bird did, what does this say about the inherent game FM modelling? As I say that bird is completely on its own considering the IL2 compare weight against empty weight.... all other birds are relatively way heavier.

Ratsack
08-13-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by gkll:


PS interesting about the G2, I'll have to mull that over a bit. If the 109 needs to be underweight to pull the turn the RL bird did, what does this say about the inherent game FM modelling? ...

Have a look at this thread over at CWOS:


http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=14471 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14471)


It's very interesting.There's some informed speculation in there about what's been done to make numbers 'fit' for various types.

cheers,
Ratsack

Manu-6S
08-13-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:

If I have ever found a tweak in the game engine to 'balance' gameplay this g2 tweak is probably it, to provide at least one marginal turn fighter for the 'axis only' crowd.

Oddly enough, in-game 109G2 matches turn times from soviet wartime trials perfectly.


I see no favors done for the spit, at all.
overheat, engine DM, e-retention...
you need glasses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can be strange to you gkll, but I always stated G2 as "strange" in his attitude compared to the other 109 (you can look my old posts, I always claimed it like suspect): but like anarchy said, the turn time seem correct. IMO are the other late 109s who are "porked" by the fake elevator stiffness.

What do you think about these?

What do you think about FW190's acceleration?
What do you think about FW190's turn time?
And again what do you think about FW190's DM? (btw, today I flew for the first tim after 3 weeks on Warclouds and PKed an Anton after 2 seconds burst from my MustangIII = 4 x 0.50cal... and in the same sortie I took down a Ju88 for PK too)

I always try to be objective, try it you too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You speak about Spit like a marvellously plane... but it was a WW2 plane like the others, with his pro and con. His legendary performances come out above all by his wing area and the new Merlins (powerful even over 6000m compared to FW190), for the rest it was a plane. Ok, no overheat.. but why should a 109 with MW50 overheat after 4 minutes then german limited his use to 10 minutes?

See gkll, as I said to Xio, I can accept Spit's FM and DM, REALLY: but I would the same attention for the other planes.

I'm sure Oleg didn't it voluntarily: and I'm not here aspecting some change... I would only like that somebody like you admitted that not all the planes are modelled correcly.

And I'd like to repost this:

:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sure it turns and climbs amazingly well, and its easy to fly - just like the real plane. But the price it pays for this ability is a slow top speed, and poor dive, which is a major hindrance to me.


You say "just the real plane": ok I accept the Spit's FM... can I claim that FW190 don't fly like "the real plane"? or P38 or the later 109s (argh!!)or, again, P39 (!!!)?
One of the think that I hate in Oleg's Spit (my opinion) is that they have not modelling flaws: autorecover, overheat, invisiblity, uber resistance to damage (if not dewinged they can fight for 10 minuted with engine smoking withou losing speed), no PK, no wing or nose (!!!) in some model. You see: all pro and no flaws. It's too slow... we are lucky, at least is not overmodelled in that aspect...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think that my favourite plane was the Spit in 3.x... I remember how I stalled in it then my mates flew La7 and Lagg3 (the "light" one).
I still have som screenshots in my HD where I'm bringing down 109s in P51 and Spitfire.

I'm not kidding: I hated the 109... playing offline I started with I16 and Mig3... I found out that my friend created a virtual axis squad and I learned to fly 109 and in lesser way 190 (my *** got kicked so many time).

After the 4.07 (4.08?) patch I started my career in 190 and my SA become very high but I lost my manouvre ability with 109.

I really love the REAL Spit, not the joke we have in IL2.


Originally posted by gkll:
...But I don't complain (until perhaps now, and as an eg...) that the plane that arguably dove the fastest of all WW2 prop aircraft has a dive limit in game of 820 (Mr Spit)...


That Spit was totally **** at the end of his dive... did you never think that maybe the other planes should reach that speed too but they didn't for safety?
Or maybe you think that german and finnish pilots were alerted to not go over 750Km/h in the dive because at 751Km/h the plane would disintegrate itself?

About energy retention, I'm not an engineer and I don't want to lose my time in "research" but can I have dubts when I boom 2 turning Spit9-25s 1500 m above me and after the zoom they are almost at my altitude? When I had at least 650 km/h at their alt? Because this happens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can't wait to play with Sow...

BTW I DON'T STARTED THE SPIT BASHING IN THIS THREAT... I'm pissed of this like you...

M_Gunz
08-13-2007, 06:18 PM
IIRC the highspeed dive Spit was a recon IX and wasn't there late model Spits that got close?
IIRC there was a P-51 dived to over .84 mach over Wright Field that landed with twisted wings.

It'd be nicer if these planes started buffeting sooner and needed better piloting to survive,
a little off and it's tumble and break. Or should it be like hitting a wall, as it mostly is?
Our control surfaces do come off but I don't see the flutter and shaking I only THINK should
but... no data so no claim!

How many of us even given training would attempt to take these planes within 100kph of Vne?
That's only about 62mph out of maybe 550mph, but then some are danger-junkies at least until
the really bad crash.

Manu-6S
08-13-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:


PS interesting about the G2, I'll have to mull that over a bit. If the 109 needs to be underweight to pull the turn the RL bird did, what does this say about the inherent game FM modelling? ...

Have a look at this thread over at CWOS:


http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=14471 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14471)


It's very interesting.There's some informed speculation in there about what's been done to make numbers 'fit' for various types.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting Ratsack, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jermin122
08-13-2007, 08:20 PM
I can speak for myself as always.

Look, I play PES since '98: my favourite team? Romania and Cech Rep... I know that using Brasil or Argentina or France I can win easily, but I don't choose these teams.

Why? because usually people who choose Brasil use only R10 to dribble all the players and reach the goal, or use Henry speed all the time.

Simply it's too easy to win and doing this your skill will not raise. I always stated that if blue pilots and red pilots (spitfire pilots, use american planes' pilots are different) switched their rides the blue side would win easily. Because to be competitive in a 109 or 190 you have to learn to fly, while in a Spit the thing isn't so important.

I don't want to call names but I know pilots that are really strong in Spitfires but sucks in all the other planes simply because they fly them like they were Spits.

Totally agree!

gkll
08-14-2007, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

....

I really love the REAL Spit, not the joke we have in IL2.

....

BTW I DON'T STARTED THE SPIT BASHING IN THIS THREAT... I'm pissed of this like you...

That above seems a little flamey to me, or what exactly....

Ive never thought much about about any planes DM, my opinion is not worth much, I wont waste anyones time with it. Maybe theres some stuff wrong with the spit DM, maybe some other planes got weird stuff too, I don't know. Ive read threads and came away with a general picture of variable and sometimes inconsistent DMs, never noticed a pattern of bias though.

I can't speak to 109 overheat yes or no, I don't know the plane well enough. If the designers put in enough rad to cool the bird under max power conditions at various altitudes then it shouldn't overheat. If they didn't, it should. However my opinion on this is worthless, I haven't made the attempt to gather the info.

I do think the spit designers made a choice after the V, they saw that more horsepower would definitely need more rad (the V's could be overheated) and they decided what the h*ll lets put in the last rads the merlin will ever need, and they did. And paid a price, there was a really good aero thread looking at parasitic drag on the spit, from maybe 3 years ago. The conclusion about the rads was that they were high drag even considering rad area only, and the rad area was high as well. So a lot of drag, however good cooling at all speeds, altitudes and attitudes.

You're still burned about the 'e-retention' I see. Ill get burned for these numbers but here is a few I compiled on the spit and the 190, I do welcome corrections.

190 D
hp 2240
empty weight+350 kg 3850
wing area 18.61

Spit 25
hp 1970
empty weight+300 kg 2845
wing area 22.48

The added weights are the weight for fuel to climb to altitude, fight and land. I got no real idea if these are close or not, however you could use the empty weights it would make no real difference. I like this approach because long legged birds like the Mustang are compared on an equal 'dogfight' basis....

Anyways the calc wingload is 127 kg/m2 for the spit and 207 kg/m2 for the 190. Big difference. And the powerloading is 1.44 kg/hp for the spit and 1.72 kg/hp for the 190. Another substantial advantage for the spit. These two factors probably explain 80% of the variation between planes in many RL flight parameters related to our mythical 'e-bleed'? Pretty high I bet. So these numbers are a lot different, the spit will eat the 190 alive in turns, low to medium speed acceleration, and the last part of the zoom where speeds are moderate.

The 190 we have heard has low parasitic drag, so high speed acceleration is better even though powerloading is significantly worse, drag becomes dominant over weight (as the factor controlling acceleration) at higher speeds. It rolls like a fiend too, and dives well. So its advantages are speed roll and high speed acceleration, so you're gonna need a lot of smash to beat mr spit.

Anyways the raw numbers suggest the spit is the better e-fighter <and> the better angles fighter, at the same time. The 190 becomes a HnR plane. Those are RL numbers (corrections welcome).

Anyways I thought I was done Ill sign off now...

gkll
08-14-2007, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:


PS interesting about the G2, I'll have to mull that over a bit. If the 109 needs to be underweight to pull the turn the RL bird did, what does this say about the inherent game FM modelling? ...

Have a look at this thread over at CWOS:


http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=14471 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14471)


It's very interesting.There's some informed speculation in there about what's been done to make numbers 'fit' for various types.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link, I agree with those who suggest the tweaks are to match performance. That is why it is interesting that the G2 needs to be light weight to hit the turn time.

gkll
08-14-2007, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IIRC the highspeed dive Spit was a recon IX and wasn't there late model Spits that got close?
IIRC there was a P-51 dived to over .84 mach over Wright Field that landed with twisted wings.

It'd be nicer if these planes started buffeting sooner and needed better piloting to survive,
a little off and it's tumble and break. Or should it be like hitting a wall, as it mostly is?
Our control surfaces do come off but I don't see the flutter and shaking I only THINK should
but... no data so no claim!

How many of us even given training would attempt to take these planes within 100kph of Vne?
That's only about 62mph out of maybe 550mph, but then some are danger-junkies at least until
the really bad crash.

Hi Max - agree we could add some skill to the piloting and it would be better, having the flight surfaces always fly off at X IAS is a compromise for sure. Better to have the thing hang together until the best estimate of real compressibility... however as the speed rises if you didn't trim etc correctly poof! off go your wings or what have you...

There was a recon XIX that went <real> fast in a dive somewhere around 1950, read good documentation on this. And during the war as you relate. My point is the spit <arguably> dove at least as fast as any other plane and had relative freedom from compressibility. We heard before on these forums (seemed like good info) that the p47 suffered compressibility at very high dive speeds, they added some flaps or speed brakes or something to later ships I think I recall. So they all had issues, but maybe in terminal and recoverable velocity the spit was the best of all...

S!all

WOLFMondo
08-14-2007, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

F6 padlock certainly helps when flying the FW190 because you rarely get bounced, its ALL about plane specs. YOu see a SPit coming with externals and you have time to flip and dive and use your superior acceleration and speed to escape.

However, I dont have trackIR, just a simple joystick with a hatswitch, and for people without trackIR they are at a big disadvantage vs people with TRAckIR. I like to be on a level playing field, so I prefer flying with externals and padlock. I find it very hard to manouvre in a dogfight and also use my thumb to look around. Most people on Warclouds fly with TrackIR. Its something I will never buy.



F6 ruins many a good server. Using F6 is an unrealistic ability and massivly detracts from anything a WW2 pilot would have experianced and the single reason I can't enjoy UKDED2, all the F6 aces. I don't have track IR but have never regarded myself as a target for others and really only fly on Zeke vs Wildcat these days and very occasionally warclouds.

I do however find that full switch or servers with locked views the 190 is actually very superior on as you can blind side opponents prior to extending and when working with a wing man you can drag and bag all day long. With externals on servers this is near impossible. As are thatch weaves and any other tag team style manouvers which the 190 is best at.

M_Gunz
08-14-2007, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
There was a recon XIX that went <real> fast in a dive somewhere around 1950, read good documentation on this.

Oh, a XIX, not a IX! Yeah it reached .89 mach due to an accident but was tracked in the dive
and though it landed, never flew again.


My point is the spit <arguably> dove at least as fast as any other plane and had relative freedom from compressibility.

That's been my quick counter to all the "Spits had big draggy wings and rads and COULDN'T..."
claims. How do you end up with the highest on record prop dive if that? Or even get near?
But a IX is not a XIX and somewhere there the wings did get different foils or not?

Manu-6S
08-14-2007, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
You're still burned about the 'e-retention' I see.

Not at all, from long time I'm not complaining about Spit's e-retention. Really!

Infact:


Originally posted by gkll:
Ill get burned for these numbers but here is a few I compiled on the spit and the 190, I do welcome corrections.

190 D
hp 2240
empty weight+350 kg 3850
wing area 18.61

Spit 25
hp 1970
empty weight+300 kg 2845
wing area 22.48

The added weights are the weight for fuel to climb to altitude, fight and land. I got no real idea if these are close or not, however you could use the empty weights it would make no real difference. I like this approach because long legged birds like the Mustang are compared on an equal 'dogfight' basis....

Anyways the calc wingload is 127 kg/m2 for the spit and 207 kg/m2 for the 190. Big difference. And the powerloading is 1.44 kg/hp for the spit and 1.72 kg/hp for the 190. Another substantial advantage for the spit. These two factors probably explain 80% of the variation between planes in many RL flight parameters related to our mythical 'e-bleed'? Pretty high I bet. So these numbers are a lot different, the spit will eat the 190 alive in turns, low to medium speed acceleration, and the last part of the zoom where speeds are moderate.

The 190 we have heard has low parasitic drag, so high speed acceleration is better even though powerloading is significantly worse, drag becomes dominant over weight (as the factor controlling acceleration) at higher speeds. It rolls like a fiend too, and dives well. So its advantages are speed roll and high speed acceleration, so you're gonna need a lot of smash to beat mr spit.

Anyways the raw numbers suggest the spit is the better e-fighter <and> the better angles fighter, at the same time. The 190 becomes a HnR plane. Those are RL numbers (corrections welcome).


... I find part this very exhaustive. Thanks for posting that.



See gkll, as I said to Xio, I can accept Spit's FM and DM, REALLY: but I would the same attention for the other planes.

I'm sure Oleg didn't it voluntarily: and I'm not here aspecting some change... I would only like that somebody like you admitted that not all the planes are modelled correcly.


But since I was recalling "justice" in plane's modelling, you didn't say nothing about all the other "flaws" (the list is in the post above).

My questions, do you see those? What do you think?

It seems that voluntarily or not you ignored them.

Oh, I please you to not go away for the discussion, there is no need to be twitchy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-14-2007, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:Using F6 is an unrealistic ability and massivly detracts from anything a WW2 pilot would have experianced and the single reason I can't enjoy UKDED2, all the F6 aces.

Why dont you try UKD 3, WOLF? Its full switch - no enemy plane icons at all and were pushing it at the moment, developing new maps ect.

Come visit and if you have any comments or suggestions drop by at the map makers forums and they'll be really appreciated.

Manu-6S
08-14-2007, 04:05 AM
Oh to return on topic:

Yes, FW190 were HnR planes against later opponents..

Like I said before I find clouds very useful, and from what I read in "The Big Show" it was usual to dogfight inside clouds.

I wish some server's missions have more "realistic" setting about clouds instead of the same 4-5 buffs every 3Kms...

I can't wait to see the new engine... maybe with fatigue limit too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Manu-6S
08-14-2007, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:Using F6 is an unrealistic ability and massivly detracts from anything a WW2 pilot would have experianced and the single reason I can't enjoy UKDED2, all the F6 aces.

Why dont you try UKD 3, WOLF? Its full switch - no enemy plane icons at all and were pushing it at the moment, developing new maps ect.

Come visit and if you have any comments or suggestions drop by at the map makers forums and they'll be really appreciated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried to fly there but I can't see it on my HL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

mynameisroland
08-14-2007, 04:13 AM
I dont use HyperLobby but here is a link where you can find server IP:

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=13161

Manu-6S
08-14-2007, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont use HyperLobby but here is a link where you can find server IP:

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=13161

Thanks mate!

Bookmarked it.

mynameisroland
08-14-2007, 04:34 AM
Cool Manu, hope to see you one sometime http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BBB_Hyperion
08-14-2007, 04:36 AM
Just a question a plane build as interceptor 109 , spitfire etc . Should have good climb and speed . Therefore wings for such plane are built to allow good climb. This is a tradeoff in topspeed always as good climb != fastest speed possible with airframe and engine. The wing construction limits the plane like many other features. So a spitfire or 109 is not build for topspeed even trying this with slats or elliptic wings is only a compromise. Under this impression why does the drag +induced drag etc on a spitfire allow it to catch up a 190 on the last phase of a dive where it is outaccelerated before it catches up later. Maybe the prop drag values are important here or that the 190 stops accelerating when max drag vs available power is reached (limited by altitude) Spitfire is logical higher in dive (as pursuer)and higher altitude allows more room for speeding before compression)?.
Spitfire a good energy keeper ? I doubt that it is any better than a p51 regarding energy state.Wonder how much impact the "realistic" full throttle dive has on the energy balance ?

Spaturnio
08-14-2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
Why do you have this feeling about this 'problem'? Is it based on a review of wingloading, powerloading and oswald factors? Wing profile and lift capabilities? Induced and parasitic drag characteristics? Or is it just a feeling?

My feeling is that the spit should in fact be the best WW2 fighter for this much debated 'e-retention', and my feeling is based at least on a review of some of the most influential factors on this capability, and some basic understandings of how aero works.
Well, most of the sources you cite are form early post war writers, but reality is much different. most of these pretended "energy retention" capabilities were based on the wrong assumption that the "elliptical wing" has an edge about lift and drag, but recent researches, based on real computer analysis of the air wingflow, show that the wing in a Spit is all but elliptical, and in fact, the trapezoid wing of the Emil 109 was way more efficient.
This lives us with the usual: large wings lift a lot and, having a deep cord allows for less overall thickness, meaning you can keep a large surface without sacrificing speed in a straight ride.
If you pull on the stick, this large wing surface act as a big airbrake, denting on the wingflow instantly but giving away speed as hell (ask some mirage pilot about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
Sure, elliptical wings have an advantage as far as you have a true elliptical wing plant, which is not the case in the spit.
Fact is that the choices made by the Spit designers were erroneous and this shows easily if you think that no other plane after the spit tried the way of the Elliptical wingplant.
No more about this: if you are looking for more, you can have plenty here: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/
About the Spit Dive Speed, thanks got it has been drawn correctly: reality tells us the spiit could be left behind in a dive by almost every plane with similar power (say a 109) except by a Zero, and much easier by heavier ones, like the 190 and the P47.
Dive and Low Wingload doesn't couples well; it's about Physic, not Opinions!
High spee was extremely bumpy, and ailerons became granitic, exactly as it happens in the 109: things got better with the new metal fabric in the XI but not by much.
The real Spit (and in fact everything propelled by a Merlin like the P-51) suffered of mediocre acceleration, meaning that, in a close dogfight, after the energy was spent, it would be easily left behind by the enemies: The merin is an high rev engine, being just 27L it had lot's of HP but very low torque compared with the german engines (35L and up); this means that, without a Gear selector (just PP) the Merin was not as brilliant in accelerating form low speed and that's because the spit was often left behind in the first stage of dash.
These are the reason because (coupled with the short range), after 1944 the spits shifted form first line fighters to second line, taking care of the returning bombers well inside the French territory and where it was safer (Clostermann seems to suggest this in his Book "Le grand cirque).
Just keep in mind that everithing that was written about the spit in the post war is coming from the British side, seen from a quite campanilistic angle: in fact the Spits were second line in the BoB, where the Hurricane did most of the Job, and, reading Galland, the German always had a sensation of superiority in their planes. Russian disliked the Spit, much preferring the P39 and the late Lags and Yaks, most of the war in middle east was fought by P40, and, in the far east by other models (mostly USA), meaning that the Spit never was "determinant" in the war effort, but anyway, thanks to a certain "home made propaganda" the spit became the "symbol" of the british war effort.
It was a good plane, much liked by the pilots because of it's many flight qualities, but a good plane is not necessarily a good fighter.
But enough about real plane: this is a Simulation were plane behaviour is given by hard data written in the game engine.


I see no favors done for the spit, at all.
I don't care what YOU can do in a spit: give that bird in the hands of a capable AI and look how it can zoom up in a Immelmann, reverse 180? and then follow the enemy in the opposite direction without apparent loss of energy...
To me this is a drag problem, to you I don't know.


P47 may have dived faster than spit, pitot tube stuff makes it unclear how fast some spits may have dived, fast enough to tear the prop off in one test anyways. The thing had a very high recoverable terminal dive speed, as a minimum would be similar to the 47?
You don't see the point: it's not about how fast you can go, which is up to structural strenght, but is about how much time you need to go that fast. A FW190 could outdive a P47 in the early stages of the ride because it accelerated so much better, but after a while the Thud would close distances and then dive away because it was almost twice as heavy. Typhoon and Tempests could do the same, probably better because of better acceleration but the Spit lacked both, weight, aerodynamic and acceleration, reason because, while the Spit could afford faster speed in a dive, because it was "stronger" the typical manouver for a 109 was to dive away, because of smaller frame and much better acceleration.
You cannot dive forever to attain an intended speed: if you don'0t have enough height you gotta pull up to avoid mothher earth.

Kettenhunde
08-14-2007, 05:32 AM
so you're gonna need a lot of smash to beat mr spit.

Not really true. I know gamers tend to think this but this is not how aircraft turning performance works.

Engineers have very good reason for not concentrating on sustained level turn ability.

Sustained turn performance is about the least emphasised performance parameter in aircraft design.

Facts are all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Certainly they cannot all sustain the same performance nor do they all stall at the same point.

They all can exchange PE for KE to match sustained performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

WOLFMondo
08-14-2007, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:Using F6 is an unrealistic ability and massivly detracts from anything a WW2 pilot would have experianced and the single reason I can't enjoy UKDED2, all the F6 aces.

Why dont you try UKD 3, WOLF? Its full switch - no enemy plane icons at all and were pushing it at the moment, developing new maps ect.

Come visit and if you have any comments or suggestions drop by at the map makers forums and they'll be really appreciated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will do some point soon but I've really into Pacific scenarios at the moment so ZvsW is my favorite place to play at the moment. Doesn't it have padlock enabled though?

mynameisroland
08-14-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:Using F6 is an unrealistic ability and massivly detracts from anything a WW2 pilot would have experianced and the single reason I can't enjoy UKDED2, all the F6 aces.

Why dont you try UKD 3, WOLF? Its full switch - no enemy plane icons at all and were pushing it at the moment, developing new maps ect.

Come visit and if you have any comments or suggestions drop by at the map makers forums and they'll be really appreciated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will do some point soon but I've really into Pacific scenarios at the moment so ZvsW is my favorite place to play at the moment. Doesn't it have padlock enabled though? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your right it has F4 enabled at the moment - which imo kind of makes the arguent for externals off weaker.

Anyway, we have a new Iwo Jima map that has just reached testing stage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CarpeNoctem43
08-14-2007, 08:26 AM
This is all good advice, which I have known and practised for some time now. However, my problem is not which tactics to use but how to set up an attack properly? When I fly at 3000 or 4000 m I have difficulty in spotting the enemy below. Often I will see a number of dots circling each other. How do I know which ones are the enemy? Once I dive down to check I will have lost the surprise and have burnt too much energy thus my attack is over before it has even started!
This is something that's been bugging me for some time now.. Frown


It's probably been covered here in the five pages but I thought I would outline it again, just in case.

You are worried about tactics and you should be. FW-190 is not and shouldn't be flown 1v1 without an extreme advantage or surprise.

1. NEVER NEVER NEVER fly without a wingman. Two of you together coordinating can work over just about anything there, 2v1, 2v2 even 2v3.
2. Speed is life, keep it up as THIS dictates a fight and when it's over. Cruising @ 400+ is a must, if you descend to a furball 5km away AND BELOW YOU ~2000m goto 50% throttle but keep speed below 700 or so.
3. Do NOT turn fight AT ALL~!! as you pass through the 'bowl' make slashing attack and pull on the stick ONLY TO GET A SNAPSHOT... DO NOT TRACK SHOT!!
4. Make your pass, your wingman follows you up with the same plan, and EXTEND AWAY FROM THE FIGHT gaining altitude as you go. This is called resetting.
5. Stay outside the bowl and watch the fight. So poor sap will fly out of the bowl - either disengaging or to give chase to a friendly - these are your NUM-NUMS.
6. Position yourself above and behind him and roll over to pull LAG PURSUIT on this guy, as you get closer, wait and wait until that guy fills the screen. I mean it, no kidding. Squeeze MG/CANNON and he will disappear.

When you fly the 190, do EVERYTHING in the third dimension. Split-S, Immelmann, Zoom Climbs (sans NME behind you). Learn energy saving manuevers - these trade speed for altitude and vice versa)


And since you are flying with a wingman, learn the loose deuce and the double attack. Both these require an E-advantage.

You first should be double attack.

1. From an E-advantage
2. Pilot 1 makes a slashing attack on your intended victim and calls, '1 in'
2. Pilot 2 stays above the bandit, watches the sky, the bandit and LISTENS! (Pilot 1 will call directions, 'bandit left turn... now reversing right turn')
3. As Pilot 1 approaches bandit Pilot 2 prepares to start his run.
4. Pilot 1 calls 'off' as he passes the bandit.
5. Pilot 2 calls 'in' and now the rolls have switched.

For a Loose Deuce

Idea is to deplete the bandit of energy allowing high E attacks.

1. From an E-advantage.
2. Pilot 1 gets on the tail of the victim and APPLIES PRESSURE this results in bandit turning. (takes shots if can, but not necessary)
3. Pilot 2 puts himself above and OUTSIDE the turn circle AND LISTENS (1 will call bandit manuevers)
4. As soon as pilot two sees a GOOD opportunity for an attack he calls, '2 attacking'
5. If unsuccessful, 2 climbs again, positions himself and tries 3 & 4 again.
6. When 1 starts bleeding too much energy he will call two to take his position and the roles change. Be careful here as usually bandit is now behind #1's 3-9 line and this can be dangerous for him to disengage.

You time in offensive for both these should be 5 seconds or so. Any more than that and you are wasting E.

also, learn defensive splits, sandwich, and bracketing. Notice these are all wingman tactics.

Don't worry too much about BFM and when and where to use them it'll come to you, fairly naturally - you are more than likely doing them already.

Just remember, wingman and speed are REQUIRED.

Don't turn, if it bleeds speed below 400 UNLOAD YOUR STICK, if you don't start a egg timer, as this is the amount of time it will take until you have to hit refly.

And last, and MOST importantly - if you are in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right.


-Raven

gkll
08-14-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> so you're gonna need a lot of smash to beat mr spit.

Not really true. I know gamers tend to think this but this is not how aircraft turning performance works.

Engineers have very good reason for not concentrating on sustained level turn ability.

Sustained turn performance is about the least emphasised performance parameter in aircraft design.

Facts are all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Certainly they cannot all sustain the same performance nor do they all stall at the same point.

They all can exchange PE for KE to match sustained performance.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I get this, really. I should have said Mr 190 has got to defeat mr spit in a turn or two, <or> he should have stuck to HnR.... after not much sustained manuevering against a BFM capable foe (not often the case in ww2, <often> the case in our world....)the 190 will be bled down pretty bad, and looking for options. Win quick or get the h*ll out of it if your a 190 driver

Manu-6S
08-14-2007, 08:55 AM
@CarpeNoctem43:

I think to have a wingman is suggested, but not required. If you have the fastest plane in the planeset you are safe. Many times I let the enemy in a slower plane follow me to isolate him and hit him without possibility of escape: if he gave you his shoulders he's dead.

Even for the turn: FW190 is a good turner at high speed... run fast, turn (no more then 90?), hit and extend in a shallow dive.

Against plane who can catch you (P51?) you have to angle fight because their performance are better then yours.

gkll
08-14-2007, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Why do you have this feeling about this 'problem'? Is it based on a review of wingloading, powerloading and oswald factors? Wing profile and lift capabilities? Induced and parasitic drag characteristics? Or is it just a feeling?

My feeling is that the spit should in fact be the best WW2 fighter for this much debated 'e-retention', and my feeling is based at least on a review of some of the most influential factors on this capability, and some basic understandings of how aero works.
Well, most of the sources you cite are form early post war writers, but reality is much different. most of these pretended "energy retention" capabilities were based on the wrong assumption that the "elliptical wing" has an edge about lift and drag, but recent researches, based on real computer analysis of the air wingflow, show that the wing in a Spit is all but elliptical, and in fact, the trapezoid wing of the Emil 109 was way more efficient.
This lives us with the usual: large wings lift a lot and, having a deep cord allows for less overall thickness, meaning you can keep a large surface without sacrificing speed in a straight ride.
If you pull on the stick, this large wing surface act as a big airbrake, denting on the wingflow instantly but giving away speed as hell (ask some mirage pilot about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
Sure, elliptical wings have an advantage as far as you have a true elliptical wing plant, which is not the case in the spit.
Fact is that the choices made by the Spit designers were erroneous and this shows easily if you think that no other plane after the spit tried the way of the Elliptical wingplant.
No more about this: if you are looking for more, you can have plenty here: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/
About the Spit Dive Speed, thanks got it has been drawn correctly: reality tells us the spiit could be left behind in a dive by almost every plane with similar power (say a 109) except by a Zero, and much easier by heavier ones, like the 190 and the P47.
Dive and Low Wingload doesn't couples well; it's about Physic, not Opinions!
High spee was extremely bumpy, and ailerons became granitic, exactly as it happens in the 109: things got better with the new metal fabric in the XI but not by much.
The real Spit (and in fact everything propelled by a Merlin like the P-51) suffered of mediocre acceleration, meaning that, in a close dogfight, after the energy was spent, it would be easily left behind by the enemies: The merin is an high rev engine, being just 27L it had lot's of HP but very low torque compared with the german engines (35L and up); this means that, without a Gear selector (just PP) the Merin was not as brilliant in accelerating form low speed and that's because the spit was often left behind in the first stage of dash.
These are the reason because (coupled with the short range), after 1944 the spits shifted form first line fighters to second line, taking care of the returning bombers well inside the French territory and where it was safer (Clostermann seems to suggest this in his Book "Le grand cirque).
Just keep in mind that everithing that was written about the spit in the post war is coming from the British side, seen from a quite campanilistic angle: in fact the Spits were second line in the BoB, where the Hurricane did most of the Job, and, reading Galland, the German always had a sensation of superiority in their planes. Russian disliked the Spit, much preferring the P39 and the late Lags and Yaks, most of the war in middle east was fought by P40, and, in the far east by other models (mostly USA), meaning that the Spit never was "determinant" in the war effort, but anyway, thanks to a certain "home made propaganda" the spit became the "symbol" of the british war effort.
It was a good plane, much liked by the pilots because of it's many flight qualities, but a good plane is not necessarily a good fighter.
But enough about real plane: this is a Simulation were plane behaviour is given by hard data written in the game engine.


I see no favors done for the spit, at all.
I don't care what YOU can do in a spit: give that bird in the hands of a capable AI and look how it can zoom up in a Immelmann, reverse 180? and then follow the enemy in the opposite direction without apparent loss of energy...
To me this is a drag problem, to you I don't know.


P47 may have dived faster than spit, pitot tube stuff makes it unclear how fast some spits may have dived, fast enough to tear the prop off in one test anyways. The thing had a very high recoverable terminal dive speed, as a minimum would be similar to the 47?
You don't see the point: it's not about how fast you can go, which is up to structural strenght, but is about how much time you need to go that fast. A FW190 could outdive a P47 in the early stages of the ride because it accelerated so much better, but after a while the Thud would close distances and then dive away because it was almost twice as heavy. Typhoon and Tempests could do the same, probably better because of better acceleration but the Spit lacked both, weight, aerodynamic and acceleration, reason because, while the Spit could afford faster speed in a dive, because it was "stronger" the typical manouver for a 109 was to dive away, because of smaller frame and much better acceleration.
You cannot dive forever to attain an intended speed: if you don'0t have enough height you gotta pull up to avoid mothher earth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never learned how to insert my comments so Ill just ramble along in approximate order.

I place more weight on the wingloading and powerloading to suggest good 'e-retention', the you don't need to consider the oswald number to see there is a big difference due only to the power and wing loading. The effect of washout on the oswald number will be dependent on g load and speed, I guess it is not the same at critical AOA as it is in other flight regimes.... however Im crawling out on a shakey little limb here, I dont really know. IF there are differences in 109 and spit for this, they will not be large or determinant, the spit is probably not worse than anything and maybe better than most (for this 'oswald factor'). The big flat plat area is not exposed to the wind as in the Mirage, it lets you have low AOA to pull g, so induced drag is lower, not higher. If you slam the elevator into a high speed stall you're gonna get a lot of drag in any aircraft, however remain within the flight envelope and induced drag is less with less AOA, less AOA is generally associated with lower wing loading.

Interesting points about the power characteristics of the engines, as a real piston head I fully understand torque and hp, and responsiveness. I have not run across this 'merlin hampered at low speed acceleration', here is a couple of thoughts.

- if the merlin powered aircraft is cruising along at say 350 k, what is the RPM? How does this RPM compare to the torque peak of the engine? How does it compare to the hp peak? You need to know these numbers to see how the plane will respond. Im aware of the differences in displacement, however comparison of torque and hp curves might or might not show what you say.

- I know little of props. What you say about the PP differences (CSP for spit against true PP as in German aircraft) does make intuitive sense though, I agree on the face of it you would expect better acceleration. However specifics count, what is the prop efficiency and RPM at cruise and sudden full-throttle for 'typical' low-speed acceleration scenarios? If the spit at say moderate speeds 300+k is already on the powerband and the prop is working well, the powerloading will overcome the PP advantage or at least hold its own. However I don't know this.

You have a section in your post suggesting the spit was a second line fighter in 44, and second string in the BOB. I dont know what to say really. Do you feel that the 'spit=second string' is really the case?

If you look at my posts I never speak of dive acceleration, i speak to dive limits. I don't know about acceleration. I suggest that to be fair the spit ought to come apart at say 1000 k not 820. I also read somewhere that the advantage of the spit was in good compressibility and therefore recoverability. You can suggest this is a useless attribute, not important. So if the spit got a 1000k dive limit there would be no complaints? There would be <plenty>.

CarpeNoctem43
08-14-2007, 09:12 AM
Against plane who can catch you (P51?) you have to angle fight because their performance are better then yours.

hence the wingman

gkll
08-14-2007, 09:16 AM
Hey Manu, I didn't speak to your other points because my opinion is not worth much on them. Pixels and wings disappearing, never thought much about it. DM? Don't know. Im for fairness and equal treatment too however.

People want to know why the AI can do such amazing said to be impossible things, all I can say is try getting device link info off the aircraft and see what is actually happening, in detail? One thing to consider though, if you zoom off gaining <both> lateral and vertical separation, and the spit goes for <just> vertical, when you turn back towards mr spit you will use up your turning room and it will seem like cheating.... you see? Separation is in 3d, if you use the lateral to gain turning room you can't just roll back on the lateral plane without giving away the potential advantage.

gkll
08-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
There was a recon XIX that went <real> fast in a dive somewhere around 1950, read good documentation on this.

Oh, a XIX, not a IX! Yeah it reached .89 mach due to an accident but was tracked in the dive
and though it landed, never flew again.


My point is the spit <arguably> dove at least as fast as any other plane and had relative freedom from compressibility.

That's been my quick counter to all the "Spits had big draggy wings and rads and COULDN'T..."
claims. How do you end up with the highest on record prop dive if that? Or even get near?
But a IX is not a XIX and somewhere there the wings did get different foils or not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The XIX had the old airfoil, and a griffon. However I have to be careful here, I know some but many know much more about the spit, I am learning in this thread as well as arguing. The PP vs CSP thingy by Saty seems suggestive, maybe the 190 'low-speed' acceleration <is> too poor..... the turn on the A series could also be under (re Ratsacks link). However details count, on the acceleration we need them to really see what the case should be.

gkll
08-14-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
There was a recon XIX that went <real> fast in a dive somewhere around 1950, read good documentation on this.

Oh, a XIX, not a IX! Yeah it reached .89 mach due to an accident but was tracked in the dive
and though it landed, never flew again.


My point is the spit <arguably> dove at least as fast as any other plane and had relative freedom from compressibility.

That's been my quick counter to all the "Spits had big draggy wings and rads and COULDN'T..."
claims. How do you end up with the highest on record prop dive if that? Or even get near?
But a IX is not a XIX and somewhere there the wings did get different foils or not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The XIX had the old airfoil, and a griffon. However I have to be careful here, I know some but many know much more about the spit, I am learning in this thread as well as arguing. The PP vs CSP thingy by Saty seems suggestive, maybe the 190 'low-speed' acceleration <is> too poor..... the turn on the A series could also be under (re Ratsacks link). However details count, on the acceleration we need them to really see what the case should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that I think about it for a sec.... doesnt a CSP prop work like a CV tranny? That is you hit the gas and the prop pitch goes to where it can be to hold the RPM at max, so by definition when you floor it the CSP puts you on top of the powerband, by design. Then as the plane accelerates the pitch of the blade changes to maintain this set RPM? And the PP of the german aircraft is more like a manual tranny, <can> be caught at low RPM with a steep pitch, under this scenario you could be 'lugging' the engine? The CSP might well work better at lower speeds if the above is more or less correct.

Spaturnio
08-14-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by gkll:

I never learned how to insert my comments so Ill just ramble along in approximate order.

I place more weight on the wingloading and powerloading to suggest good 'e-retention', the you don't need to consider the oswald number to see there is a big difference due only to the power and wing loading. The effect of washout on the oswald number will be dependent on g load and speed, I guess it is not the same at critical AOA as it is in other flight regimes.... however Im crawling out on a shakey little limb here, I dont really know. IF there are differences in 109 and spit for this, they will not be large or determinant, the spit is probably not worse than anything and maybe better than most (for this 'oswald factor'). The big flat plat area is not exposed to the wind as in the Mirage, it lets you have low AOA to pull g, so induced drag is lower, not higher. If you slam the elevator into a high speed stall you're gonna get a lot of drag in any aircraft, however remain within the flight envelope and induced drag is less with less AOA, less AOA is generally associated with lower wing loading.

from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/#myths (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/#myths%5DAnother)
Another reader responded to the above paragraph with following text but unfortunately did not give his name: - True, eliptical wing has less drag coefficient than other, but not because of "lift is spread ellipticaly over the wings", but because of less induced drag. It is connected with shape of wing tip and wing tip vortex (stronger if you have bigger tip chord - elliptical wing tip chord is 'almost zero', so tip vortex is also weak). Unfortunately elliptical wings are also harder to built, and stalls first at tips (when are usually placed ailerons ), so they are also less safe. Difference in drag coefficient between taper (like 109) and elliptical (Spitfire) wing depends also from aspect ratio (influents to induced drag), not only from wing shape. And 109's wing aspect ratio (about 6 ) is higher than Spitfire's (about 5.4), what can balance Spit's induced drag reduction from wing shape . Of course, it depends also, how is 'taper ratio' (I am not sure how it is called in English) of a taper wing.


Interesting points about the power characteristics of the engines, as a real piston head I fully understand torque and hp, and responsiveness. I have not run across this 'merlin hampered at low speed acceleration', here is a couple of thoughts.

- if the merlin powered aircraft is cruising along at say 350 k, what is the RPM? How does this RPM compare to the torque peak of the engine? How does it compare to the hp peak? You need to know these numbers to see how the plane will respond. Im aware of the differences in displacement, however comparison of torque and hp curves might or might not show what you say.
Well, this is an assumption: High RPM plus 150 Octane fuel plus low overall displacement, to me looks like an high performance engine, giving it best at very high rev where high octane fuel makes the difference. It's like a sportcar, with light alloy basement high performance fuel and max power reached at high RPM, meaning, usually that this call for a tradeoff in overall Torque, which allows the engine to push much more air when you need to accelerate. It is possible that the Spitfire props would "cavitate" more with reduced PP to allow for higher revs, while the Large sturdy german engine, more like a nowday Diesel engine would allow for a more smooth ride
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I've never seen a case where what I said was contradicted in Present days piston engines


- I know little of props. What you say about the PP differences (CSP for spit against true PP as in German aircraft) does make intuitive sense though, I agree on the face of it you would expect better acceleration. However specifics count, what is the prop efficiency and RPM at cruise and sudden full-throttle for 'typical' low-speed acceleration scenarios? If the spit at say moderate speeds 300+k is already on the powerband and the prop is working well, the powerloading will overcome the PP advantage or at least hold its own. However I don't know this.
No: may be I didn't expressed myself clearly enough here.
It was not a confrontation between German and British screwipitch controls, but rather a general idea that, unless you can constantly correct the PP to gain max efficiency as the plane accelerates, it is better to relay on brute force where, even with a not overly efficient PP control, you can make up with the torque developed by a large - low compression - engine.
About german PP controls I know they were always slightly behind 100% efficiency because the KG was "reacting" to a present situation while the variables were shifting...


You have a section in your post suggesting the spit was a second line fighter in 44, and second string in the BOB. I don't know what to say really. Do you feel that the 'spit=second string' is really the case? no, it was not my intention to say that: I mean that, at it's best (1942) there was too little activity for the MkXI to make a real impact on the war: it countered the German Bf109 perfectly, gaining an edge, and it was able to even up the chances again the new Fw-190 but it suffered form too short range (in fact it was inferior even to the 109 in that). It is a very good plane overall, with very high climb rate, excellent handling, relative sturdy wing construction, but it was slow out of the intended altitude (just think on how many different Merlin revision were built to counter these handicap).
It also was not very good as a weapon platform being rather "shifty" while in the trail of an enemy, so later on other models were preferred, including the Typhoon and the Tempest.
Late Mark spitfire based on the much larger Griffon were not much used, since looks like a single unit was available to the end of the war.
It was fast but, listening to the men who flied it, it had lost most of the good qualities of the early models for sake of speed...


If you look at my posts I never speak of dive acceleration, i speak to dive limits. I don't know about acceleration. I suggest that to be fair the spit ought to come apart at say 1000 k not 820. I also read somewhere that the advantage of the spit was in good compressibility and therefore recoverability. You can suggest this is a useless attribute, not important. So if the spit got a 1000k dive limit there would be no complaints? There would be <plenty>.

About dive speed, the spit could go fast, because of the sturdy wing construction: it was faster then the 109 for example which had a single wing spar to hold the frame together, but, as I said, the spit was not a diver overall: It presented all the same problem of the 109, which original project was developed for speed around 500Kmh, meaning extremely poor and fatiguing controls ad high speed.
Closterman refers how, in Scotland, after a prolonged dive on an MkVII the plane wings were so much deformed to call for a complete replacement, while this never happened in true divers, like the Thud, the 190, the tempest and the mustang.
Furthermore, it took too long for the spit to gain speed compared to other models, including the Bf109 meaning that, by the time you had start to gain on your opponent, he would have got too far a way to conclude anything. This doesn't means that the spit was a slow plane in a dive, but simply that that manoeuvre it had little to gain compare, i.e with a swift and step climb, in the same way as we can say that a Fw-109 worst choice had been to climb up to escape an attack.

(ps to quote correctly just put the quoted test between [quote] and [quote] with the second one as (/quote) (cannot write it directly or the forum would change it in a true quote)

CarpeNoctem43
08-14-2007, 11:09 AM
Blah blah blah... nice job stealing the thread.

Blutarski2004
08-14-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
... it is better to relay on brute force where, even with a not overly efficient PP control, you can make up with the torque developed by a large - low compression - engine.


..... Should that read "long stroke" rather than "low compression"? Long stroke = greater crankshaft throw leverage, which = greater torque. At least that's how I understand the design parameters.



About dive speed, the spit could go fast, because of the sturdy wing construction: it was faster then the 109 for example which had a single wing spar to hold the frame together, but, as I said, the spit was not a diver overall: It presented all the same problem of the 109, which original project was developed for speed around 500Kmh, meaning extremely poor and fatiguing controls ad high speed.
Closterman refers how, in Scotland, after a prolonged dive on an MkVII the plane wings were so much deformed to call for a complete replacement, while this never happened in true divers, like the Thud, the 190, the tempest and the mustang.


..... A WW2 anecdote I read, for what it's worth - "Three men could lift the wing of a Messerschmitt (Bf 109). It took ten men to lift a Spitfire wing and a truck to lift a Mustang wing." [although the Mustang had landing gear involved].

Brain32
08-14-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is all good advice, which I have known and practised for some time now. However, my problem is not which tactics to use but how to set up an attack properly? When I fly at 3000 or 4000 m I have difficulty in spotting the enemy below. Often I will see a number of dots circling each other. How do I know which ones are the enemy? Once I dive down to check I will have lost the surprise and have burnt too much energy thus my attack is over before it has even started!
This is something that's been bugging me for some time now.. Frown


It's probably been covered here in the five pages but I thought I would outline it again, just in case.

You are worried about tactics and you should be. FW-190 is not and shouldn't be flown 1v1 without an extreme advantage or surprise.

1. NEVER NEVER NEVER fly without a wingman. Two of you together coordinating can work over just about anything there, 2v1, 2v2 even 2v3.
2. Speed is life, keep it up as THIS dictates a fight and when it's over. Cruising @ 400+ is a must, if you descend to a furball 5km away AND BELOW YOU ~2000m goto 50% throttle but keep speed below 700 or so.
3. Do NOT turn fight AT ALL~!! as you pass through the 'bowl' make slashing attack and pull on the stick ONLY TO GET A SNAPSHOT... DO NOT TRACK SHOT!!
4. Make your pass, your wingman follows you up with the same plan, and EXTEND AWAY FROM THE FIGHT gaining altitude as you go. This is called resetting.
5. Stay outside the bowl and watch the fight. So poor sap will fly out of the bowl - either disengaging or to give chase to a friendly - these are your NUM-NUMS.
6. Position yourself above and behind him and roll over to pull LAG PURSUIT on this guy, as you get closer, wait and wait until that guy fills the screen. I mean it, no kidding. Squeeze MG/CANNON and he will disappear.

When you fly the 190, do EVERYTHING in the third dimension. Split-S, Immelmann, Zoom Climbs (sans NME behind you). Learn energy saving manuevers - these trade speed for altitude and vice versa)


And since you are flying with a wingman, learn the loose deuce and the double attack. Both these require an E-advantage.

You first should be double attack.

1. From an E-advantage
2. Pilot 1 makes a slashing attack on your intended victim and calls, '1 in'
2. Pilot 2 stays above the bandit, watches the sky, the bandit and LISTENS! (Pilot 1 will call directions, 'bandit left turn... now reversing right turn')
3. As Pilot 1 approaches bandit Pilot 2 prepares to start his run.
4. Pilot 1 calls 'off' as he passes the bandit.
5. Pilot 2 calls 'in' and now the rolls have switched.

For a Loose Deuce

Idea is to deplete the bandit of energy allowing high E attacks.

1. From an E-advantage.
2. Pilot 1 gets on the tail of the victim and APPLIES PRESSURE this results in bandit turning. (takes shots if can, but not necessary)
3. Pilot 2 puts himself above and OUTSIDE the turn circle AND LISTENS (1 will call bandit manuevers)
4. As soon as pilot two sees a GOOD opportunity for an attack he calls, '2 attacking'
5. If unsuccessful, 2 climbs again, positions himself and tries 3 & 4 again.
6. When 1 starts bleeding too much energy he will call two to take his position and the roles change. Be careful here as usually bandit is now behind #1's 3-9 line and this can be dangerous for him to disengage.

You time in offensive for both these should be 5 seconds or so. Any more than that and you are wasting E.

also, learn defensive splits, sandwich, and bracketing. Notice these are all wingman tactics.

Don't worry too much about BFM and when and where to use them it'll come to you, fairly naturally - you are more than likely doing them already.

Just remember, wingman and speed are REQUIRED.

Don't turn, if it bleeds speed below 400 UNLOAD YOUR STICK, if you don't start a egg timer, as this is the amount of time it will take until you have to hit refly.

And last, and MOST importantly - if you are in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right.


-Raven </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the best piece of advice in this thread, all FW190 n00bs should read this and apply it online religiously as this is possibly the best set of advices on flying a FW190 in v408 I've readed so far. This is how we fly.

CarpeNoctem43 - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

gkll
08-14-2007, 12:55 PM
Well to be honest im not really an expert on motors either, lots of practical experience though...

However my general understanding of octane is it is about flame front propagation, ie getting a smooth and consistent burn in the cylinder. As such higher octane protects against pre-ignition (detonation, 'knock') which is a problem primarily at moderate revs and wide open throttle settings. So the 150 fuel would have helped at all RPM by allowing greater boost, it is not just a high RPM aid.

Blutarski is right, longer stroke means greater torque, holding displacement equal. It also increases stress on the crank and increases piston speed, depending this can be critical.

Ive learned some stuff and enjoyed the conversation, I can be a little snippy at first but once I get thinking I settle down and stop marginally insulting people..... S!all

PS that G2 thing is interesting, about the weight... I theorize that the G2 climbs a bit better than it should, relatively? But the turn and top speed are correct to RL? That would make sense. The other 109s are probably a bit under for turn then, but good on climb and speed (match pretty close RL...)

M_Gunz
08-14-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Facts are all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.

True but how many will match and still turn flat as well? I think many cannot unless of
course the better turning one was flown 'relaxed' on the stick, faster than best turn.
Get them both turning hard as possible and most will separate, by the numbers I've seen.

When I see sustained turn numbers I think I am seeing performance under near worst conditions,
all power soaked up by drag yet not by far the best KE attainable by that power. How fast and
tight the plane can sustain tells me a lot about the power at that speed of that plane.

Who wants to say that the same power making certain speed under 3G's is not going to increase
speed quickly when it is no longer G loaded? Please, until the speed picks up at least 22%
the parasitic is less than 50% more while induced has dropped significantly.

I'd say beware of the hard turning plane at good speed and not judge his engine state by
his speed. Sustained is not slowing down, much as some people seem to expect.

M_Gunz
08-14-2007, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Now that I think about it for a sec.... doesnt a CSP prop work like a CV tranny? That is you hit the gas and the prop pitch goes to where it can be to hold the RPM at max, so by definition when you floor it the CSP puts you on top of the powerband, by design. Then as the plane accelerates the pitch of the blade changes to maintain this set RPM? And the PP of the german aircraft is more like a manual tranny, <can> be caught at low RPM with a steep pitch, under this scenario you could be 'lugging' the engine? The CSP might well work better at lower speeds if the above is more or less correct.

From what I see in game, 190 on auto-prop-pitch is very much like CSP only controls engine too.

The prop blades are wings and they can be stalled or run flatter than highest L/D. With a
simple speed control device there should be more than one way to get less than best thrust
for the engine power used is easy to see. Especially when at lower speeds it should be
almost like spinning the wheels of a drag racer and keeping them in sliding friction state.

Really, what happens when the prop is going too fast? Pitch is increased if possible.
And your speed contributes inversely to AOA of the prop blade, at lower speeds the AOA can
be very high compared to same pitch at high speed. A prop designed for the highest speeds
is going to be how at lower speeds?

*I think that with monster power and less speed the prop will coarsen right into partial stall,
great for loads of torque where less power would actually get more thrust, just by looking at
the methods of VSP control.
*I have also read of people now and in the past that have brought warbirds up to power from
not fast flight that found themselves from rolled over to spinning down.
*It's not proof but it's something worth looking at and maybe people not just cranking to full
power and thinking that's all there is to it could get better results with practice and control.

But that's just been my little hypothesis for maybe a year or so.

How many times have people complained to Oleg and he had replied, "Learn To Fly!"?
IMO there's more to high power prop piloting than many will think, even some GA pilots.

M_Gunz
08-14-2007, 01:49 PM
Why would a low compression engine need higher octane fuel? Because of charge heat?

gkll
08-14-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Why would a low compression engine need higher octane fuel? Because of charge heat?

They don't. Higher compression motors are harder to control flame front propogation and need higher octane. Modern combustion chamber design can mitigate this, but the general rule applies, raise compression raise octane.....

gkll
08-14-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Just a question a plane build as interceptor 109 , spitfire etc . Should have good climb and speed . Therefore wings for such plane are built to allow good climb. This is a tradeoff in topspeed always as good climb != fastest speed possible with airframe and engine. The wing construction limits the plane like many other features. So a spitfire or 109 is not build for topspeed even trying this with slats or elliptic wings is only a compromise. Under this impression why does the drag +induced drag etc on a spitfire allow it to catch up a 190 on the last phase of a dive where it is outaccelerated before it catches up later. Maybe the prop drag values are important here or that the 190 stops accelerating when max drag vs available power is reached (limited by altitude) Spitfire is logical higher in dive (as pursuer)and higher altitude allows more room for speeding before compression)?.
Spitfire a good energy keeper ? I doubt that it is any better than a p51 regarding energy state.Wonder how much impact the "realistic" full throttle dive has on the energy balance ?

My limited understanding is that it is a matter of max dive limit. The spit did not have compressibility problems as severe as other prop aircraft, so in the terminal phase of dives it would keep accelerating and remain recoverable. Think of the 38 and the shockwaves forming on the tail, it loses elevator control long before prop drag or raw parasitic drag takes over, maybe this is the case with the 190? (at a higher speed...) The Closterman Mk VII episode I have read about, they chased a 109 down about 20 or 25 k feet, caught it near the end and blew it to bits. Closterman passed out in the pull-up, came to at 20k feet or so with a bloody nose and wrinkled wings.....

Don't know what you mean about e state and the mustang, it would be excellent in parasitic drag but poor for induced, ie straightline it would be slippery (better than spit, look at top speeds with the same motor), but turning, with poorish lift coeficient and moderate to high wingloading, would need considerable AOA for a given turn, leading to high 'turning drag' relative to a spit or a zero for eg. 'E-state' is pretty general....

gkll
08-14-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Now that I think about it for a sec.... doesnt a CSP prop work like a CV tranny? That is you hit the gas and the prop pitch goes to where it can be to hold the RPM at max, so by definition when you floor it the CSP puts you on top of the powerband, by design. Then as the plane accelerates the pitch of the blade changes to maintain this set RPM? And the PP of the german aircraft is more like a manual tranny, <can> be caught at low RPM with a steep pitch, under this scenario you could be 'lugging' the engine? The CSP might well work better at lower speeds if the above is more or less correct.


From what I see in game, 190 on auto-prop-pitch is very much like CSP only controls engine too.

The prop blades are wings and they can be stalled or run flatter than highest L/D. With a
simple speed control device there should be more than one way to get less than best thrust
for the engine power used is easy to see. Especially when at lower speeds it should be
almost like spinning the wheels of a drag racer and keeping them in sliding friction state.

Really, what happens when the prop is going too fast? Pitch is increased if possible.
And your speed contributes inversely to AOA of the prop blade, at lower speeds the AOA can
be very high compared to same pitch at high speed. A prop designed for the highest speeds
is going to be how at lower speeds?

*I think that with monster power and less speed the prop will coarsen right into partial stall,
great for loads of torque where less power would actually get more thrust, just by looking at
the methods of VSP control.
*I have also read of people now and in the past that have brought warbirds up to power from
not fast flight that found themselves from rolled over to spinning down.
*It's not proof but it's something worth looking at and maybe people not just cranking to full
power and thinking that's all there is to it could get better results with practice and control.

But that's just been my little hypothesis for maybe a year or so.

How many times have people complained to Oleg and he had replied, "Learn To Fly!"?
IMO there's more to high power prop piloting than many will think, even some GA pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT Yes I understand.... however it is not all pitch and plane and prop speed is it? As if these weren't complex enough we also have airfoil shape.... of the prop that is.

So we have the means of controlling pitch of the blade, coupled with the power delivery characteristics of the motor, coupled with the prop design... seems as if a knowledgeable designer could probably do what they wanted, so if you want good low speed acceleration you could tune all the factors to ensure this, if you wanted high top speed and good high speed acceleration, you could do the same, tune the bits.

Anyone know what the philosophy was for the 190? It seems you won't get everything, you will have to sacrifice something to get the other.... did they decide that medium to high speed acceleration and good top end was more important than low-speed? Or were the design decisions not this explicit or defined, more random, and what was 'on the shelf' and available?

JG14_Josf
08-14-2007, 05:14 PM
Dive and Low Wingload doesn't couples well; it's about Physic, not Opinions!

Thanks

Kettenhunde
08-14-2007, 08:45 PM
True but how many will match and still turn flat as well?

All aircraft will turn just as well as any other aircraft up until the stall point or the ground. All aircraft at the same angle of bank and same velocity will make exactly the same turn.

Facts are the portion of the envelope where sustained turning makes a difference is extremely tiny. The velocity aircraft are traveling when they encounter one another has a much larger impact on turn performance than the individual design.

The faster aircraft will always be out turned by the slower aircraft.


About dive speed, the spit could go fast,

Dive limits have absolutely nothing to do with wing strength. They are set by the shock formation characteristics of the design and the flutter limits. IF and that is a huge IF the Spitfire had any dive advantage in Vne over any other WWII fighter design it was by pure luck.

The Spitfire has unremarkable q-limits according to RAE testing. The highest mach number achieved in testing was mach .83. That is the same ballpark as the majority of WWII fighters. The physics of a propeller aircraft for the most part dictate these limits.

Now a design change was implemented in the post war Spitfires which would have raised the q-limits. Given the rather primitive methods and tabular corrections used at the time for transonic speed measurement combined with the physics of power producers, I would cast a dubious eye on any propeller aircraft attaining anything above Mach .8.

The March 1946 POH list's Mach .85 as the Spitfires limits. Vary the temperature in the atmospheric model some, apply the tabular corrections, and we can have the Spitfire doing Mach 1 on paper in no time at all!

However if we put it in the air against say the Me 262, which only achieved mach .81 which aircraft do you think will dive the fastest?

Most likely this falls into the same realm as claims of the Me-262 breaking the sound barrier.

http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/first_flg.htm

It is well within the realm of possibility that the temperature conditions required for Mutke to break the sound barrier at 1100kph existed at the time.

Here is a very quick SWAG of the Ta and Tr for the Me-262 to reach Mach .95. The method derives a reasonable approximation of drag rise due to compressibility. It is derived empirically from test data up Mach .95 and is not accurate beyond that velocity. So telling the exact amount of drag rise due to compressibility to reach Mach 1 is well beyond the scope of this thread.

When Mutke inverted his aircraft he created a considerable amount of thrust.

1980lbs per engine = 3960lbs

Increase in drag due to compressibility to reach Mach .95 =

.95^2/2 + .95^2/20 = 49.63% increase in drag = .4963 * 3960 = 1965lbs

1965lbs + 3960lbs = 5925lbs of thrust

5925lbs of total thrust required to reach Mach .95

At a 90 degree angle we create 14,100lbs + 3960lbs = 18,060lbs of thrust in an Me-262

This leave us 12135lbs of thrust to go from Mach .95 thru the barrier.

I think we can reasonably conclude that in this condition of flight, thrust was not a limiting factor.

So we have some conditions that in all likelihood Mutke could very well have broken the sound barrier!

Baloney...The largest limiting factor is the flutter limits of the airframe itself. This belongs neatly tucked in with Spitfires diving at incredible mach numbers. We have another aviation legend of the early excursions into the transonic realm of flight.


All the best,

Crumpp

BBB_Hyperion
08-14-2007, 11:11 PM
Correction for gauge delay maybe too inaccurate near mach for instrument reading with changing pressure as well.

M_Gunz
08-14-2007, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
EDIT Yes I understand.... however it is not all pitch and plane and prop speed is it? As if these weren't complex enough we also have airfoil shape.... of the prop that is.

There is also prop rpm, faster it is at any speed, the lower the blade pitch need be.
Of course that can self-defeat when the prop tips start making shock waves. And by
the blade foil there is best efficiency speed and AOA, the paddle blades were tradeoffs
of less efficiency to allow more power used for a greater total.


So we have the means of controlling pitch of the blade, coupled with the power delivery characteristics of the motor, coupled with the prop design... seems as if a knowledgeable designer could probably do what they wanted, so if you want good low speed acceleration you could tune all the factors to ensure this, if you wanted high top speed and good high speed acceleration, you could do the same, tune the bits.

Anyone know what the philosophy was for the 190?

As Oleg had posted to one chart-quoter that brought up 190 charts from two differently prop
equipped (poor phrased, I know) 190's that the climb chart quoted was from a different prop
190 than the game model being complained of climb, it has the high speed prop. Mixing and
matching charts labeled poorly is an honest mistake for those who read only the charts and
not the whole documents -- Oleg pointed out that he has and read the complete documents of
both charts. Gee, people still wanted him to spend time on the same issue over and over so
why doesn't he "on demand"? LOL! His short revelations should have been collected, numbered
and stickied with printable chart so he could just say go read number 42!


It seems you won't get everything, you will have to sacrifice something to get the other.... did they decide that medium to high speed acceleration and good top end was more important than low-speed? Or were the design decisions not this explicit or defined, more random, and what was 'on the shelf' and available?

Blade pitch range isn't that far from what I've seen so the built-in pitch of the blade is
a place to gain some speed beyond what rpm and the coarse stops will allow. A few more
degrees and you get some extra top end you could not otherwise no matter how much power
you can give.

If at 300kph it takes a certain amount of power to run the blades at best efficiency, what
happens if you apply twice that power? Blades turn faster so pitch coarsens automatically
is what, unless you have manual control. Blades at higher than efficient pitch keeps the
rpms down at cost to efficiency and past some point (L/D max is less than highest lift)
cost should be to total thrust itself but I can only see that happening at low speed with
a high speed prop and huge power.

It's easy enough to check, go slow and find out if 80% power gets the same or better accel
as 100% or 110%. Non-intuitive for sure as long as intuition is guided by simplified way
of understanding, anyone into drag racing might think a bit differently.

M_Gunz
08-15-2007, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The Spitfire has unremarkable q-limits according to RAE testing. The highest mach number achieved in testing was mach .83. That is the same ballpark as the majority of WWII fighters. The physics of a propeller aircraft for the most part dictate these limits.

Now a design change was implemented in the post war Spitfires which would have raised the q-limits. Given the rather primitive methods and tabular corrections used at the time for transonic speed measurement combined with the physics of power producers, I would cast a dubious eye on any propeller aircraft attaining anything above Mach .8.

The March 1946 POH list's Mach .85 as the Spitfires limits. Vary the temperature in the atmospheric model some, apply the tabular corrections, and we can have the Spitfire doing Mach 1 on paper in no time at all!

Wouldn't varying the temperature, etc, change what mach .85 is?

I dunno, it looks like you are setting TAS by mach .85 and then changing the air to create an
impossibility to show error when in colder air the Spit would find .85 sooner and not show any
mach 1 at all.

The Spitfire has unremarkable q-limits according to RAE testing. The highest mach number achieved in testing was mach .83.

I for one find that remarkable for a plane with BIG DRAGGY CAN'T DIVE FAST AT ALL labels being
applied all over it. How much slower at 6km alt is .83 mach to .86 mach? In std atmosphere
at 6km mach 1 is 1139.2kph, .86 is 979.7kph (we have plane goes that fast?) and .83 is 945.5.
Less than 40kph difference! 262 at .95 is 1082.2, now we are talking except compared to 20mm
shells of course!
And that is ONLY if those planes could touch those mach at lowly 6km alt, at higher alts the
mach 1 is less TAS so the differences are smaller.

Words like BIG DRAGGY leave impression of Big Differences. Without the numbers that leaves
people playing the imagine game and coming out with exaggerated expectations for future Whines.

Would that it took at long for whine to mature as does wine, perhaps that is why we always get
the Immature Whines here at The Zoo!

Ratsack
08-15-2007, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is all good advice, which I have known and practised for some time now. However, my problem is not which tactics to use but how to set up an attack properly? When I fly at 3000 or 4000 m I have difficulty in spotting the enemy below. Often I will see a number of dots circling each other. How do I know which ones are the enemy? Once I dive down to check I will have lost the surprise and have burnt too much energy thus my attack is over before it has even started!
This is something that's been bugging me for some time now.. Frown


It's probably been covered here in the five pages but I thought I would outline it again, just in case.

You are worried about tactics and you should be. FW-190 is not and shouldn't be flown 1v1 without an extreme advantage or surprise.

1. NEVER NEVER NEVER fly without a wingman. Two of you together coordinating can work over just about anything there, 2v1, 2v2 even 2v3.
2. Speed is life, keep it up as THIS dictates a fight and when it's over. Cruising @ 400+ is a must, if you descend to a furball 5km away AND BELOW YOU ~2000m goto 50% throttle but keep speed below 700 or so.
3. Do NOT turn fight AT ALL~!! as you pass through the 'bowl' make slashing attack and pull on the stick ONLY TO GET A SNAPSHOT... DO NOT TRACK SHOT!!
4. Make your pass, your wingman follows you up with the same plan, and EXTEND AWAY FROM THE FIGHT gaining altitude as you go. This is called resetting.
5. Stay outside the bowl and watch the fight. So poor sap will fly out of the bowl - either disengaging or to give chase to a friendly - these are your NUM-NUMS.
6. Position yourself above and behind him and roll over to pull LAG PURSUIT on this guy, as you get closer, wait and wait until that guy fills the screen. I mean it, no kidding. Squeeze MG/CANNON and he will disappear.

When you fly the 190, do EVERYTHING in the third dimension. Split-S, Immelmann, Zoom Climbs (sans NME behind you). Learn energy saving manuevers - these trade speed for altitude and vice versa)


And since you are flying with a wingman, learn the loose deuce and the double attack. Both these require an E-advantage.

You first should be double attack.

1. From an E-advantage
2. Pilot 1 makes a slashing attack on your intended victim and calls, '1 in'
2. Pilot 2 stays above the bandit, watches the sky, the bandit and LISTENS! (Pilot 1 will call directions, 'bandit left turn... now reversing right turn')
3. As Pilot 1 approaches bandit Pilot 2 prepares to start his run.
4. Pilot 1 calls 'off' as he passes the bandit.
5. Pilot 2 calls 'in' and now the rolls have switched.

For a Loose Deuce

Idea is to deplete the bandit of energy allowing high E attacks.

1. From an E-advantage.
2. Pilot 1 gets on the tail of the victim and APPLIES PRESSURE this results in bandit turning. (takes shots if can, but not necessary)
3. Pilot 2 puts himself above and OUTSIDE the turn circle AND LISTENS (1 will call bandit manuevers)
4. As soon as pilot two sees a GOOD opportunity for an attack he calls, '2 attacking'
5. If unsuccessful, 2 climbs again, positions himself and tries 3 & 4 again.
6. When 1 starts bleeding too much energy he will call two to take his position and the roles change. Be careful here as usually bandit is now behind #1's 3-9 line and this can be dangerous for him to disengage.

You time in offensive for both these should be 5 seconds or so. Any more than that and you are wasting E.

also, learn defensive splits, sandwich, and bracketing. Notice these are all wingman tactics.

Don't worry too much about BFM and when and where to use them it'll come to you, fairly naturally - you are more than likely doing them already.

Just remember, wingman and speed are REQUIRED.

Don't turn, if it bleeds speed below 400 UNLOAD YOUR STICK, if you don't start a egg timer, as this is the amount of time it will take until you have to hit refly.

And last, and MOST importantly - if you are in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right.


-Raven </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good advice there.

cheers,
Ratsack

RegRag1977
08-15-2007, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by gkll:

My limited understanding is that it is a matter of max dive limit. The spit did not have compressibility problems as severe as other prop aircraft, so in the terminal phase of dives it would keep accelerating and remain recoverable. Think of the 38 and the shockwaves forming on the tail, it loses elevator control long before prop drag or raw parasitic drag takes over, maybe this is the case with the 190? (at a higher speed...) The Closterman Mk VII episode I have read about, they chased a 109 down about 20 or 25 k feet, caught it near the end and blew it to bits. Closterman passed out in the pull-up, came to at 20k feet or so with a bloody nose and wrinkled wings.....



S! Gkll,

If you read this extract of "Le grand cirque" by Clostermann carefully, you will notice that the ME 109H Clostermann and Remlinger were chasing was loaded with 3 aux. tanks, that the german pilot did not drop, probably because he needed them to go back home in Norway...
This important detail may have been decisive in this case, don't you think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

you know, 3 external tanks can make the difference:


Quotation in french from Clostermann:

"il est 800m devant nous, avec ses réservoirs toujours accrochés sous les ailes, il doit en avoir besoin pour rentrer en Norvège et ne les largue pas" p242.

Approximative translation:
"He's 800 meters in front of us, with his tanks still under his wings, he must need them to go back home in Norway, he doesn't drop them..."

Kettenhunde
08-15-2007, 04:42 AM
Wouldn't varying the temperature, etc, change what mach .85 is?

Mach is a ratio so it will not change it.

However the speed of sound will change. Generally speaking data is gathered under actual conditions and then calculated or converted to whatever conditions the engineer wants.

It is in this conversion process and especially in the application of tabular corrections that our speed can be "adjusted" unintentionally. Remember temperature plays a large roll in determining the speed of sound and we have RAM temperature rise to contend.

Just as engineers do not agree on the onset of compressibility effects today, nobody was in agreement on the tabular corrections to be applied.

It wasn't until the 1970's that the computing power existed to work the equations necessary for accurate transonic speed measurement.

That is why the "sonic boom" heard by witnesses was so important to the first attempts to break the barrier.

The sonic boom, presence of mach jump, and the behavior of the aircraft where used to confirm supersonic flight. Engineers could not rely solely on the measurements of the instruments.

In a 1955 standard atmosphere the local speed of sound at 13,000 feet is 631.47KTAS. This gives us a 37.8882KTAS or about 70.7kph TAS difference from mach .83 to mach .89. So yes, the model used makes a difference to the recorded speeds.

All the best,

Crumpp

Spaturnio
08-15-2007, 09:45 AM
I did some combat testing and I came to the conclusion that, about FW190A acceleration, it should perform much more like the AM6M5 in game: in fact, I can often stay faster with this one than I do wit the Anton, which feels estremely sluggish to regain speed from 350kmh up.
Sure, the FW can dive and gain speed up to limits much faster than the late Zero, but once it down low, you need to extend for ages before being able to reverse and cominng back for another passage.
On the contrarly the AM6M5 is like a dragster, able to pass form 350 to 450Kmh in a very short time.
The problem with the FW is that yu ought to stay out of the fray passing by from time to time, while, reading Clostermann, it looks like the tactic of the Germans in 1942 had been to just manuuver on the vertical...

I don't know but I never heard it to be so sluggish not to be able to stand a chance if even slightly sown down.
I't not impossible to use: just very very hard, in fact harder then it might have in real world.

Ratsack
08-15-2007, 09:47 AM
There are two separate high-speed diving incidents about the Spitfire being mixed up here.

The first involved a Spit XI, flown by 'Marty' Martindale during diving trials in 1944. This aircraft is the one that reached Mach 0.89 and was badly damaged.

The second involved a Spit XIX (i.e, Griffon engine + MkXIV wing, recce version), diving accidentally from 51,550 ft. This plane reached at least Mach 0.90, and perhaps as high as Mach 0.94 at 15,000 feet. The data is so good for this flight because the reason for sortie was to take air temperature readings at 5,000 ft intervals up to a true altitude of 50,000 feet. As a consequence, they were able to make very detailed calculations about the dive after the fact.

cheers,
Ratsack

gkll
08-15-2007, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:

My limited understanding is that it is a matter of max dive limit. The spit did not have compressibility problems as severe as other prop aircraft, so in the terminal phase of dives it would keep accelerating and remain recoverable. Think of the 38 and the shockwaves forming on the tail, it loses elevator control long before prop drag or raw parasitic drag takes over, maybe this is the case with the 190? (at a higher speed...) The Closterman Mk VII episode I have read about, they chased a 109 down about 20 or 25 k feet, caught it near the end and blew it to bits. Closterman passed out in the pull-up, came to at 20k feet or so with a bloody nose and wrinkled wings.....



S! Gkll,

If you read this extract of "Le grand cirque" by Clostermann carefully, you will notice that the ME 109H Clostermann and Remlinger were chasing was loaded with 3 aux. tanks, that the german pilot did not drop, probably because he needed them to go back home in Norway...
This important detail may have been decisive in this case, don't you think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

you know, 3 external tanks can make the difference:


Quotation in french from Clostermann:

"il est 800m devant nous, avec ses réservoirs toujours accrochés sous les ailes, il doit en avoir besoin pour rentrer en Norvège et ne les largue pas" p242.

Approximative translation:
"He's 800 meters in front of us, with his tanks still under his wings, he must need them to go back home in Norway, he doesn't drop them..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi RegRag - I posted this back in march 2004;

"Spit Mk VII extended wing HF - Pierre Closterman "The Big Show"

43,000 ft....

"Tally ho, Ian, ready to attack?"
"OK"
He had seen us, but too late. We converged on him. To our surprise it was a Messerschmitt 109G equipped with two fat auxiliary tanks under the wings. He shone like a newly minted penny... First he turned left, but Ian was there, veering towards him. He reversed his turn, saw me, and with a graceful continuous movement, banked more steeply, rolled gently over on his back, diving vertically in the hope of leaving us behind.

Without hesitation we followed hm. He dived straight towards the grey sea which looked congealed, without a wrinkle. He was half a mile ahead of us, with his tanks still fixed to his wings. The speed increased dizzily. At these heights, you have to be careful because you soon reach the speed of sound and then, look out! ...

'... at 27,000 feet my AS indicator showed 440 mph, that is a true speed of 600 mph! I had both hands on the stick and I leant on the controls with all my strength to keep the aircraft in a straight line. The slightest swerve could have crumpled up the wings . I felt my Spitfire jumping all the same, and I could see the paint cracking on the wings, while the engine was beginning to race.

The controls were jammed. We still went on down - 15,000 ft: Ian passed me; 10,000 feet: Ian was 200 yards ahead and 600 from the Hun. He opened fire - just a short burst.

The Me 109G suddenly tore in half like tissue paper, and exploded like a grendade."

The two spits pulled out Closterman using the trim to do so.

Of course it is just some subjective stuff and who knows what really happened? It does suggest the spit dives well enough to match some of the better diving planes... as a minimum"

So i know of the tanks and posted the same.... anyways I didn't bring up the Closterman thing in this thread, I agree fully the tanks are significant.

In general though, there is arguable evidence that spits dived as fast as anything, more or less... so is it fair it starts shedding flight control surfaces at 820 in-game? That is really the point, it is just a good debating strategy to suggest it was fastest, and then back up to 'just as fast, at least...'

The recon spit in 1950, wasn't that based on radar? I should try and dig that up again. Radar is not a badly placed pitot tube. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz
08-15-2007, 10:11 AM
So mach limits of the 40's may be noted as "generous" in all cases?

Okay. Down very low after high speed dive we even have planes able to pass 900kph where
mach 1 is 1200kph or so, they may get to .8 mach down low before losing parts while up
high -- we have been told the model is poor up high, maybe too much calcs for compress
and framerate both? IMO a transform table might work but perhaps with every little
change of speed then needing to be checked it would not.

Still if you get my point, it is that the Spitfire IX may not have been the greatest at
dive but it was certainly not hurting as bad as innuendo would tell. BIG DRAGGY parts
and NO WAY IT COULD mean little to me when the same way this plane rated .83, so many
others rated .86 or less regardless of how they were all rated a bit high. Mustang was
tested over Wright Field to wasn't it .86? And POH said .76? What did Spit IX POH say?

Were they measured by the same or very close rulers? I believe at the least very close.
How do Brit evaluations of Ami planes scale out? Or is it all cheating and lies by Brits?

As you say, change some numbers small and results change big. That also applies to SWAG's
done in these times, even on forums. I'd rather go with Comparing the Records than guess.
At least with those someone did dive the real planes. The primary data should still exist
as I'm pretty sure that they didn't just throw it out so perhaps a rehash of it has been
done or still awaits.

As to sonic booms --- don't you get shock waves form before the plane itself passes mach 1?
I know you do from air traveling faster than the plane to get around the plane.
Do those make a boom, even a faint one? If not then there had been many supersonic flights
by props in the war just going by accounts. It makes me wonder why later efforts ever hit
any kind of wall whatsoever in jets without prop drag.
I did read one account from the 50's off Long Island of a 2-place jet in a dive that the
pilot wrote about. They were in a dive and going through the barrier had damaged the tail
of the plane, it wasn't supposed to be supersonic capable. Remember, this is pilot story.
He wrote that the plane slowed down and the shock wave hit the damaged tail on catching up
and pushed the plane along downward, wrecking the tail before the plane slowed down again
and leaving him and 2nd seat behind to bail out when the wrecked plane slowed down in lower
air. I have no idea of the truth of the story but how many stories can one find?

RegRag1977
08-15-2007, 03:25 PM
Gkll,

Thank you for reading my post, and for taking time to answer.

I read you post and i noticed you refered to the Spit VII as Extended Wing HF, and this maybe being part of your argumentation about the Spitfire aerodynamic: to make it short, the Spitfire with extended high altitude wing can dive as fast as the Messerschmitt model G. Thus the standard Spitfire with normal wings should even dive better...

What i would like to say is that the H version of the Messerschmitt, Jacques Remlinger and Pierre Clostermann encountered that day was also a modified aircraft with extended wings (kind of TA152 equivalent AFAIK) and not the G standard version.

But all this comes from the fact that there's a difference between our two versions of the book that are quite confusing. Mine is a revised ( by Clostermann himself released in 2000)version ISBN 2-290-3243062.

Now if you ask me if one A/C should dive at same speed that another one, break before or after the other one, i'm not qualified http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif to answer, i have not enough knowledge on that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The only thing i guess is that the heavier with the lesser drag should accelerate faster towards the ground, and be able to keep his speed for a greater amount of time once levelled... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

M_Gunz
08-15-2007, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
There are two separate high-speed diving incidents about the Spitfire being mixed up here.

The first involved a Spit XI, flown by 'Marty' Martindale during diving trials in 1944. This aircraft is the one that reached Mach 0.89 and was badly damaged.

The second involved a Spit XIX (i.e, Griffon engine + MkXIV wing, recce version), diving accidentally from 51,550 ft. This plane reached at least Mach 0.90, and perhaps as high as Mach 0.94 at 15,000 feet. The data is so good for this flight because the reason for sortie was to take air temperature readings at 5,000 ft intervals up to a true altitude of 50,000 feet. As a consequence, they were able to make very detailed calculations about the dive after the fact.

cheers,
Ratsack

Geez when ya post while I'm typing... but still should dives that warped the planes count? LOL!

Good thing is that the full raw data from those dives should exist and probably have been used
at least once since atmospheric science changed post-feat.

IMO it goes a great way to showing how the BIG DRAGGY WINGS AND RADS aren't the speed brakes
they keep getting advertised as which they wouldn't be even if for the times limited to .83.
They certainly don't place the Spits in a low-speed dive category.

Perhaps the prop efficiencies were not so great at high speed and that has thrown SWAG's off?

Kettenhunde
08-15-2007, 08:44 PM
So mach limits of the 40's may be noted as "generous" in all cases?

I wouldn't say "generous" more like "made their best guess with emphasis on guess" what the exact Mach number was in fact.

This isn't a British, German, Russian, or American thing and has absolutely nothing to do with cultural background. It was simply the state of aerodynamics of the day. The transonic realm was very much a new frontier. As I pointed out earlier, it was not until the 1970's that engineers possessed the computing power needed to solve the math needed for accurate measurement.

Before then a non-standardized system of tabular corrections was in use.

Even today there is still no standardization in some of the areas of transonic flight. The onset of compressibility is a great example. Each firm has their own guidelines for application of the corrections.

As you know, long before the aircraft travels at supersonic speeds we see the formation of normal and oblique shock. The flow is supersonic at the shock and forward of the wave. Aft of the shock the flow is possibly separated and subsonic.

So even though the aircraft itself is only traveling at Mach .77 or any point above critical mach, the airflow around it is supersonic.

So while I have no doubt there was flow at mach .9 and above, I highly doubt the aircraft was traveling at that velocity.

Just the fact it sports a propeller limits its transonic capability tremendously.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
08-15-2007, 09:25 PM
I for one don't have problems with the then-understanding giving high values.

I do have a problem with a plane that gave well inside the ballpark dive performance being
portrayed as slow through use of ambiguous terms that we see in posts from then on.

How does a plane with BIG DRAGGIES rate so well? Best answer I've seen is structure is more
important than given credit and the big draggies don't add up so big at all in the totals.

Ratsack
08-16-2007, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
...

So while I have no doubt there was flow at mach .9 and above, I highly doubt the aircraft was traveling at that velocity.
...



In the case of the 1952 incident with the Spit MkXIX, the calculation is based in part on the time it took the aircraft to reach particular altitudes after the pilot lost control at 51,000.

cheers,
Ratsack

hop2002
08-16-2007, 05:59 AM
There are two separate high-speed diving incidents about the Spitfire being mixed up here.

The first involved a Spit XI, flown by 'Marty' Martindale during diving trials in 1944. This aircraft is the one that reached Mach 0.89 and was badly damaged.

Actually 3. The aircraft Martindale flew was also flown some months earlier by squadron leader Tobin. It reached mach 0.89 with Tobin flying it.

I'm not actually sure if Martindale reached the same speed, or if people are confusing Tobin and Martindale's flights.

Anyway, no damage is mentioned in the reports of Tobin's dives, and the fact the same aircraft was still being used months later in high speed dive tests indicates it didn't suffer any serious damage.

tomtheyak
08-16-2007, 06:27 AM
While these Spit variants certainly did reach some very high mach numbers, it should be remembered that as the XI and XIX are PhotoRecon birds that they weren't encumbered with some the potrusions found in fighter variants; i.e. cannon housings and bulges, and of course the bullet proof windscreen.

I will say that our in game Spit does start to like losing vital parts of its anatomy at what are in my opinion too low airspeeds, particularly when chasing 190s and 109s, but I will declare a degree of subjectivity on that matter as initial acceleration might well be accountable for much of the gain... then of course there's the much lower altitudes that these diving chases happen at in game.

GH_Klingstroem
08-16-2007, 06:59 AM
Guys as far as I can tell, this thread is named "FW-190" not "Spitfire". Lets stick to the subject should we??! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Spaturnio
08-16-2007, 07:55 AM
I was checking Manu-6S excell (http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=other&file=EMD.zip) file about engine performances and it looks like the BMW800 serie has the slowest acceleration in game.


BMW_800_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 3
Jumo211 EngineAcceleration = 3.3
Wright_Cyclone1820_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 3.5
Fiat_Radial_A_74 EngineAcceleration = 3.5
M-82 EngineAcceleration = 4
M-100_Series EngineAcceleration = 4
Nakajima (all) EngineAcceleration = 4
PrattWhitney_R-2000_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 4
B-600_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 4
Jumo213 (all) EngineAcceleration = 5
Rolls-Royce-Merlin (all) EngineAcceleration = 6

Looks like that a FW-190A4 is being outaccelerated by pretty everithing in game (at least at low speeds, where drag is not that overcoming), included planes like the Dauntless and the He-111 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Starting from stalling speed a P47 will easily outperform an FW 190A as modelled in Il2 easilly dashing away or catching you, let alone a spitifire (whatever model) which will aoutaccelerate you bay a ratio of 2 to 1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Here is the ture reason because the Fw looks so sluggish compared with pretty everithing else in game, and why, once you loose your energy you will be catch by anyone else on a different plane plane.
You HAVE to stay fast or you'll never regain it quick enough, all this in blatant opposition to all the reports indicating how fast accelerating the Wurger was.

as a side effect we also have the ludicrious situation where the Ki-84 mounts the same engine of the FW-190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Manu-6S
08-16-2007, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
BMW_800_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 3
Rolls-Royce-Merlin (all) EngineAcceleration = 6


Probably there are other variables who have effects on thrust-speed, but this IMO is the most important... not 1/1.2, 1/1.4... a ratio of 1/2 (!!!).

Low stall speed + acceleration here illustrates the uber (IMO) energy retention of Spits... they lose speed in manouvre but then they regain it faster... like I always suspected... (at first I though about poor weight... since acceleration is linked to weight... instead it was PURE acceleration).

Bewolf
08-16-2007, 08:25 AM
wanne bet? if the FW had a higher acceleration ratio, it would be much better in sustained turns. and the spit worse if that is changed as well.

Which tells me they can't change those accel rates cuz else the game gets even more dissorted. More a limit in the game engine, imho, then an attempt to castrate the 190 intentionally. It really appears as if a lot of turn performance in this game is set by acceleration ratios

Manu-6S
08-16-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
wanne bet? if the FW had a higher accelrationr atio, it would be much better in sustained turns. and the spit worse if that is changed as well.

Which tells me they can't change those accel rates cuz else the game gets even more dissorted. More a limit in the game engine, imho, then an attempt to castrate the 190 intentionally.

Of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Probably only turn time (even if present as value in the data files) and climb because there const for max and min speed (and this IMO explain why some planes like Zeke that have great thrust but seems to hit a wall at certain speed, or the max speed at 80% for the Uber Spit).

Another thing I notice is a "PropAnglerType" value that is setted to 8-7 for 190-109 while between 0 and 3 for all the other engines.

But the funny thing is that Ki84 (modelled with a BMW engine) has a value of 2, that IMO explain why it accelerate so good compared to 190.

Since I don't know the exact meaning of this values I can't be sure, but these are greater difference between engine's data I saw.

Spaturnio
08-16-2007, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Which tells me they can't change those accel rates cuz else the game gets even more dissorted. More a limit in the game engine, imho, then an attempt to castrate the 190 intentionally.

Yes, it could really be a game limit: Just look how nimble the Ki-84 is with the same engine of the FW190A (some of the paramennters changed). after all the original Il-2 game was conceived as a sturmovik simulator win the Bf109 thrown is just as an afterthough...
Let's wait for Bob and see how much things will be improved: Oleg promised a 4.09 but I doubt things will be changed about this matter.

Bewolf
08-16-2007, 09:36 AM
Indeed.

What's so sad about it...the 190 is the big loser in all this.

Manu-6S
08-16-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
What's so sad about it...the 190 is the big loser in all this.

Oh, come on... we can still do well in it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bewolf
08-16-2007, 10:46 AM
Sure thing.

It's still a pity, though. Just imagine a 190 at its full potential.

Overkill.

JG14_Josf
08-16-2007, 10:50 AM
Oh, come on... we can still do well in it

Sure,

The game can be constructed in a way where any plane can be used by any player in a manner where the player can do well with that plane so long as the player avoids any situation of disadvantage.

Example:

A-20 planes go fast.

Any player can boom and zoom with an A-20.

Any group of players can fly as a team with the A-20.

So long as the players stay fast and use teamwork, then, the A-20 players can do well.

If the player wants to fly something that doesn't look like an A-20, then, the player can fly something that does not look like an A-20.

How about an Fw190?

The player can give up on the acceleration advantage with the A-20 for the ˜looks' of an Fw-190.

The tactic of hit and run will have to be improved when switching from the A-20 with the better acceleration.

The team work will have to improve when switching from the better accelerating A-20 to the better looking Fw-190.

Less turning and straighter line surprise attacks are needed.

This is true. Players can still do well.

What about historical accuracy?


The FW.190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/16364655) and this must obviously be most useful during combat.

Or not.

Manu-6S
08-16-2007, 11:27 AM
@JG14_Josf:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Mine was sarcasm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG14_Josf
08-16-2007, 11:51 AM
It's still a pity, though. Just imagine a 190 at its full potential.


Perhaps,

Is it possible that a more accurate simulation will merely change the strengths and weaknesses (relative performance) of particular match-ups from the present form to a different form?

Where, for example, the ˜full potential' of an accurate Fw-190 merely increases the vertical maneuverability of the FW-190 compared to the horizontal maneuverability of the Spitfire, and, the Spitfire (due to increased accuracy) becomes stronger in the horizontal (stall) fight?

I think there is much to undo in thinking on this supposed ˜overkill' of one plane over another when; in fact - the envelope of superiority was merely different.

The ˜light weight' fighters owned the stall fight, in the horizontal, using aggressive angles tactics (such as nose to nose geometry, lead turns, and ˜pulling on the stick').

Any Fw190 pilot trying this ˜sustained' turn fight would soon find itself stalling while the Spitfires happily remained flying at slower speeds under g load while maintaining or gaining altitude.

Any Fw190 lured into such a fight would have only a dive escape left as the fight slowed down under the Fw190s combat speeds.

Spitfires could own any area where they maintained their envelope of superiority.

This may be more obvious when considering the addition of the P-47, and then the Me-262, as increases in vertical maneuverability at the expense of slow speed, horizontal, stall fighting, superiority.

Add the Zero and the picture is complete.

From left (light weight stall fighting superiority) to right (high density vertical superiority) the spectrum ends up like this:

Zero – Spitfire – Fw190 – P-47 – Me-262

If that doesn't illustrate the ˜progress' from ˜stall fighter' to ˜energy fighter' then add the Fokker Tri-Plane and the F-16.

Which plane is superior in its superior fight envelope?

Which is out of place due to an inaccuracy in the game engine?
History is specific on this account.


It was concluded that the
Fw 190 (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/15917668) pilot trying to ˜mix it' with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed – even below the German fighter's stalling speed – it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilot's endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal.


Because of this:


The FW.190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.


Not this:


BMW_800_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 3
Rolls-Royce-Merlin (all) EngineAcceleration = 6


This:

The FW.190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.


Not this:

BMW_800_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 3
Rolls-Royce-Merlin (all) EngineAcceleration = 6



This:

The FW.190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.


Causes this:

It was concluded that the
Fw 190 (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/15917668) pilot trying to ˜mix it' with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed – even below the German fighter's stalling speed – it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilot's endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal.


This:

BMW_800_Series (all) EngineAcceleration = 3
Rolls-Royce-Merlin (all) EngineAcceleration = 6


Causes this:

Oh, come on... we can still do well in it

The A-20, Stuka, He-111, B-25, JU-88, or any plane with any skin rapped around the flight model can still do well when the player uses hit and run tactics along with team tactics.

Having a top speed advantage (if one exists) is a top speed advantage. More run power after the hit power.

That can be confused with Energy Tactics in the vertical where one plane has an acceleration advantage going down and a deceleration advantage going up.

If the acceleration advantage going down doesn't exist (or exists only at speeds above the top speed of the slower plane), then, vertical dives followed by pull outs (required to perform energy tactics involving vertical dives and pull outs which are not the same thing as vertical dives where the ˜hit' is followed by a ˜run'.), if the acceleration advantage doesn't exist, then this inferiority is obviously not useful in combat (because it is obviously non-existent and obviously opposite reality where the wrong plane has the dive acceleration advantage at speeds where combat is fought = not an advantage in acceleration at speeds above top speed for the slower plane).

If the deceleration advantage doesn't exist (where the lighter plane did slow down quicker in reality going up), then, the non-existent dive acceleration advantage is coupled with the non-existent vertical unloaded zoom deceleration advantage and, again, this disadvantage is certainly not useful in combat – certainly not in the vertical where no such advantage going down or up exists.

Couple that with no such advantage during the pull out after the non advantage in the dive and before the non advantage in the decelerating vertical zoom.

Like this:

50.
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/16364655) is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.


So...an advantage in dive acceleration (where one does not exist) combined with an advantage in pull out (where one does not exist) added to an advantage in deceleration in the vertical zoom climb (where one does not exist) is obviously not useful in combat; however – such inaccuracies merely point out how the game is inaccurate in these specific regards leaving much yet to be discovered concerning how an accurate simulation will play out when the Spitfire is represented with accurate advantages and accurate disadvantages relative to accurate advantages for the Fw 190 along with accurate disadvantages rather than what is now inaccurately simulated in the game.

It is also quite obviously possible to increase the accuracy of the game with a simple look into the progress of the P-47 flight model from an old representation of a plane having no advantages (except top speed) to what it is now, in the game, a true Energy Fighter capable of employing vertical dives, pull outs, and zoom climbs against its rivals in the simulation.

F0_Dark_P
08-16-2007, 12:43 PM
My new toy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Nahoj/PICT1446.jpg

K_Freddie
08-16-2007, 01:23 PM
Noooice!! Got one (all metal) for my kid, but it took a lot of 'flak damage' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


I've never seen so much hot air... phew!
Remember, E and height IS NO advantage at all.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

269GA-Veltro
08-16-2007, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Sure thing.

It's still a pity, though. Just imagine a 190 at its full potential.

Overkill.

A Spitfire cocktail be sure!

Thank Manu, very interesting.

La7_brook
08-16-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Sure thing.

It's still a pity, though. Just imagine a 190 at its full potential.

Overkill.

A Spitfire cocktail be sure!

Thank Manu, very interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
08-16-2007, 04:47 PM
I had to pinch myself first to make sure that I wasn't hallucinating, but I find that I fully agree with Josf's position as stated above.

Manu-6S
08-16-2007, 05:10 PM
More the time goes and more I'm septic about that value: even if with a similar engine the difference between Ki84 and Antons in term of thrust is too wide.

I think the "Anton's problem" is really the propeller, since it's the only great difference in the data between the engines of these two planes.

One friend of mine thinks that first parameter (3-6) can be the RPM acceleration of the engine. I think he can be true.

Oh, anyway I leave the topic and will continue on CWOS.

Ratsack
08-16-2007, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
...
I think the "Anton's problem" is really the propeller, since it's the only great difference in the data between the engines of these two planes.

One friend of mine thinks that first parameter (3-6) can be the RPM acceleration of the engine. I think he can be true.
...

I'm inclined to agree with both of those statements.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
08-16-2007, 06:00 PM
There is a complete list of all reports in Shacklady and Morgan.

Can you point out the test you are referring too on the Spitfire?

I have searched through them and found absolutely nothing that allows the design to change the laws of physics or points to any remarkable diving ability.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
08-16-2007, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
...

I have...found absolutely nothing that allows the design to change the laws of physics or points to any remarkable diving ability.



Very arch, Crump, but nobody has suggested either of those things.

cheers,
Ratsack

M_Gunz
08-16-2007, 06:50 PM
So now it's speculation on the meanings of parameter names?
Oh good grief, the agenda posse is back!

Oleg does not model from loose conclusions and stories but rather from test data.
Ohes Noes! How does piles of test data and aero engineers with freaking BLUEPRINTS stand up to
somebody's handful of quotes that DO NOT STATE FULL CONDITIONS? Ohhh! Poor Me-Wants!

Go mod your CFS if you can't stand it!

M_Gunz
08-16-2007, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
...

I have...found absolutely nothing that allows the design to change the laws of physics or points to any remarkable diving ability.



Very arch, Crump, but nobody has suggested either of those things.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have yet to see data that proves Spitfires were less in the dives.

That does not equate to the opposite. Why do people want to read in the extra?
Oh yeah, those RECORDS just can't be true, Spitfire was really a dog-diver.

It could not have done X based on what someone knows, it does not fit the calculations.
Quick go change the history or at least lemon pick enough to build a different picture!
Grab some out of context quotes! There's debate tactics to fight these things.
There's also ways in calculations to bend the curves to desires, bit here and there.

Spit POH says .83 mach? Look at the P-47 same year POH and different FW POH's ---
if there had been conclusive data to prove such a point as "Spitfire could not" then where
has it been hiding these past decades? They were or were not inaccurate mach calculation in
about the same way and amount? How many were data from ground based radio and radar?

Ratsack
08-17-2007, 02:20 AM
Back to topic in hand, which is how to fight effectively with the Fw 190 that we have in this game. Raven gave some excellent general advice earlier, and those who follow it will minimize the likelihood that they'll end up co-energy with a Spitfire IX and forced to fight. However, the question arises, if you've made all the usual mistakes and you've ended up co-E with some pesky Spit IX, what do you do now? Some around here argue that you should reach for Raven's egg timer, but I don't think it's quite that hopeless. Following is a description of one set of moves that – in my experience – helps.

Picture the enemy aircraft (EA), a Spitfire, flying along with his wings level. Imagine an arrow pointing out of the front of the EA in the direction in which it's flying. This arrow is the velocity vector. Under normal circumstances, the velocity vector is within a few degrees of where the aircraft appears to be pointing.

Now, imagine an arrow at right angles to the velocity vector, pointing up. This is the direction that the nose of the EA would move if the pilot pulled back on the stick (ignoring yaw effects due to torque or slipstream). I'll call this the pitch vector. Together, the pitch and velocity vectors define a plane that I'll call the plane of motion. It extends out of the EA from his 12 o'clock all the way around to his 6 o'clock. It moves with him, too. If he banks, his plane of motion banks with him.

The importance of the plane of motion is that, at this instant in time, it contains all the flight paths that the EA can fly by using his elevators: that is to say, it contains all of the flight paths that the EA can achieve by turning. It also contains all of his possible gun solutions. What this means is that if the EA is to hit you with his guns, he must get your velocity vector to intersect his plane of motion. Put another way, if you stay out of his plane of motion, he cannot hit you. The defensive air combat manoeuvres (ACM) that I'm about to describe rely on this fact.

If two aircraft engage in a turning contest in the same plane of motion, the aircraft with the better turning performance will win. The relevance of this for the Fw 190 A driver is that practically all of your opponents in IL-2 can out turn you, so for practical purposes it is a chiselled-in-stone given that you will lose this kind of turning contest. This is a bad thing, and one that is often whined about on these boards.

However, the performance parameter in which the Fw 190 absolutely slaughters its opponents is rate-of-roll. What this means is that the Fw 190 can change the orientation of its plane of motion faster than its opponents. This is a good thing.

To summarize so far, we have the concept of a plane of motion, which extends out from an aircraft from 12 to 6 o'clock and contains all turning flight paths and all gun solutions. We have as a generalisation the notion that the Fw 190 is not going to win a turning contest in a given plane of motion. We also have the generalisation that the Fw 190 can change the direction of its plane of motion faster than its opponents.


Now, imagine the merge that I described in a previous post, where you (in the Fw 190 A) are pulling into a fast, diving, right-hand turn against a Spitfire IX who is coming up at you in a climbing left-hand turn. You have got him on your 12/6 line, and he has you on his 12/6 line: you are in the same plane of motion and are turning towards each other. I said that you must make an early judgement during this manoeuvre. You must judge whether he is going to get the shot or whether you are. From the general principle that I stated above – that the Fw 190 is not going to win a turning contest in the same plane of motion – it is pretty easy to see that, all other things being equal, he is the one who will get the shot. This means you must defend in the immediate short term (i.e., avoid getting shot).

The way to do this is not to pull back harder on the stick. To do that is to attempt to turn tighter within the current plane of motion, and the other guy is better at that than you. It's a losing move, so don't do it.

Going back to the principles above, if you get out of his plane of motion, he can't shoot you. In the merge described above, you are IN his plane of motion, and in a losing position. What you must therefore do is GET OUT of his plane of motion. The way to do this is relatively simple, and has three steps.

First, unload your elevators. That is to say, stop turning towards him because all that does is hasten your death. No need to hurry forward to meet these things.

Second, having unloaded your elevators, roll. Hard. Use every degree-per-second that you can squeeze out of the Fw 190. You roll until your new plane of motion is at right angles to his (I'll come back to this in a second: don't worry).

Third, apply some elevator to pull your velocity vector out of his plane of motion, and out of harm's way.

Simple, right? To make it clearer, I'll go through these steps in the context of the losing merge above.

First, we unload the elevators. The bandit is still coming at you on your 12/6 line, but you're no longer turning toward him. You were in a diving turn, so your wings were past the vertical, so your plane of motion is below the horizon. You want to roll it through 90 degrees. The fastest way to get there is to roll right. This will bring the bandit down from your 12/6 line and place him somewhere near 10 or 11 o'clock in the same plane as your wings when you finish your roll.

You are now in an inverted dive, and the bandit is coming at you from the side, at around 9 o'clock. Pull back on the stick a little and ease your flight path out of his line of fire. He will probably take the shot, but he won't hit. The gunfire goes underneath the belly of your Focke-Wulf. He has had his shot and, because you are no longer in his plane of motion, he can't just pull back on the stick to get you back into his sights. He can flail around with the rudder to try and pick you up in a sideslipping shot, but if you've made your move early enough you're safe even from this. The only way he can get back onto you is to roll, and you're better at that than he is.

You can now continue your fast, right hand roll through another 90 degrees. As you finish your roll, apply elevators to pitch up. You are now in a diving left-hand turn, and the underside of the bandit should be visible above you at your high 3 or 4 o'clock, pulling away from you toward your left-hand side. You are no longer in the same plane of motion.

More later.

cheers,
Ratsack

MrMojok
08-17-2007, 02:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

I'm saving all this into a text file!

Manu-6S
08-17-2007, 03:03 AM
@Ratsack:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Kettenhunde
08-17-2007, 06:49 AM
Oh yeah, those RECORDS just can't be true, Spitfire was really a dog-diver.

I think you hit the nail on the head, M_Gunz.

Nothing I have posted points says the Spitfire was a "dog-diver" despite the fan-base perceptions.

It just says the mach measurement was extremely inaccurate during that time period. Saying "mach .83" is pretty much meaningless for comparitive performance. It does work for that services or design firms scales. It will equate to their particular designs speed limits which translates into the designs cockpit instrumentation and is viable for the pilot.

It is not a viable yardstick for comparing designs of different countries built by different firms.

Design contemprary propeller driven fighters will all be very very close in their diving ability due to the physics.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
08-17-2007, 06:55 AM
Thanks for that.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
08-17-2007, 07:03 AM
They were or were not inaccurate mach calculation in
about the same way and amount?

No different tables were in use and different standards for the applications of corrections.

It is not a relative shift.

I can post reports which show this. However this a basic fact of aerodynamics and is like asking me to prove that the Letter "A" is the first letter of english alphabet.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20050201.html

All the best,

Crumpp

Spaturnio
08-17-2007, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
...
Like this:
[QUOTE]50.
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/16364655) is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Cool down, I can perceive frustration in your posts: I think you misjudged these tests reports reading them in the wrong way.
Let me be devil's advocate here:
First of all, we are talking about horizontal and dive acceleration, since vertical acceleration is not an option in a WWII prop fighter.
Try distancing a spit climbing in a 190 and you'll be fried, both here and in real world (talking about MKXI vs 190A4). What makes the 190 a better Zoomer is Physic: from Galileus experiment we know that, two bodies released form the same height, until drag become an issue will fall at the same speed.
This doesn't means they have the same energy too, because the heavier will have much more (M x V^2): the higher the mass, the more the energy.
so, when you zoom up after a dive, you have built up more energy un a 190 then in a spit, meaning you will leave the Spit behind.
This is well represented by the game imo, assuming Oleg's equations depict correctly M, E and G.

The problem of the game is that in a Dive, you should easily leave the spit behind already in the early stages, because of your better acceleration, something that will not happen in game. You should even leave behind a P47 until Power and drag will allow it to close and then easily leave you behind.

Form some testing I'm trying looks like that, starting at aprox 200kmh and zero Gas, in a full throttle dash forward on the horizontal, the Fw190A is the more sluggish plane in game, easily outpaced by an hurricane if this show something...
For the 190 speed is life, so when slowing slightly down to take a shot you need to regain speed ASAP, but if there are enemies close (although even slower then you) you have to try some emergency manoeuvre too or they will catch and shot you down without effort il Il2.


Originally posted by Ratsack:

First, unload your elevators. That is to say, stop turning towards him because all that does is hasten your death. No need to hurry forward to meet these things.

Second, having unloaded your elevators, roll. Hard. Use every degree-per-second that you can squeeze out of the Fw 190. You roll until your new plane of motion is at right angles to his (I'll come back to this in a second: don't worry).

Third, apply some elevator to pull your velocity vector out of his plane of motion, and out of harm's way.

Simple, right?

cheers,
Ratsack

You are beating a dead horse, but this only makes sens on external views and padlock on.
Most of us like to play Full realism, where, with a Spit on your six, you don't get the exat SA untill you see tracers coming at you.
In this case I pull some slight negatives, bank right and left, roll and slpit S trying to keep as much E as possible and dive away but to no avail: I got fried by an average pilot on a spit in those situations becaus eit always seems to bleed much less then me and outaccelerate me too.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Design contemprary propeller driven fighters will all be very very close in their diving ability due to the physics.
That's not entirey correct, in the same way as two cars able to attain 200KMH will not be close starting from still if the first reach the intended speed in 10sec and the other one will reach that same speed in 25sec. In a dive, Power Weight and Prop Efficiency are your best friends

Kettenhunde
08-17-2007, 09:47 AM
The problem of the game is that in a Dive, you should easily leave the spit behind already in the early stages, because of your better acceleration, something that will not happen in game.

I don't play this game enough to be commenting on FM's.

This statement makes me wonder if weight and thrust relationship is lining up correctly.

When diving or whenever the vector of lift is below the horizon, a component of weight is added directly to thrust. The additional thrust increases the sustained performance envelope while in that condition of flight.

That is how a superior rolling and heavier aircraft can defeat superior sustained turning ability. Unfortunately I did not copy the article from the archives as I was only interested in original documentation not flying magazine articles.

The article was written by an RAF squadron leader for a post war flying publication. In it he notes FW190 pilots using this methodology in sustained close quarter dogfights. The FW-190 would roll the vector of lift below the horizon, pull lead, and roll back for gun solution.


That's not entirey correct, in the same way as two cars able to attain 200KMH

Two cars at 200kph are not dealing with transonic wave drag and the unique properties it exhibits.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
08-17-2007, 10:14 AM
Cool down, I can perceive frustration in your posts: I think you misjudged these tests reports reading them in the wrong way.

Spaturnio,

You may have me confused with your imagination. If you think I need to cool down and you think that frustration exists in my post, then, you imagine these things out of nothingness. Do you see this as true or will you continue to imagine your own reality?

If you think I misjudged the actual tests that actually test actual WWII aircraft during the actual war (I am chuckling right now FYI = just in case you continue to feel as if I need to cool down etc.), then, and perhaps, you can quote what it was that made you feel this feeling that you express.

If you also think that I read the reports (I quoted them and then you quoted them) in the wrong way, then, perhaps we can move on to the rest of your response to find out ˜the right way' if such a ˜right way' exists.

The quote:


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Is there a contention concerning the whole quote or does the contention concern only the second half of the quote?

First half:


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked.

The words are written in English. The words are not my creation pulled from my active imagination. The words have meaning. The words describe combat examples of serial production fighter aircraft tested side by side for the purpose of accurately identifying relative performance capabilities. How can the first part be misunderstood?

A. Both aircraft flying at high cruising speed

Does the above intend to say one specific thing or does the above intend to say anything anyone wants the above to mean and not mean, and mean again, and not mean again, depending upon the situation where the above meaning can change to fit the situation?

Does the ˜interpreter' intend to suggest that the above can mean that one plane was flying faster than the other plane at the time that the pilots tested to see relative performance during a pull up onto a climb?

If so, then, the ˜interpreter' is suggesting something that makes little sense. Why would a test for relative performance be conducted without relevance? I mean; does the ˜interpreter' intend to suggest that the British flew the Spitfire at a slow speed and at the same time the British flew the Fw 190 at a high speed and from this difference in speed the British tested to see which plane would pull up into a climb faster from these different starting speeds?

If so, then, I can see it now. "Duh" the Fw190 pulls up onto a climb faster from a faster speed. What can we test next Mr. Obvious or is it Capt. Obvious? I'm still chuckling since my reference to Mr. and Capt is a recollection of a resent discussion with my daughter. If you can imagine my humor, then, you can discard your imaginary frustration attached to me by you.

So...the first part can be interpreted by the interpreter to mean just about anything the person wants it to mean or, here is a though, how about using something similar to logic in the effort to find the facts concerning relative performance in reality (before entertaining any thoughts about the game's ability to simulate reality)?


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked.

If the above manages to communicate anything at all with any precision or accuracy at all, then, at least, the above has two planes at the same altitude at the start of the test and at the end of the test one plane is relatively higher. There is no fog associated with which plane goes higher. If there is fog on that question, then, the fog is a self-induced fog.

Words intend to convey meaning. In the situation during WWII when those words were recorded the intent was to accurately measure relative performance between the combat planes tested. If the ˜interpreter' has a problem reading, then, that is certainly a problem.

Moving on to the second part of the quote quoted (and contended):


When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The above can be interpreted, again, in many ways and two of those many ways include one way where the test is conducted from a relevant position and the other way is to interpret the above test report in an irrelevant position (unknown and unidentified reference to differences in speed).

Like this:


When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive (at different speeds at the time of ˜pull up') the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.


When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive (at the same speed at the time of the ˜pull up' part of the test) the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The ˜interpreter' can imagine just about anything going on during the test where the British fighter pilots (professional fighter pilots and not necessarily professional test pilots or professional test pilots and not necessarily professional fighter pilots or Tom, ****, or Harry off the street) conducted the tests described in the report quoted. Again – regardless of all the possible variables the indisputable information remains indisputably reported in the primary source WWII documentation concerning relative performance.

The Fw-190 ˜draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it' ˜when both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive'.

Does it make any sense to assume that the Fw190 starts from a higher altitude and starts from a higher speed with the engine on while the Spitfire starts with a cold engine on the runway?

British test conductor:

"OK start the clock. You with the Fw 190 start your dive from 10,000 meters. You with the Spitfire prime your fuel system and begin to start the engine."

British fighter pilot testing the Fw 190 to accurately identify relative performance capabilities:

"I've pulled up into the climb now."

British test conductor:

"OK Spitfire pilot what is your conclusion"

British fighter pilot testing the Spitfire to accurately identify relative performance capabilities:

"The Fw190 is climbing away and I have no hope of catching it. My engine is still too cold. I'll get off the ground in a few minutes. Hold on."

British test conductor:

"Rightyoh that's it then; let's move onto the next test."


Dive.
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.


The word ˜comparative' intends to convey something accurately or the word ˜comparative' intends to falsify the report because the report is bogus. You can't have it both ways. If the intent was to accurately measure relative performance, then, the information is a honest (primary source) report measuring relative performance. If you, or anyone, question the capacity of the British to perform an accurate test, then, that is another matter.

A. The test isn't honest
B. The test is honest but not relevant (inaccurate) because the British can't test accurately
C. The test means what I want it to mean when I want it to mean something I want or not depending upon the situation presented to me at any given moment.

Comparative tests performed on the same day in the same atmosphere in the summer of 1942 by the British and their test results are not merely ˜pilot anecdotes' according to more than one game player posting on a forum in 2007.

Example:


Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (Tom) at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 (captured after it shot down a Spitfire or two) flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit (****) at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war. (Alfred Price ˜anecdotes' from one of his many, many, publications)

Example (model of what such an intelligence document should contain):


The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat.

If anyone is to ˜interpret' anything concerning WWII relative performance documentation, then, they will have a hard time manufacturing their viewpoint around the FACT that the FW 190 accelerated faster than its contemporaries. It isn't impossible to make believe that the FACT didn't exist.

Example:


The Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration.

One can imagine that the above words concerning the tests conducted (side by side) between the July Spitfire IX (Merlin 61 engine) and the Fw 190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with bad spark plugs) means that the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61) accelerated faster than the Fw 190 because the game makes one believe that the above means that the Spitfire IX accelerated faster than the Fw 190 in July 1942.

One can make believe just about anything one wants to believe.

The same report (based upon the combat tests conducted in July 1942) identifies a part of the flight envelope where the Spitfire does have an acceleration advantage (and it is not identified as an advantage for the Spitfire during a ˜pull out', in a dive, or anything but where the report, based upon the actual flight tests, of the actual planes, in the actual war, says the advantage exited for the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61) over the Fw 190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with bad spark plugs making the engine run rough)).

Here:


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

Anyone can make believe that above says whatever they want the above to mean at any time they wish to do so – of course. The fact is that the above does say something. The above can be wished away into to corn field. Good luck.

Moving back to the response (where I'm being told to cool down):


First of all, we are talking about horizontal and dive acceleration, since vertical acceleration is not an option in a WWII prop fighter.


I can interpret the above to mean something factual or I can interpret the above to mean something false. The above is hardly precise in its construction. The above is similar to the quotes from the WWII comparative performance analysis reports in that the above is ˜interpretable'.

For the most part WWII fighter planes didn't produce more thrust than weight and therefore WWII fighter planes could not accelerate straight up on engine thrust.

Acceleration against gravity required a force produced by the wings for WWII fighter planes that did not produce more thrust than weight.

I think I get the picture in the words written:


First of all, we are talking about horizontal and dive acceleration, since vertical acceleration is not an option in a WWII prop fighter.


Why is the words written being presented as "first of all" as if the person the words are aimed at needs to ˜cool down' and as if the person the words are aimed at is ˜frustrated' and as if the person the words are aimed at doesn't understand the limitations concerning aircraft that produce less thrust force measured in Pounds Force relative to mass measured as weight or Pounds.

T/W where T is less than W

Moving on:


Try distancing a spit climbing in a 190 and you'll be fried, both here and in real world (talking about MKXI vs 190A4).

The real world existed in the real world and people in the real world tested relative performance in the real world while the real world existed – really.

Example:


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.


Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive.

It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.


Comparative evaluation of reports:


Try distancing a spit climbing in a 190 and you'll be fried, both here and in real world (talking about MKXI vs 190A4).

One is a document recorded by the British in 1942. The other can be supported with some measure of authenticity or not.


What makes the 190 a better Zoomer is Physic: from Galileus experiment we know that, two bodies released form the same height, until drag become an issue will fall at the same speed.


I'm going to <snip> this response to the response and link my efforts to measure things while utilizing the available means.

If the responder remains convinced that he needs to ˜school' me, then, he can. He can be specific. He can be ambiguous.

Whatever makes him happy and note, again, I'm doing just fine according to me.

Pathology (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7876)

I documented my progress and my results of game tests (I can't test the real planes since I don't have the real planes):

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Anatamy%20of%20Drag%20Test.jpg

If anyone can communicate a specific error in the tests or the math, then, that can be done. If not, then, make believe.

Ratsack
08-17-2007, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
...
For the 190 speed is life, so when slowing slightly down to take a shot you need to regain speed ASAP, but if there are enemies close (although even slower then you) you have to try some emergency manoeuvre too or they will catch and shot you down without effort il Il2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

First, unload your elevators. That is to say, stop turning towards him because all that does is hasten your death. No need to hurry forward to meet these things.

Second, having unloaded your elevators, roll. Hard. Use every degree-per-second that you can squeeze out of the Fw 190. You roll until your new plane of motion is at right angles to his (I'll come back to this in a second: don't worry).

Third, apply some elevator to pull your velocity vector out of his plane of motion, and out of harm's way.

Simple, right?

cheers,
Ratsack

.... but this only makes sens on external views and padlock on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. It makes perfect sense when playing full switch, which is how I play, on line and off.




Most of us like to play Full realism, where, with a Spit on your six, you don't get the exat SA untill you see tracers coming at you.

Firstly, if you're not aware of the bandit until he shoots, then you have bigger problems with your SA than you have with flying a Focke-Wulf. Head on a swivel, particularly in full-switch play.

Secondly, if you can't see the bandit behind you then you are not using the viewing options properly. And yes, I do mean in a full-switch situation. The only exception is if he's at your low six, which is obviously blind. Anywhere else and you should be able to pick him up.



In this case I pull some slight negatives, bank right and left, roll and slpit S trying to keep as much E as possible and dive away but to no avail: I got fried by an average pilot on a spit in those situations becaus eit always seems to bleed much less then me and outaccelerate me too.

Right, if it doesn't work, then try something different. The description you give above sounds like what I see a lot of players do on line when attacked. They flounder. Pushing negative Gs and stick stirring will not save you. You need to do several things:

1. don't get into that situation (see Raven's post above);
2. see the bandit earlier (see my point above about SA); and
3. have a better plan than some vague notion of 'evasive' moves (??!!!) in the hope that the other bloke will...what, exactly? Accidentally lose sight of you? Run out of ammo? Become bored?

What I have outlined in my last post and the earlier one describing the beginning of the merge is one alternative to the cross-your-fingers-and-stir-the-stick school of defensive ACM. It works for me. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine. Just find something else that does. But don't bother telling me it only works on wonder woman with padlock.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
08-17-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
...

The article was written by an RAF squadron leader for a post war flying publication. In it he notes FW190 pilots using this methodology in sustained close quarter dogfights. The FW-190 would roll the vector of lift below the horizon, pull lead, and roll back for gun solution.
...

This works in the game, too. It also fits rather well with poor gun sight view of the Focke-Wulf in the game. By getting the nose ahead of the target and then rolling back, you are able to line up the deflection shot in the side windows where the view is unobstructed.

It bears stressing that the deflection shot you get is not a tracking shot, but a snap. A snap with four 20 mm cannon. If you hit, it's dead.

I don't know if that's how it worked in reality, but it certainly works in the game.

cheers,
Ratsack

M_Gunz
08-17-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It is not a viable yardstick for comparing designs of different countries built by different firms.

Design contemprary propeller driven fighters will all be very very close in their diving ability due to the physics.

I can agree there on basis of shape of the planes, weights and power that gravity and drag
including prop disc overwhelm the rest of the differences. To go 10% faster without compression
takes like 21% more energy but once you get what, .7 mach it is more like cubed instead of square.

And of course some wings do compress at lower speeds than others but on a % of total there are
not many real dogs? Some texts would tell me that thick high-lift wings like Zero (early only?)
hit compress more soon and thin wings like P-51 hit later but I don't know the spread. Dynamix
had notes to that effect in Aces of the Pacific, their Zeros maxed out under 400mph in dive IIRC.
I dunno how real that is though.

I do hold from what Gunther Rall had said about structural limits, why so likely the 109's he
flew were unable even with a lead start, hit and run, were unable in the long run to outrun
P-47 and P-51. He flew both as well as German planes so I put his words higher than many yet
when he gave speeds 1000 and 1400 kph I have to wonder what he was going by, perhaps IAS taken
directly through TAS convert. All I am sure of is that he flew them hard with great skill and
yes, did chase 109 students with captured Allied planes.

And then you have come in and shown us about Q-limits which I am not solid in understanding.
They seem related to stability ability ;^) which once the plane is wobbling the structure is
going to be stressed much more as will be the poor pilot in more ways than one! Perhaps the
better pilot or just LUCK of clean air or both may make a hundredth or five of mach difference
in record setting.

Between structure, stability and piloting I do expect a wider spread than by drag and weight
alone. Had Rall's 109 been sturdier he may not have gotten shot, just MHO.

Whatever the record, it was set by an exceptional pilot IRL and not what we should be able to
do in a game where we have no feel. Last patch I ran dives to see some limits, down near sea
level even the fastest I remember getting about 950kph or so which is ballpark .75 maybe.
Some people though, I see posts with incredible numbers below 20,000 ft.

Ratsack
08-17-2007, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
... Some texts would tell me that thick high-lift wings like Zero (early only?)
hit compress more soon and thin wings like P-51 hit later but I don't know the spread. Dynamix
had notes to that effect in Aces of the Pacific, their Zeros maxed out under 400mph in dive IIRC.
I dunno how real that is though.
...

It's short by about 50 mph for the A6M5 Model 52a, which was the fastest diving Zero, and one of the more numerous types.

cheers,
Ratsack

M_Gunz
08-17-2007, 01:07 PM
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

High cruise is how fast? I'd say over 80% of max speed but max speed of which?
And which FW do we have that matches closest the one in the quote?
And which Spitfire?

I look at the climb curves in IL2C and from about 480+ kph even the IX's aren't doing so great
at sea level. And we have some of the better IX's. The plain 190A-5 is not at disadvantage
in high cruise to most all in the game, even later models. And the Spit V's are hopeless
even compared to our 1.32ATA A-4 which has equal climb to the Spit-25 at 470kph and from there
is superior, the Spit-25 cannot climb at all just before 510kph!

Likewise on the dives -- the speed they start makes the huge difference.

Our FW's have the decided advantage when both planes are moving fast.
The faster plane will ALWAYS have that advantage.

M_Gunz
08-17-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
[It's short by about 50 mph for the A6M5 Model 52a, which was the fastest diving Zero, and one of the more numerous types.

cheers,
Ratsack

That's 80kph which for these planes in dive speed is a big difference.

I still wouldn't pull away in a straight of even predictable path though, them bullets tend
to catch up pretty quick!

Spaturnio
08-17-2007, 07:15 PM
You may have me confused with your imagination. If you think I need to cool down and you think that frustration exists

Ok, I lost you about here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
If you mean a FW dives faster then a Spit, we can agree.
If you mean a FW climbs better without having built up more energy then a spit...
Ok, whatever you say... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PS: when you quote something there is no need to do that fifteen times in the same post: it bores the reader down to death.

Kettenhunde
08-17-2007, 07:34 PM
To go 10% faster without compression
takes like 21% more energy but once you get what, .7 mach it is more like cubed instead of square.

I think your confusing parasitic drag with wave drag. Two different forms of drag.

The power of parasitic drag varies as the ratio of velocity cubed.

Wave drag has a property called "divergence". Once the normal shock begins to move down the wing, the subsonic flow aft of the wave begins to seperates from the airfoil. This causes a sudden and dramatic increase in drag.

Supersonic flow remains ahead of the normal shock.

We can ballpark the drag increase of the Spitfire at mach .89:

.89^2/1 + .89^2/10 = .87131 or an 87% increase in drag.

To put it another way, an 87% increase in drag requires ~11,625THP increase to overcome.

All the best,

Crumpp

Spaturnio
08-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Secondly, if you can't see the bandit behind you then you are not using the viewing options properly. And yes, I do mean in a full-switch situation.
...
Just find something else that does. But don't bother telling me it only works on wonder woman with padlock.

cheers,
Ratsack

You know, surely I'm not a very good FW pilot, but using a track IR4 I keep looking at that big armour plate at my 6.
An half decent spit pilot will dive on me in a lag pursuit, meaning he will dive under my plane instead then from above and aim at my belly, meaning that, unless you spotted him in the early stages of the dive, he will soon be on a blind spot.
Spits don't need to take high deflection shots because the lose so little energy in an high G pull up. Other times, he may be already diving under my belly as I dive, sometime he will use oleg's spit stealth system over detailed terrain to simply pass in another plane of existence before warping up at my 6...

Whatever the case, he will be on your six, where, without external views, you will take notice of him when the first salvoes will smash on your crate (I assume he can hit an open door)...
This being said, we can talk about wild barrel rollings, trying not to lose to much energy in the process, we can try to out speed him on the deck, something not really possible with this FM, or we can enter a scissor, but the problem will be you don't know how close your enemy really is (le'ts imagine from 300 to 50m) until you pull the stick to bring him above the rear armour of the 190.
At this point he will probably already be point his nose at us and shot we down because we need to stay at least 15deg out of his plane of motion to get a snap view of the situation an get a SA idea.

Unless you hit external view there is no other way to know which exactly is HIS plane of motion ad your manoeuvring will become just a blind flying trying to confuse him with casual manoeuvres.

My pulling some negative G and jawing is about trying to eventually out speed the enemy and losing how little energy I can while ruining his aim (and shots), but it doesn't works very well, since I've played this game for 10 minutes against a skilled FW pilot without a single bruise in a FW, but Spits MkIX always seems to catch me in a few seconds.

I'm in no position to bring successful alternatives in a FW opposed to yours but if you can play safe in full switch at the game you suggested, there must be more then you have reported here, probably something you don't do consciously which was omitted in you post above.

Try to elaborate further about your tactic and may be something else will come out.

Kettenhunde
08-17-2007, 07:54 PM
High cruise is how fast?

The FW-190's cruise realm was ~70-100mph faster than the Spitfires cruse realm.

This means the L/D curves for the designs were shifted realtive to one another with the Focke Wulf's is at the higher velocity.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
08-17-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High cruise is how fast?

The FW-190's cruise realm was ~70-100mph faster than the Spitfires cruse realm.

This means the L/D curves for the designs were shifted realtive to one another with the Focke Wulf's is at the higher velocity.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the picture I see with most IL2C climb vs speed FW to Spit compares.
Of course the Spit IX's are shifted to the right so far that FW is not better until over 400kph
but I don't feel that is beyond high cruise of the FW's! Of the Spits, yes but not the FW's.

Once speed goes up the FW can not only outclimb the Spits (even the A-4 we have!) but it can
outmaneuver as long as the Spit tries to hold speed. With the right maneuvers, smooth long
but changing curves and low angle climb the Spit may get one chance if that pilot is good
and if he doesn't make it he is lost to an also good FW pilot.

The comparative turn fighter wants to get the other guy to fly where he is strongest while
the comparative energy fighter wants the other to either stay fast or blow his energy in
hard turns, he has two ways to win and BOTH have possible to lose.
For years and years, even before IL2 I read from people that expect on plane to always beat
some other based on quotes which frankly is total BS! Strengths and weaknesses vary by speed
and altitude. No plane had it all, everywhere. I either want a plane really strong in one
or two niches and only weak in one if I can get that or a balanced plane with decent speed
and generally good at everything. IMO the Spit IX's fit that bill very well but lose out on
speed to the speed thoroughbreds. SPEED is #1!

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 12:52 AM
Just reading Johnnie Johnsons book 'Wing Leader', and whatever the merits of both the FW190 and the SPitfire, once the SPitfire IX arrived Johnsons squadron (probably early '43 maybe late '42) was killing many more FW190's than losses.

Now this could be down to polit training and all sorts of other factors, but one fact remains, In Johnsons experiences :-

SPitfire V vs FW190A = FW190 scoring much better

SPitfire IX vs FW190A = SPitfire scoring much better.


I will elaborste more when I have read more of the book. I have only skimmed over it so far, there is a large section about SPitfire vs FW190 from the Spitfire pilots point of view.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 05:39 AM
Just reading Johnnie Johnsons book 'Wing Leader', and whatever the merits of both the FW190 and the SPitfire, once the SPitfire IX arrived Johnsons squadron (probably early '43 maybe late '42) was killing many more FW190's than losses.

I think basing aircraft performance off one sides claims and anecdotes will not be productive for you.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 05:45 AM
that FW is not better until over 400kph

400kph is 40 kph below the FW-190A's maximum endurance cruise speed.

All the best,

Crumpp

Brain32
08-18-2007, 07:25 AM
Well since this thread is gone anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by:M_Gunz
I look at the climb curves in IL2C and from about 480+ kph even the IX's aren't doing so great
at sea level. And we have some of the better IX's. The plain 190A-5 is not at disadvantage
in high cruise to most all in the game, even later models. And the Spit V's are hopeless
even compared to our 1.32ATA A-4 which has equal climb to the Spit-25 at 470kph and from there
is superior, the Spit-25 cannot climb at all just before 510kph!

Just look at those values in il2c a bit closer, first of all you will notice that they are NOT made at full power, just look at Spit25 and vanilla SpitIX, they have exactly the same curves which is dubious at best.
With that in mind you can see that at 100% power FW190A4 is some ~15kmh faster than vanilla SpitfireIX at 100% power, which happens to be exactly the difference in max speed at which can they climb.
If you made any kind of test you would see that at full power A4 is pwned so bad it's not even a contest and that's still vanilla mkIX we're talking about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Ofcourse with faster FockeWulfs things change and FW once more gains advantage ofcourse if full power is used by both. Here we come to another issue:

Originally posted by:M_Gunz
High cruise is how fast?

Good question, however I know what's the "cruise speed" of in-game Spitfire MkIX, jolly good, it happens to be their MAXIMUM speed, and the Fw's cruise speed? Well not sure but most certainly NOT their max speed, you can't use full power forever and on top of that you have to have opened rads, very often even to fully opened. The consequence of all that in-game is many complaints about this whole issue even from the people that really know how to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hop2002
08-18-2007, 08:50 AM
Maximum continuous cruise speed on the Spitfire VIII:

0 ft - 281 TAS
5,000ft - 300
10,000 ft - 320
15,000 ft - 331
20,000 ft - 351
25,000 ft - 363

That's maximum continuous (2650 rpm, 7 lbs boost). There was also a 1 hour rating of 2850 rpm, 12 lbs boost, which, given fuel consumption, also qualifies as a cruise setting:

0 ft - 302 TAS
5,000ft - 323
10,000 ft - 347
15,000 ft - 356
20,000 ft - 376
25,000 ft - 386


We can ballpark the drag increase of the Spitfire at mach .89:

.89^2/1 + .89^2/10 = .87131 or an 87% increase in drag.


Crumpp, can you explain the figures?

JG14_Josf
08-18-2007, 09:20 AM
PS: when you quote something there is no need to do that fifteen times in the same post: it bores the reader down to death.

Need?


Ok, I lost you about here...

When a color is being reported to be black when the color is actually white, then, repetition may help the reader understand the word used to describe the color white.

White is white.

Black is black.

If one person can speak for everyone (all the bored readers have one voice) and that person claims that white is black, then, what does that say about all those readers?


If you mean a FW climbs better without having built up more energy then a spit...


If you mean to attach the conclusions made by British Fighter Pilots testing a captured example of a production model German Fighter Plane to me, as if I ˜mean' something, rather than what is actually being done here, which is, I'm quoting the conclusions made by the actual pilots during the actual war as they actually tested to see which plane ˜climbs better'.

If you ˜mean' to suggest that ˜I' am wrong and you are right, then, your ˜meanness' is like saying black is white and white is black.

If you read the following (repeated again) and you again come to the conclusion that you are right and "I" am wrong, then, the next time I quote the same thing from the same source may be the ˜magic' time when you finally realize your repetitive error – or not.

I like to type. I also find it to be worth my time and effort to republish the actual historical record as a check on the false myths being constructed by gamers with their silly game of ˜reality creation'.


If you mean a FW climbs better without having built up more energy then a spit...


I don't ˜mean' to suggest that something false is true. I mean to re-quote the actual conclusions resulting from side by side flight tests done in 1942 against serial production fighter planes.

The following is the Fw 190 climb compared to the Spitfire climb (according to the primary source documentation):


If you mean a FW climbs better without having built up more energy then a spit...


Oooops, that is a repeat of the gamers viewpoint, excuse me.

Here is the primary source WWII documentation of comparative side by side tests done with an Fw190 against a Spitfire:


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.



Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive.

It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

That last test, done in WWII, and recorded for any historian to view (including Alfred Price) and republish, is an example of an intelligence report (one had to access their brain I suppose) concerning the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX against a captured Fw 190 running rough on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs. The information is documented and available on the net for those having an interest in knowing the facts (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/root) rather than merely parroting the errors often repeated in this forum concerning a game.


If you mean a FW climbs better without having built up more energy then a spit...

JG14_Josf
08-18-2007, 10:08 AM
The power of parasitic drag varies as the ratio of velocity cubed.

Based upon what (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf)?



The maximum lift line, or CLmax boundary, takes its parabolic shape from the fact that lift is a function of velocity squared (because lift is proportional to dynamic pressure, q, which is itself proportional to V2). You can draw the lift line based purely on an aircraft's 1-g stall speed at a given weight. At least you can for speeds to about Mach 0.3. Above that, compressibility effects take over, CLmax declines, and the slope of the curve decreases.

Saying something is and finding if what is said IS true are two different things, of course, one is belief and the other is science.


The power of parasitic drag varies as the ratio of velocity cubed.

According to what known fact will the above apply as fact when the object (airplane) in question is flying at speeds above .3 Mach?


At least you can for speeds to about Mach 0.3. Above that, compressibility effects take over, CLmax declines, and the slope of the curve decreases.

In fact – something happens to the force that is forcing the airplane to slow down (not gravity) as the airplane travels faster than an observable speed limit, meaning, under that speed limit the force (drag) behaves one way and over that speed limit (.3 Mach) the observation of how that force (drag) behaves changes.

One word used to describe the change in behavior of the force of drag is compressibility (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Compressibility/DI136.htm).


However, when aircraft began traveling faster than 220 miles per hour, assumptions regarding the air through which they flew that were true at slower speeds were no longer valid. At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density. The air at higher altitudes where these aircraft fly also has lower density than air nearer to the Earth's surface. The airflow is now compressible, and aerodynamic theories have had to reflect this. Aerodynamic theories relating to compressible airflow characteristics and behavior are considerably more complex than theories relating to incompressible airflow. The noted aerodynamicist of the early 20th century, Ludwig Prandtl, contributed the Prandtl-Glaubert rule for subsonic airflow to describe the compressibility effects of air at high speeds.



assumptions regarding the air through which they flew that were true at slower speeds were no longer valid

Example?


The power of parasitic drag varies as the ratio of velocity cubed.

How about this one?


If you mean a FW climbs better without having built up more energy then a spit...

A higher mass object at the same speed and at the same altitude as a lower mass object will measure up with a higher amount of total energy.

Same altitude
Same speed
More energy due to higher mass

That is not a simple theory. That is a fact.


At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density.

For those of you who appear to believe in the accuracy of the ˜theory' concerning performance degrading effects of increased weight, well, you are half right.

That isn't so bad. Too bad it isn't right.

These ˜theorists' believe in the T/W theory of flight as if drag didn't exist and, as if, airplanes fly around in a vacuum.

The end results of these ˜half truths' can easily be seen in the game, where, the Fw 190 documented as one of the best initial acceleration rate planes is, in the game, one of the poorest.

These are facts – not theories.

If the half truths are imported into the new game, then, the same old inaccuracies will continue to create and support what amounts to a MYTH.

Changes in density (internal mass) changes the rate of deceleration caused by drag force; because – changes in density changes the amount of energy.

More mass = more energy.

Less mass = less energy.


At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density.

To those who ˜believe' that my statements of fact ˜ignore' the force of thrust on aircraft performance, well, you believe in a fabricated reality.

In fact; the historical increases in total thrust power (Fighter Planes) happened to parallel the historical increases in density.

Practically all WWII fighter planes increased thrust and density; not simply increasing thrust.

Example:

Spitfire VB (9 lb boost)
P-47C

One is much heavier (dense)
One is much more powerful (engine thrust)

The ratio of thrust to weight is misleading, since, the ratio of Total Drag force to weight must be accounted for accurately if the idea is to measure relative performance accurately.

The light weight (less thrust and less dense) Spitfire VB at the same altitude and at the same speed is at a much lower state of energy (measures up with a lower quantity of total energy).

The lower quantity of total energy must overcome gravity and total drag force.

The greater the energy of thrust increases the ability to overcome both forces that can slow the plane down (gravity and drag force).

The greater energy of mass (density) does not increase the ability to overcome the force of gravity when gravity slows the aircraft down (climbing).

The greater energy of mass (density) does increase the ability to overcome the force of total drag. That ratio of increased mass (density) increasing the ability to overcome the force of total drag can be described with words and symbols.

Drag Loading

Symbols: D/W

If you can't even conceptualize what is Drag Loading, in reality, then ignoring the effects of compressibility on aircraft performance is merely one more consequence of ignorance adding to the total drag force pulling down any honest effort to learn.

Pointing your ignorant fingers at me and saying "You is wrong" merely proves a point.


At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density.

Those are words.


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

Those are more words.

The sources of those words are linked. If you have a problem with me, then, you will express your problem – as usual. If you have a problem with understanding how flight works, then, stating your problem accurately is the only way to communicate your problem because make believe doesn't cut it.

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just reading Johnnie Johnsons book 'Wing Leader', and whatever the merits of both the FW190 and the SPitfire, once the SPitfire IX arrived Johnsons squadron (probably early '43 maybe late '42) was killing many more FW190's than losses.

I think basing aircraft performance off one sides claims and anecdotes will not be productive for you.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course, but it all helps to build up a picture of how the real pilots thought the machines stacked up in combat.

Johnson and the SPitfire pilots certainly felt their SPitfire V's were inferior to the FW190A's, should I disregard this because its just the pilots opinion? - No.

WHen combined with facts such as climb speed, turn, roll, dive, top speed, we can see WHY he felt that the FW190A was so superior.

All these thoughts of real pilots are interesting when combined with the facts and figures of the respective aircraft.

Productive AND interesting.

hop2002
08-18-2007, 10:32 AM
The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage

The report also says:


The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the FW 190

Spaturnio
08-18-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just reading Johnnie Johnsons book 'Wing Leader', and whatever the merits of both the FW190 and the SPitfire, once the SPitfire IX arrived Johnsons squadron (probably early '43 maybe late '42) was killing many more FW190's than losses.

I think basing aircraft performance off one sides claims and anecdotes will not be productive for you.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course, but it all helps to build up a picture of how the real pilots thought the machines stacked up in combat.

Johnson and the SPitfire pilots certainly felt their SPitfire V's were inferior to the FW190A's, should I disregard this because its just the pilots opinion? - No.

WHen combined with facts such as climb speed, turn, roll, dive, top speed, we can see WHY he felt that the FW190A was so superior.

All these thoughts of real pilots are interesting when combined with the facts and figures of the respective aircraft.

Productive AND interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not jump to hurried up conclusion about the real effect of MKIX on the western fornt: by the times JJ group got the MkIX, most of the german JG were diverted on the eastern front: according to A.Galland, at that time, on the channel JG1 and JG26 were fighhting at a 1/7 ratio against the british, something he brough up again and again to Goering and the german high command: BTW, at that time galland Brother and Goering nephew both were both shot down and killed.

This gives us much more perspectives about the reason for the mounting losses on the german side and the claimed success of the british.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 10:49 AM
Johnson and the SPitfire pilots certainly felt their SPitfire V's were inferior to the FW190A's, should I disregard this because its just the pilots opinion? - No.

I just think you should get a better rounded pool of opinions, Xio.

Great place to start is "JG26 War Diaries" by Don Caldwell.

While certainly the Spitfire Mk IX arrested Fighter commands "crisis of confidence" regarding the FW-190 by the same token the Jadgwaffe did not even notice its introduction.

IMHO the largest issue at stake is simply Fighter Commands perceptions. In fact before the capture of WNr. 313, the early combat reports of encounters with the FW190 convey the type is not difficult to combat.

They did note an increase in aggressiveness in the Luftwaffe pilots manifesting itself in willingness to stay and dogfight. Because of the Luftwaffe's increased aggressiveness, FC casualties begin to rise. This increase in casualties is explained by the introduction of an aircraft. IMHO it should be attributed to a change in the perception of the Luftwaffe pilots leading to an increase in aggressiveness.

It is not plane, it is the pilot.

It's only after the RAE conducted their trials with the FW-190 that the type becomes an issue with Fighter Command.

The Jagdeschwader continued to treat a Spitfire as a Spitfire and the same tactics that worked in 1942 continued to work throughout the war.

Focke Wulf pilots remained confident in their aircraft just as Spitfire pilots got thier confidence back.

Although the Summer of 1942 is labeled, "The Focke Wulf summer" by the RAF, there is no perceivable difference in the casualty rates of JG26 in the summer of 1943 when the Spitfire Mk IX series is well entrenched in the RAF squadrons.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
08-18-2007, 11:08 AM
The report also says:


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

Which,

If the measure of acceleration in level flight is both accurate and comprehensive, then, acceleration rates for every speed from stall to top speed can be accurately known.

In times of war the need for comprehensive data may be less vital compared to the need for a more general knowledge.

If the need for a more comprehensive measure of relative rates of acceleration in level flight did produce comprehensive data, then, that data could be linked and re-published.

Meanwhile the more general data exists:


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

That is the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61) compared to the Fw190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with bad spark plugs causing the engine to run rough) in July 1942.

Having a comprehensive comparison of level flight acceleration from stall to top speed (side by side or on a chart based upon individual flight tests done on different continents under different flight conditions, different atmospheric conditions, and/or using different formulas for calculation) could produce a chart where individual data plots (speeds) correspond with individual rates of acceleration (x, y, axis charts) and thereby any two planes can be compared on the same chart to see exactly at which speeds one plane does have an acceleration advantage over the other plane.


The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat.

That is the Fw 190A-3 (de-rated etc.) against the July 1942 Spitfire VB (front line fighter) tested in July 1942 by the British as the British tried desperately to quantify relative performance in July 1942 between their Spitfires (used in combat) and the enemies Fw190s (used in combat).

A chart showing rates of acceleration differences from stall to top speed, according to that test conclusion, would favor the Fw190 ˜under all conditions of flight'.
The meanings of words can be used to convey accurate information and the meaning of words can be used to falsify data.

If someone were to create a level acceleration chart for the Spitfire IX against the Fw190A 4 in the game, then, one would exist.

An accurate one is better than one that is inaccurate on purpose.


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

Motive can clue someone in on any choices made; one way or the other.


Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 (captured after it shot down a Spitfire or two) flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war.

The reader can bear in mind that these are not the words of a player trying to boost his favorite planes modeling in the game because that isn't my business at all. I'm merely one of those who choose the red pill.

My motive is obvious to me. You can choose the blue pill.

hop2002
08-18-2007, 11:09 AM
Although the Summer of 1942 is labeled, "The Focke Wulf summer" by the RAF, there is no perceivable difference in the casualty rates of JG26 in the summer of 1943 when the Spitfire Mk IX series is well entrenched in the RAF squadrons.

JG 26 records show they claimed 369 Spitfires in 1942, whilst losing 55 pilots to Spitfires. In 1943 they claimed 168 Spitfires, whilst losing 97 pilots to Spitfires.

So, that's a claimed aircraft to lost pilots ratio of 6.7 to 1 in 1942, 1.7 to 1 in 1943. I'd say that's a fair difference.

K_Freddie
08-18-2007, 11:12 AM
And Johnny then looked over the screen, outside the window, and into the playground..... "Oh my G.. - some people have a life".
He didn't understand what he'd just said, only that he had heard it somewhere before!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 11:14 AM
The report also says:

It must be appreciated that the differences in these too aircraft are slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb would be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

http://img146.imagevenue.com/loc720/th_57128_pro_190_survey_b_5_122_720lo.jpg (http://img146.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=57128_pro_190_survey_b_5_122_720lo.j pg)

http://img124.imagevenue.com/loc664/th_57056_pro_190_survey_b_9_122_664lo.jpg (http://img124.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=57056_pro_190_survey_b_9_122_664lo.j pg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 11:16 AM
JG 26 records show they claimed 369 Spitfires in 1942, whilst losing 55 pilots to Spitfires. In 1943 they claimed 168 Spitfires, whilst losing 97 pilots to Spitfires.


Look at the FW190 Gruppes and read it off Caldwells site. He has the newly released claims and losses from the Bundesarchive.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
08-18-2007, 11:18 AM
They did note an increase in aggressiveness in the Luftwaffe pilots manifesting itself in willingness to stay and dogfight. Because of the Luftwaffe's increased aggressiveness, FC casualties begin to rise. This increase in casualties is explained by the introduction of an aircraft. IMHO it should be attributed to a change in the perception of the Luftwaffe pilots leading to an increase in aggressiveness.

Compare the above humble opinion to the following (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm):


The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.



The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France.



Savagely I hauled my reluctant Spitfire around to meet this new attack and the next moment I was engulfed in enemy fighters-above, below and on both sides, they crowded in on my section. Ahead and above, I caught a glimpse of a FW 190 as it poured cannon shells into the belly of an unsuspecting Spitfire. For a brief second the Spitfire seemed to stop in mid-air, and the next instant it folded inwards and broke in two, the two pieces plummeting earthwards; a terrifying demonstration of the punch of the FW 190s, four cannons and two machine-guns.

I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.

There was no lack of targets, but precious few Spitfires to take them on. I could see my number two, Sergeant Murphy, still hanging grimly to my tail but it was impossible to tell how many Spitfires were in the area, or how many had survived the unexpected onslaught which had developed from both sides as the squadron turned to meet the threat from the rear. Break followed attack, attack followed break, and all the time the determined Murphy hung to my tail until finally, when I was just about short of ammunition and pumping what was left at a FW 190, I heard him call:

"Break right, Red One; I'll get him."

As I broke, I saw Murphy pull up after a FW 190 as it veered away from me, thwarted in its attack by his prompt action. My ammunition expended, I sought a means of retreat from a sky still generously sprinkled with hostile enemy fighters, but no Spitfires that I could see. In a series of turns and dives I made my way out until I was clear of the coast, and diving full throttle I headed for home.


Define ˜humble'?

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just reading Johnnie Johnsons book 'Wing Leader', and whatever the merits of both the FW190 and the SPitfire, once the SPitfire IX arrived Johnsons squadron (probably early '43 maybe late '42) was killing many more FW190's than losses.

I think basing aircraft performance off one sides claims and anecdotes will not be productive for you.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course, but it all helps to build up a picture of how the real pilots thought the machines stacked up in combat.

Johnson and the SPitfire pilots certainly felt their SPitfire V's were inferior to the FW190A's, should I disregard this because its just the pilots opinion? - No.

WHen combined with facts such as climb speed, turn, roll, dive, top speed, we can see WHY he felt that the FW190A was so superior.

All these thoughts of real pilots are interesting when combined with the facts and figures of the respective aircraft.

Productive AND interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's not jump to hurried up conclusion about the real effect of MKIX on the western fornt: by the times JJ group got the MkIX, most of the german JG were diverted on the eastern front: according to A.Galland, at that time, on the channel JG1 and JG26 were fighhting at a 1/7 ratio against the british, something he brough up again and again to Goering and the german high command: BTW, at that time galland Brother and Goering nephew both were both shot down and killed.

This gives us much more perspectives about the reason for the mounting losses on the german side and the claimed success of the british. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Malta 1942-43, the British were often fighting at a 10-1 disadvantage, often worse.

Once the Poles arrived in the area in their Spitfire IX's on 26th March 1943, the loss rate fell and the kill rate grew.

March-May 1943 Overall :-
destroyed 25
probably 3
damaged 9

Not bad for 15 pilots which were usually heavily outnumbered.

I dont think the quality of the Spitfire IX can be questioned. From having no doubt that the FW190 was far superior and the Me109F was slightly superior, the pilots of the SPitfire IX felt their new plane at least the equal of both Axis machines, often they felt it was superior.

SUddenly they have a plane wich can outclimb the FW190, outturn it and with a very close top speed (in real life). Its not hard to see that it was a big step up from the SPitfire V.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 11:35 AM
JG 26 records show they claimed 369 Spitfires in 1942, whilst losing 55 pilots to Spitfires. In 1943 they claimed 168 Spitfires, whilst losing 97 pilots to Spitfires


I am sorry but there is no dramatic rise in losses due to the Spitfire except in the minds of the types fans.

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

So out of a grand total of 133 losses, the entire JG lost 73% of their combat losses to Spitfires!

Ok if you want to believe that be my guest.

Personally I see a considerable number of P47's, B17's, and Typhoons listed as the cause under JG26 casualty records. Of course there are numerous other causes listed as well.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
08-18-2007, 11:40 AM
Look at the FW190 Gruppes and read it off Caldwells site. He has the newly released claims and losses from the Bundesarchive.

Do you mean Jim Perry's claims lists? That's where the claims are from. Casualties are from Caldwell's list of JG personnel.

If there's anything newer, then perhaps you can prodice an actual link, because that's all that's on Caldwell's site.

hop2002
08-18-2007, 11:47 AM
I am sorry but there is no dramatic rise in losses due to the Spitfire except in the minds of the types fans.

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

So out of a grand total of 133 losses, the entire JG lost 73% of their combat losses to Spitfires!

Ok if you want to believe that be my guest.

Well, there is a slight difference in that the figures I gave include wounded as well killed, but that's true for both years.

Excluding wounded, and including rejected claims, the figures for spitfire claims/pilotsw killed by Spitfire are 390 claims / 41 pilots killed 1942, 180 claims / 61 pilots killed 1943.

That's a change from 9.5 to 1 in 1942 to 3 to 1 in 1943.

Crumpp, it isn't helpful to others, or to your reputation, to simply make up "facts" as you go along. If you are posting unsourced opinion, like the claim

Although the Summer of 1942 is labeled, "The Focke Wulf summer" by the RAF, there is no perceivable difference in the casualty rates of JG26 in the summer of 1943 when the Spitfire Mk IX series is well entrenched in the RAF squadrons.

Then you really should qualify it as such.

Spaturnio
08-18-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
So, that's a claimed aircraft to lost pilots ratio of 6.7 to 1 in 1942, 1.7 to 1 in 1943. I'd say that's a fair difference.

as I said, what made the difference was above all the fact that there were seven spitfire MkIX in combat for every FW190A5 in the late 1942, when most of the JG were sent on the expanding eastern front. as I said only two JG, the 1 and the 26 were responsible to held up the whole fighter command in england, including the every day more common Americans.

You can do the math by cheking how many aiplane were owned by a typical german group and how many british planes were present in late 1944, taking out hose operating in scotland against the Norway based JG.

as you can see, the fact that the FW were still able to shot down more planes then what they lost is an outstanding result, showing that thhe MkIX eaven up the chances but certainly didn't reverse the tide alone, because the german planes were evolving as fast as the British did.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 11:59 AM
SUddenly they have a plane wich can outclimb the FW190, outturn it and with a very close top speed (in real life). Its not hard to see that it was a big step up from the SPitfire V.

Is this what you get out of reports?


In Malta 1942-43, the British were often fighting at a 10-1 disadvantage, often worse.

Certainly. Compare the numbers of Luftwaffe single engine fighters on the channel coast after Barbarossa to the numbers of Allied fighters on the Western Front sometime.

All sides had their moments they fought heavily outnumbered.

So the theory is the superiority of the Spitfire is the reason?

I think it is pretty safe to say we have some cultural bias at work that is engrained from childhood in the English eductation system.


Generally regarded as the best fighter aircraft of the Second World War, and widely credited with the Royal Air Force's victory in the Battle of Britain in 1940, the Spitfire remains one of the most familiar images of that era.

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_IT...TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10468 (http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=86855&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10468)

Not even going to try and overcome years of indoctrination. Good luck guys!

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 12:07 PM
Interesting comment by JOhnnie Johnson about the Dieppe raid:-

'The Biggin Hill wing leader led my squadron and the boys flew perfectly. Our task was not easy, for the wing leader flew a faster and more powerful mark IX, which was vastly superior to our SPitfire V's... But my pilots somehow stayed with him in the leading section and provided perfect support and cross-cover when he knocked down a FW190 and damaged another...'


'Vastly Superior', and this will be the inferior Merlin 61 late 1942 model mkIX.


I have not got to the part when Johnson gets a MkIX of his own yet.

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Johnson and the SPitfire pilots certainly felt their SPitfire V's were inferior to the FW190A's, should I disregard this because its just the pilots opinion? - No.

I just think you should get a better rounded pool of opinions, Xio.

Great place to start is "JG26 War Diaries" by Don Caldwell.

While certainly the Spitfire Mk IX arrested Fighter commands "crisis of confidence" regarding the FW-190 by the same token the Jadgwaffe did not even notice its introduction.

IMHO the largest issue at stake is simply Fighter Commands perceptions. In fact before the capture of WNr. 313, the early combat reports of encounters with the FW190 convey the type is not difficult to combat.

They did note an increase in aggressiveness in the Luftwaffe pilots manifesting itself in willingness to stay and dogfight. Because of the Luftwaffe's increased aggressiveness, FC casualties begin to rise. This increase in casualties is explained by the introduction of an aircraft. IMHO it should be attributed to a change in the perception of the Luftwaffe pilots leading to an increase in aggressiveness.

It is not plane, it is the pilot.

It's only after the RAE conducted their trials with the FW-190 that the type becomes an issue with Fighter Command.

The Jagdeschwader continued to treat a Spitfire as a Spitfire and the same tactics that worked in 1942 continued to work throughout the war.

Focke Wulf pilots remained confident in their aircraft just as Spitfire pilots got thier confidence back.

Although the Summer of 1942 is labeled, "The Focke Wulf summer" by the RAF, there is no perceivable difference in the casualty rates of JG26 in the summer of 1943 when the Spitfire Mk IX series is well entrenched in the RAF squadrons.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I will be sure to look out for that book mate, thanks!

Certainly the FW190 pilots will still be able to use their flip and dive to evade a Spitfire, and will also have a auperior Zoom climb, whether its a MkV or a MkIX.

I am not trying to say that the Spitfire IX is superior to the FW190, just that its well...on a par is a different way. One has its advatages over the other. Whereas the Spitfire V is just clearly inferior in everything except turning circle.

NOw with the Spitfire IX, the RAF are no longer at a disadvantage, they are relatively equal, superior in some aspects, inferior in others.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 12:08 PM
Well, there is a slight difference in that the figures I gave include wounded as well killed, but that's true for both years.


You sure about that? Where did you get your wounded numbers. If you have the breakdown please post it!


Excluding wounded, and including rejected claims, the figures for spitfire claims/pilotsw killed by Spitfire are 390 claims / 41 pilots killed 1942, 180 claims / 61 pilots killed 1943.

The latest claims and losses for JG26 are already posted. These include the latest claim/loss releases from the Bundesarchive.

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

Facts are you can squirm your figures any way you want but the reality does not change. The is little difference in the claim to loss ratio's when comparing 1942 to 1943. Certainly nothing that would be noticable in the units or that would not be attributed to the increase in the intensity of combat.

All the Best,

Crumpp

Spaturnio
08-18-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think it is pretty safe to say we have some cultural bias at work that is engrained from childhood in the English eductation system.

This is a bit excessive to me: let's say that most of the infos about the evolving situation above the channel between 1942 and 1943 come form british sources, seen through the eyes of the british pilots.
They felt that their new planes could finally compete with the germans an did not took in account the fact they now outnumbered the enemy, so, with their confidence growing, they were seeing reality from their own perspective.
Probably the FW keept a slight edge in the hands of a competent pilot, but this got lost in the avalache of new fresh british and american pilots being thrown in the meele by summer of 1943...

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SUddenly they have a plane wich can outclimb the FW190, outturn it and with a very close top speed (in real life). Its not hard to see that it was a big step up from the SPitfire V.

Is this what you get out of reports?


In Malta 1942-43, the British were often fighting at a 10-1 disadvantage, often worse.

Certainly. Compare the numbers of Luftwaffe single engine fighters on the channel coast after Barbarossa to the numbers of Allied fighters on the Western Front sometime.

All sides had their moments they fought heavily outnumbered.

So the theory is the superiority of the Spitfire is the reason?

I think it is pretty safe to say we have some cultural bias at work that is engrained from childhood in the English eductation system.


Generally regarded as the best fighter aircraft of the Second World War, and widely credited with the Royal Air Force's victory in the Battle of Britain in 1940, the Spitfire remains one of the most familiar images of that era.

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_IT...TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10468 (http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=86855&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10468)

Not even going to try and overcome years of indoctrination. Good luck guys!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You seem to be assuming something, and I am not quite sure what it is?

The superiority of the Spitfire is the reason for what exactly? The fact that the Luftwaffe had less planes in France? IS this what you are assuming I think?

I have quoted some Johnnie Johnson books, and stated that the Spitfire IX was a big step up from the Spitfire V, thats about it I think?

The SPitfire IX did have a much better climb than the FW190, it DID have a much better turn. It WAS comparable in top speed to many versions of the FW190A.

WHat exactly are you asking when you say 'Is this what you get out of reports?'

Yes I have gathered this from lots of books,reports, tests, documentaries, knowledgable people, real WW2 pilots. Just like I have also found out that the FW190 has a superior roll, dive and zoom climb.

Its very hard to have a good conversation when you assume you know what I am thinking.

SO according to you, saying that the FW190 was superior in almost every way to the SPitfire V and that the SPitfire IX does some things better than the FW190 makes me heavily biased towards the Brtish??

Hmmmm.

ploughman
08-18-2007, 12:22 PM
"I think it is pretty safe to say we have some cultural bias at work that is engrained from childhood in the English eductation system."

Well there's always cultural bias otherwise it wouldn't be culture would it, and an education (not eductation) system is one of the key avenues for ingraining said culture so beyond stating the obvious what's your point?

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 12:29 PM
If you do the research, you will find the most important individual in determining theoutcome of an air battle is the ground controller.

The side with the positional advantage inflicts the most casualties.

When the engagement positions are nuetral casualties tend to be equal. Surprisingly often neither side takes casualties in a neutral confrontation.

The theory of Spitfire superiority is just a figment of gamer imagination with little bearing on the facts.

The planes were equal and it was the pilot set up for sucess by the ground controller which won the day.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
08-18-2007, 12:30 PM
as I said only two JG, the 1 and the 26 were responsible to held up the whole fighter command in england, including the every day more common Americans.

You sure about that? Where did you get your wounded numbers. If you have the breakdown please post it!

From Caldwell's pilot casualty lists:
http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/casualties.htm

What I have for pilots KIA in 1942 is:

1 Berg, Heinrich von
2 Bohn, Kurt
3 Crull, Karl-August
4 Cubillus, Erich
5 Czwilinski, Paul
6 Eickelmann, Alfred
7 Flock, Arnd
8 Galland, Paul
9 Golub, August
10 Granabetter, Georg
11 Greffinius, Georg
12 Heck, Herbert
13 Hofmann, Herbert
14 Johannsen, Hans
15 Koslowski, Eduard
16 Kühn, Bruno
17 Leibold, Erwin
18 Luckhardt, Heinz
19 Michalski, Werner
20 Müller, Heinz
21 Müller, Walter
22 Petersen, Ortwin
23 Pilkenroth, Heinrich
24 Ragotzi, Hans
25 Rahardt, Heinz
26 Reiche, Heinz
27 Rieder, Hans
28 Rieger, Paul
29 Rosenblath, Georg
30 Schick, Erich
31 Schieffer, Karl
32 Schmidt, Johannes
33 Schöbel, Willy
34 Schwardt, Hermann
35 Sieker, Josef
36 Sieling, Wilfried
37 Stavenhagen, Günther
38 übel, Albert
39 Ufer, Helmut
40 Unzeitig, Robert
41 Weber, Gottfried

and wounded:

1 Behrens, Otto
2 Bierwirth, Heinrich
3 Birke, Gerhard
4 Gerhardt, Werner
5 Göcke, Elmar
6 Haiböck, Josef
7 Hilgendorff, Viktor
8 Jutzrenka, Konrad von
9 Leibold, Erwin
10 Leuschel, Rudolf
11 Lindelaub, Friedrich
12 Mackenstedt, Wilhelm
13 Rau, Günther
14 Stoller, Hans-Joachim
15 Vogt, Gerhard

One of the "wounded" was actually a PoW. There was also another "casualty" listed, but instead of KIA, WIA, PoW etc he was listed as "no".

For 1943:

KIA:
1 Backhaus, Otto-August
2 Bäder, Alfred
3 Bannischka, Helmut
4 Barthel, Alfred
5 Berger, Walter
6 Bock, Arnulf
7 Borounick, Erich
8 Bruhn, Karl
9 Butzmann, Hermann
10 Damm, Heinrich
11 Danneberg, Hans
12 Dirksen, Hans
13 Döre, Edgar
14 Draheim, Manfred
15 Ebersberger, Kurt
16 Ebert, Fritz
17 Fischer, Hans I
18 Freitag, Günther
19 Fritsch, Paul
20 Gasser, Franz
21 Gauss, Horst
22 Grünlinger, Walter
23 Hadraba, Karl
24 Hahne, Ernst
25 Heck, Gert
26 Heinemann, Ernst
27 Heinemeyer, H-Joachim
28 Hiess, Hans
29 Hoffmann, Hermann
30 Höhme, Johannes
31 Hoppe, Helmut
32 Jög, Adolf
33 Karl, Gerhard
34 Kemper, Johannes
35 Kierstein, Paul
36 Kirschner, Horst
37 Kleffner, Erich
38 Koch, Joachim
39 Krieg, Heinrich
40 Kruska, Kurt
41 Lonsdorfer, Werner
42 Matuschka, Siegfried
43 Meyer, Hermann
44 Meyere, Albert
45 Mondry, Georg
46 Müller-Göbs, Karl
47 Peters, Helmut
48 Roth, Ludwig
49 Scheu, Johann
50 Seifert, Gerhard
51 Spiegel, Arthur
52 Steinkuuhler, Werner
53 Stoller, H-Joachim
54 Thielmann, H-Joachim
55 Todt, Ernst
56 Töpisch, Bernhard
57 Ullmann, Helmuth
58 Ullrich, Walter
59 Vohwinkel, Paul
60 Westhauser, Albert
61 Weyrich, Rudi

Wounded:
1 Ahrens, Peter
2 Bäumener, Helmut
3 Bäumener, Helmut
4 Beese, Artur
5 Ehret, Karl
6 Freuwöth, Wilhelm
7 Freuwöth, Wilhelm
8 Gomann, Heinz
9 Gulecke, J-Heinrich
10 Günther, Albert
11 Günther, Alfred
12 Günther, Martin
13 Hanke, Erwin
14 Hummel, Otto
15 Kemethmüller, Heinz
16 Kiefner, Georg
17 Kind, Herbert
18 Krieg, Heinrich
19 Leder, H-Joachim
20 Lissack, Gerhard
21 Lözer, H-Günther
22 Mayer, Hans
23 Neu, Wolfgang
24 Przybyl, Leo
25 Sandoz, Hans
26 Schauder, Paul
27 Schöhl, Horst-Günther
28 Stammberger, Otto
29 Sternberg, Horst
30 Sternberg, Horst
31 Vogt, Gerhard
32 Weiss, Karl
33 Wölke, Burghardt
34 Wyrich, Heinz
35 Zandanell, Erich
Again there's 1 casualty listed as "no", and 3 listed as WIFA, but the cause is listed as Spitfire.

The casualties might be out of date, as it's a few years since I took them from the site, and it does say they area a work in progress, but whenever I have done spot checks in the past they seemed accurate.

The claims are from Jim Perry's list, broken down in to unit and type claimed.


Facts are you can squirm your figures any way you want but the reality does not change. The is little difference in the claim to loss ratio's when comparing 1942 to 1943. Certainly nothing that would be noticable in the units or that would not be attributed to the increase in the intensity of combat.
Facts are JG 26 claimed 390 Spitfires in 1942, whilst having 41 pilots killed by Spitfires. In 1943 they claimed 180 Spitfires whilst losing 61 pilots to Spitfires.

Claims were less than half, casualties up by 50%.

Those are the facts.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 12:35 PM
what's your point?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Spitfire Waahn-DA-WOAR!

Nuff said...

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
08-18-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
so beyond stating the obvious what's your point? ROTFL!

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Good question, however I know what's the "cruise speed" of in-game Spitfire MkIX, jolly good, it happens to be their MAXIMUM speed,

Fine, compare the climb of both at that speed. Oh damn, what plane climbs at maximum level
speed? What plane can even turn at maximum level speed? You paint a picture of Spits being
used at MAXIMUM SPEED for cruise ... cruise includes at least ability to turn while maintain
the speed and make more that 1-2 degree per second and insinuate I don't know how to fly.


and the Fw's cruise speed? Well not sure but most certainly NOT their max speed, you can't use full power forever and on top of that you have to have opened rads, very often even to fully opened. The consequence of all that in-game is many complaints about this whole issue even from the people that really know how to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It is the consequence of many that fly in completely a-historic ways and then complain of
a-historic results.

Compare COMTEMPORARY planes used in historic ways and the picture is not so.
Funny how so many people in FW's online are overtaking the Spits regularly and shooting them.

I've seen enough of your posts that if I could fly as well as you exaggerate, I wouldn't need
a plane to go anywhere, I would just flap my arms and go 500kph WITHOUT OVERHEAT.

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage

The report also says:


The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the FW 190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but they didn't really mean that *except* part! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Why, any word-based dweeb can tell that the words later in a sentence count less than the words
at the start and are only minor conditions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Please, there is an agenda at stake!

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That is the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61) compared to the Fw190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with bad spark plugs causing the engine to run rough) in July 1942.

In the parts of the tests where they got their compares from the FW used made full ATA and RPM's.

You want to insinuate that the engine was running weakly? It was making full power in the TEST
parts. When it became unable, they went and got NEW BOSCH PLUGS. The report states clearly
that the plane was run at 1.42ATA and proper RPM's which engine does not do weakly.

Fact is the plane as taken was not supposed to be run at 1.42ATA as the PLACARD STATED.
Running it at 1.42 the way that the Brits did eventually did minor damage which was repaired
enough to run again at FULL POWER. It was not going to stay that way for any combat tour
but it is trite to equate later on with right then.

Why do you bring up the plugs and running rough as if they were never replaced and the engine
ran smoother isn't in the same source as you pulled the notes from? Because you SLANT badly
your picture that you push.

Xiolablu3
08-18-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">what's your point?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Spitfire Waahn-DA-WOAR!

Nuff said...

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can you find one post which says anything even resembling that?

TBH it seems more like 'FW wun-da-war!' from you and a few others!

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
While certainly the Spitfire Mk IX arrested Fighter commands "crisis of confidence" regarding the FW-190 by the same token the Jadgwaffe did not even notice its introduction.

Given the differences between the V's and the IX's, that speaks very badly of the Jadgwaffe.

Sorry but really, the performance differences are wide to say the least.

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 01:14 PM
Just for Quote-Boy, from his own posted "source":


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your Black and White only world.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 01:20 PM
I think we are leaving out some key point made in the report.

This is why I called cultural bias.

The report does state:


The SPitfire IX did have a much better climb than the FW190, it DID have a much better turn. It WAS comparable in top speed to many versions of the FW190A.

However that is an opinion written down by the person making the report!

Read the speed measurements. Niether aircraft has any huge speed advantage.

The altitudes as measured by the RAE are pretty evenly split too.

The FW-190 wins hands down in low level speed and manuverability at all altiudes.

The Spitfire wins hands down in level turn.

There is nothing in the report that says, "Spitfires should dogfight with FW190's". In fact it concludes just the opposite.

Any assumption it says anything different is not borne out by the facts of the report.

http://img141.imagevenue.com/loc65/th_66537_pro_190_survey_b_5_122_65lo.jpg (http://img141.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66537_pro_190_survey_b_5_122_65lo.jp g)

Consider too that the testing was halted due to rough running of the BMW801 as the RAE did not have a supply of the correct fuel, plugs, or properly adjusted the motor for natural petroleum fuels.

It was not until the RAE bench tested the engine and removed it from the airframe that they got it to run correctly. The engine was never flight tested in good working order.

http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc207/th_66665_RAE_Bench_Test_122_207lo.jpg (http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66665_RAE_Bench_Test_122_207lo.jpg)

It gives a good picture of "at least" relative performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
08-18-2007, 01:22 PM
'Vastly Superior', and this will be the inferior Merlin 61 late 1942 model mkIX.

X3,

In context; the measure of superiority can be seen as improvements in thrust production at the expense of increases in weight or from a tactical viewpoint the ˜Vastly Superior' jump in Spitfire performance was jumping toward vertical maneuvering or energy fighting at the expense of horizontal maneuvering stall fighting.

Example:

Take two competent fighter pilots and test which plane performs better between the Spitfire V and the Spitfire IX.

If the fight manages to stalemate (anchor) into a turn fight on the deck where both pilots are hanging on their props in a ˜stall fight' trying to gain angles in a horizontal turn, then, which plane wins?

Note: The ˜Vastly Superior' Spitfire V (latest and greatest rather than earliest and not greatest) may be ˜Vastly Superior' to the very first Spitfire IX (the least ˜Vastly Superior' Spitfire IX).

The trend on all sides since WWI has been toward more thrust, cleaner aerodynamics, higher speeds, and as a consequence higher density.

If the reader fails to understand drag loading (as Crumpp does in fact) then the move from "Vastly Inferior" low density planes (horizontal angles fighters with slow stall speeds) to "Vastly Superior" high density planes (vertical maneuvering dives/zooms Energy fighters) will pass on by as if density wasn't a considerable factor determining aircraft performance.

Again: The Early Dog Fight evolved from a slow speed stall fight on the horizontal plane (due to low density and low thrust) to the Late Dog Fight where the fight moved into the vertical dimension as T/W ratios increases and as D/W ratios decreased.

The "Vastly Superior" improvement in the Spitfire design went away from the "Vastly Superior" slow speed horizontal stall fighting performance which was a "Vastly Superior" quality of the early Spitfire.

This move from slow to high speed and this move from low thrust to high thrust and this move from low density to high density is as TRUE with the Spitfire as it is TRUE with the 109 and the Fw190 to a degree of "Vastly Superior" improvement away from slow speed horizontal turn performance that isn't exactly the same degree of movement away from slow speed horizontal ˜sustained' turn performance from Spitfire to 109 or 190.

Example:

Take two competent fighter pilots and test which plane performs better between the 109E and the 109K.

If the fight manages to stalemate (anchor) into a turn fight on the deck where both pilots are hanging on their props in a ˜stall fight' trying to gain angles in a horizontal turn, then, which plane wins?

Note: The ˜Vastly Superior' 109F (a huge leap in aerodynamic shape) may be ˜Vastly Superior' compared to the 109E INCLUDING an increase in slow speed turn rate, while, the next generation (109G) again moves the envelope to higher speeds and higher energy states (increased density).


Example:

Take two competent fighter pilots and test which plane performs better between the 190A-1 and the 190D-9.

If the fight manages to stalemate (anchor) into a turn fight on the deck where both pilots are hanging on their props in a ˜stall fight' trying to gain angles in a horizontal turn, then, which plane wins?

Note: The ˜Vastly Inferior' 190A- prototype (initially constructed with a smaller wing) may be ˜Vastly Inferior' compared to the final production model (with the larger wing) despite the reduction in top speed caused by the "Vastly Superior" increase in wing size and therefore the increase in drag/loading (more surface area generating drag force).

Example:

Take two competent fighter pilots and test which plane performs better between the 190A Prototype (with the small wing) and the 190A-0 (large wing).

If the fight manages to continue in the vertical at high speeds (except at the top of vertical zoom climbs when speeds reduce into stalling turns), then, the plane with the lower drag loading (more energy and less drag) accelerates faster going down and decelerates slower going up and any turns during pull out favors the plane that turns better during pull out.

Example:


With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The notion, often repeated, that increased mass will increase "energy bleed" fails the reality test when considering turns performed at corner speed for any given g load.

In other words; any plane flying at any given speed and any given g will turn the same turn rate and the same turn radius. The loss of energy is a function of design not mass (L/D or the ratio between the air resistance slowing the plane down and the air ˜lifting' the plane on the lift vector; hense – L/D – where more L is better and less D is better; because – more L converts more energy into acceleration on the lift vector and less D minimizes the rate of deceleration caused by D).

Mass merely increases the stall speed at any given g load; once over that stall speed the aircraft turns at the rate dictated by the design (L in L/D) and slows down at the rate dictated by the design (D in L/D).

Increased mass merely increases the onset of both Buffet and Stall.

A pilot can "sink" the plane (any plane) by piloting the plane too far into the stall (buffet region) and, in doing so, the pilot drastically increases D (in L/D) for very little extra L (in L/D).

Hence the move from ˜stall' horizontal turn fights into vertical zooms and dives as reported by someone who was actually there flying the planes:


It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking"

Being ˜out-turned' in the horizontal is a description of something specific i.e. ˜horizontal'.

The tests conducted to see which plane ˜turned' better while ˜pulling' up into the vertical is something specific too:


During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive. It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

That is specific to relative performance concerning a turn going up into the vertical. There are many other tests and reports concerning the tests done to measure vertical turns going down where mass adds to the force defeating air resistance. The specific terminology for a turn going vertically down is the Split S and dive.

Like this:


By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels primarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary – more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on offensive operations over Occupied Europe during the course of the month – and the Merlin 61-engined Spitfire Mk IX was still two months away. But while going a long way towards redressing the balance and even offering an edge in climb and performance above 26,000 feet (7 925 m), the Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf's half-roll and dive!

The reader can know that these are not the words of a contemporary game player posting his humble opinion on a food fight forum; rather - the facts are reported by a WWII Fighter/Test pilot whose credentials are impeccable!

(Exclamation point is quoted here as it was published in the original book)


Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf's half-roll and dive!


The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking"

Notes on "sinking" from another angle can be re-linked as needed.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 01:27 PM
Given the differences between the V's and the IX's, that speaks very badly of the Jadgwaffe.


No it doesn't M_Gunz. In fact it very much fits with the science of flight and how aircraft perform.

Remember aircraft performance is a percentage range of a mean average. The most important attributes in air combat assuming design contemprary fighters, is the pilot, position, and merge velocites.

The individual aircraft performance is not even a secondary quality. It is pretty far down the list of decisive factors. It simply takes a large performance gap to even be noticeable. It takes a huge performance gap to overcome pilot, position, and merge velocity.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The theory of Spitfire superiority is just a figment of gamer imagination with little bearing on the facts.

I am pretty sure that Spit IX is superior to Spit V. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am also sure that FW pilots had a harder time with the IX's, by far.

But superiority? More like closer to parity, piloting makes the difference.

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Remember aircraft performance is a percentage range of a mean average. The most important attributes in air combat assuming design contemprary fighters, is the pilot, position, and merge velocites.

The individual aircraft performance is not even a secondary quality. It is pretty far down the list of decisive factors. It simply takes a large performance gap to even be noticeable. It takes a huge performance gap to overcome pilot, position, and merge velocity.

All the best,

Crumpp

I agree what is most important. I do think that having the more excess allows to be in a
better position more often than otherwise. Better not compared to the other but to where
self would be. Very important distinction. What is the advantage of having even 5kph more
speed at the start of zoom?

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 02:12 PM
You keep missing the point on the claims and losses.

Facts are the intensity of combat rose dramatically in 1943. Not only was the war being conducted in the East and the Mediterranean but the USAAF joined the fray as well.

Casualties did rise due to the fact the number so incidents of combat increased. That is not the point.

Claims rose in relative proportion to these casualties. There is not a large enough difference between 1942 and 1943 for the German pilots to conclude, "The Spitfire Mk IX is kickin our butts". In fact its introduction was not even noticed by the Jadgwaffe.

Spitfires and FW190's are fighting much more frequently in 1943.

They are fighting more but their rates of success remain proportional to the losses. In fact, in their view the German fighter pilots are inflicting much larger losses on the enemy than they are experiencing.

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

The RAF begins fielding better trained pilots with more experience than the average Luftwaffe pilot beginning in 1942.

http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc417/th_67590_Training_hours_122_417lo.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=67590_Training_hours_122_417lo.jpg)

http://img131.imagevenue.com/loc600/th_67592_flying_hours_122_600lo.jpg (http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=67592_flying_hours_122_600lo.jpg)

Attributing a higher loss rate to the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX without examining the whole picture is extremely myopic. It is history re-written for the sake of a gameshape.

All the best,

Crumpp

GBrutus
08-18-2007, 02:15 PM
I've never been particularly fond of this 'aircraft destroyed vs. pilots lost' method of Caldwell's. Doesn't exactly paint the whole picture does it?

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 02:22 PM
But superiority? More like closer to parity, piloting makes the difference.

More than anything, M_Gunz. Examine the average training and experience of the pilots up to Sep 42. The average Luftwaffe pilot was better trained and had more experience in the Focke Wulf summer.

IMHO even for the Spitfire Mk V series it is the largest factor.

Sure there where some performance gaps but most important one is the cruise speed of the Focke Wulf in comparision to the Spitfire.

Whenever Spitfire Mk V's and FW-190A's met during the summer of 1942, chances are the Focke Wulf was flown by a more experienced pilot traveling at a considerably faster velocity!

That is two out of the three very important characteristics in air combat, pilot training, merge velocity, and position.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
08-18-2007, 03:03 PM
Facts are the intensity of combat rose dramatically in 1943. Not only was the war being conducted in the East and the Mediterranean but the USAAF joined the fray as well.

Casualties did rise due to the fact the number so incidents of combat increased. That is not the point.

Claims rose in relative proportion to these casualties.

No Crumpp, claims of Spitfires dropped. 390 claimed in 1942, 190 in 1943.

Casualties rose. 41 dead to Spitfires in 1942, 61 in 1943.


Spitfires and FW190's are fighting much more frequently in 1943.

They are fighting more but their rates of success remain proportional to the losses.

No, they don't. In 1942, for every pilot they lost to Spitfires, JG 26 claimed 9.5 Spitfires.

In 1943, for every pilot they lost to Spitfires, they claimed 3.

3 to 1 and 9 to 1 are not the same. Nowhere near.


In fact, in their view the German fighter pilots are inflicting much larger losses on the enemy than they are experiencing.


Oh, they were certainly shooting down other aircraft. But your claim was about Spitfires, and the facts are the exact opposite of what you stated as fact.


Attributing a higher loss rate to the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX without examining the whole picture is extremely myopic.

It would be. It's actually you who made a similar claim, arguing that the JG 26 claim/loss rate remained the same despite the introduction of the Spitfire IX.

You were wrong.


I've never been particularly fond of this 'aircraft destroyed vs. pilots lost' method of Caldwell's. Doesn't exactly paint the whole picture does it?

No, it doesn't.

I can understand if Caldwell had to do it because he couldn't find Luftwaffe aircraft loss lists, but imho he should make it clear that he is not comparing like with like.

Kettenhunde
08-18-2007, 05:12 PM
But your claim was about Spitfires

That is where you made your mistake. I say absolutely nothing about the Spitfire Claim to loss, I only speak of the Luftwaffe total claim to loss ratio.

Do you understand that statistically it does not work the way your trying to show?

While the number and type of combatants arrayed against the Luftwaffe increased, the Luftwaffe kept the number of fighters it had available to combat them at a similar level. There was no proportionate increase in German fighters.

Therefore any allied fighter you examine on an individual basis would have an excellent kill to loss ratio.

Understand that Hop?


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Although the Summer of 1942 is labeled, "The Focke Wulf summer" by the RAF, there is no perceivable difference in the casualty rates of JG26 in the summer of 1943 when the Spitfire Mk IX series is well entrenched in the RAF squadrons.

Reread this now that you understand I never made any claim about the individual stats of the Spitfire. That would be silly.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You keep missing the point on the claims and losses.

Facts are the intensity of combat rose dramatically in 1943. Not only was the war being conducted in the East and the Mediterranean but the USAAF joined the fray as well.

note: JG26 was involved in all of these theaters.

Casualties did rise due to the fact the numbers of

incidents of combat increased. That is not the point.

Claims rose in relative proportion to these casualties. There is not a large enough difference between 1942 and 1943 for the German pilots to conclude, "The Spitfire Mk IX is kickin our butts". In fact its introduction was not even noticed by the Jadgwaffe.

Spitfires and FW190's are fighting much more frequently in 1943.

They are fighting more but their rates of success remain proportional to the losses. In fact, in their view the German fighter pilots are inflicting much larger losses on the enemy than they are experiencing.

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

The RAF begins fielding better trained pilots with more experience than the average Luftwaffe pilot beginning in 1942.

http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc417/th_67590_Training_hours_122_417lo.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=67590_Training_hours_122_417lo.jpg)

http://img131.imagevenue.com/loc600/th_67592_flying_hours_122_600lo.jpg (http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=67592_flying_hours_122_600lo.jpg)

Attributing a higher loss rate to the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX without examining the whole picture is extremely myopic. It is history re-written for the sake of a gameshape.



All the best,

Crumpp

Brain32
08-18-2007, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Good question, however I know what's the "cruise speed" of in-game Spitfire MkIX, jolly good, it happens to be their MAXIMUM speed,

Fine, compare the climb of both at that speed. Oh damn, what plane climbs at maximum level
speed? What plane can even turn at maximum level speed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You made the claim, you make the test, or you only like to throw sh1tstorms on those that do tests?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You paint a picture of Spits being used at MAXIMUM SPEED for cruise ... cruise includes at least ability to turn while maintain the speed and make more that 1-2 degree per second and insinuate I don't know how to fly.

I don't paint pictures that part of art skipped me. Your point here is pretty silly, my point is when I encounter a SpitfireIXe he will in that moment be at his maximum speed, I will not(because I can't), unless ofcourse you have a picture of every Spitfire pilot being a guy that just installed the game and is making 140kmh turns stalling every now and then for you to get your shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Why are the guys that are oppsing the so called "Luftwiners" so offensive on Spitfire pilots, some of the greates insults to Spitfire pilots go in masked in contra-Luft whine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> and the Fw's cruise speed? Well not sure but most certainly NOT their max speed, you can't use full power forever and on top of that you have to have opened rads, very often even to fully opened. The consequence of all that in-game is many complaints about this whole issue even from the people that really know how to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It is the consequence of many that fly in completely a-historic ways and then complain of
a-historic results.

Compare COMTEMPORARY planes used in historic ways and the picture is not so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Getting old are we? It was YOU how mentioned game performance not RL historic situation, by not exactly looking at the charts in il2compare in enough detail, it's easy to notice that those curves are given for 100% power, not for 110 and/or WEP, one just needed to LOOK, but you made a quick glance saw what you wanted to see and that was it - LOL. Is that the same level of detail you go for when you look and criticize recent tests posted on this forum?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Funny how so many people in FW's online are overtaking the Spits regularly and shooting them.
Not funny, because those guys don't listen to:

...1.32ATA A-4 which has equal climb to the Spit-25 at 470kph and from there
is superior, the Spit-25 cannot climb at all just before 510kph! type of nonsence that will get them pwned so bad the dead would be embaresed. This is still the "how-to-fly-a-FW" thread and you were not helping.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've seen enough of your posts that if I could fly as well as you exaggerate, I wouldn't need
a plane to go anywhere, I would just flap my arms and go 500kph WITHOUT OVERHEAT.

Still didn't get over it? What hurted you more, the fact that everybody knows about that or the fact that I actually posted a track several times? It's a fact Gunz, get over it, it obviously hurts you more than the "Luftwhiners" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now please continue with whetever that was that I didn't feel like reading once again.


And for n00b FW190 pilots that want to improve, once again pay attention to the posts:
by Ratsack on page #8
by CarpeNoctem43 on page #5

See you up there, those eliptical wings won't detach by themselves you know, we have to help them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Spaturnio
08-18-2007, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Those are the facts.

Youp, indeed: the fact shows that the 190 was capable to hold on it's own, despite the huge thinning of the german lines compared to what they had in late 1941.
"Facts" also show that you are taking in account the losses from the whole 1943, where the spitfire become marginal compared to the amercan tide and when the battle shifted from just free skirmishing to the strategic defense of germany against the Day raid of the Eight air force.

I think it's obvious then, while you are trying to shot down heavy bombers you become an easier target for whatever escort they bring in, including planes shot down by the bomber formations...

Statistcs are never "Facts": they can be bend as far as you want and say what you want them to say if you ignore certain aspects of the picture, but even from your point of view should be Lapalissian that a bunch of Focke Wulfs inflicted more losses then they took on a much greater enemy force, despite being daily under attack on their own airbase (meaning danger under scrambles and so on).

All this doesn't talk about "superiority" of the
british new spit models.

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 09:50 PM
It is right that kill counts... don't.

M_Gunz
08-18-2007, 10:01 PM
Brain, if you keep the speed UP in FW's then you have the chance.
Spitfire trying to keep speed up cannot turn or climb like one moving under 440kph.
Spitfire moving under 400kph esp turning is easier to intersect.

Whoever lone wulfs when squad members show up is for sport like fox to hounds.
At least if the squad has it's team act together. Much more fun when two such clash.

Spit IX's were never pushovers and yes that relates to FW tactics highly.

"FW bleeds badly when I just TOUCH the stick!" <<=== IS a Whine and not true.
I've seen you post that one as well.

Xiolablu3
08-19-2007, 07:44 PM
A few more interesting points on SPit vs FW190 from Johnnie Johnston from whos book that I am currently reading..

From Late 1942 - 'The Luftwaffe bested us in the air fighting [of this period] and shot down more than two of our aircraft for every one lost to them. A fair indication of the all round superiority of the FW190 over our Spitfire MkV's'

From Early 1944 - 'How we longed for a wing of Spitfires which would fly to Berlin and back, for fighter pilots of every nationality agreed that the SPitfire IX was the best close in fighter of them all.'

On SPitfire IX range - 'The increased radius of our Spitfires meant we could get as far as the Rhine on this type of flight' [Speaking about search and destroy missions called 'Rangers Operations] where a group of SPitfires flew towards Germany looking for enemy aircraft or targets of opportunity, apparantly very different and far safer than the 'Rhubarbs' of years before.]


I will post more if relevant or interesting. Extremely good book, he is very frank and honest with no bias evident. He is quick to point out when British tactics were ridiculous (Rhubarbs he particularly hated) and when the Germans had a superiority in equipment (FW190 vs SPitfire V), and also vice versa.

I strongly recommend buying the book :-

'Wing Leader' - Johnnie Johnson.

Thanks to STanford-Ukded for recommending it to me.

Kettenhunde
08-19-2007, 08:16 PM
I assume you're just trolling now.

Wonder what aircraft these guys would choose to fly? I imagine they would feel very similar to Oskar Bösch when he said, "I feared no fighter I could see in my Focke."

You can substitute any plane from any country that the pilot fought sucessfully in.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lemkes.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/borris.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/wurmheller.html


The Luftwaffe bested us in the air fighting [of this period] and shot down more than two of our aircraft for every one lost to them. A fair indication of the all round superiority of the FW190 over our Spitfire MkV's'

I think that is the perception most RAF pilots had regarding the Spitfire from their perspective. I don't think the 1942 perception is a fair observation of the FW-190's superiority over the Spitfire. It is a fair observation of the training and focus of the Luftwaffe though. It does not have anything to do with individual aircraft performance.

However it is easy to see the shift in focus of the Luftwaffe begining in 1943 and taking in the entire picture that perception the Spitfire's performance had anything to do with it is just not correct.

In 1942, the RAF was the main focus and bore the brunt of air combat with the Luftwaffe.

In 1943 the USAAF became the main effort of the Luftwaffe dayfighter defense.

That is easy to see in the combat reports and the victory claims.

Absolutely nothing to do with any aircraft's individual performance.

That is the kind of perspective time and more complete facts provide.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
08-19-2007, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I assume you're just trolling now.




Assume what you want mate.


How is posting about the SPitfire IX being a better 'CLOSE IN FIGHTER' than any other trolling?

Again 'CLOSE IN FIGHTER'...., get it?? He is not saying its the best fighter, but the best CLOSE IN fighter.

I am posting information from a real SPitfire pilot on his thoughts on SPitfire vs FW190, including information on how the FW190 was certainly superior to some models of SPitfire.

You are far too sensitive and dare I say paranoid, if you think I am trolling. I JUST got this book and am reading it, and posting information I get from it here. If you dont believe me, see the date on this post when it was recommended to me.


http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php...=2&highlight=johnnie (http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=14944&page=2&highlight=johnnie)


WHat has the focus of the Luftwaffe day fighters got to do with the combat qualities of the FW190 and the Spitfire? SPitfires were doing all kinds of operations all throught he war, not just 1942, 1939-45. They were meeting FW190's from 1941-45, when they got the SPitfire IX, they now had a plane that could take on the FW190 as an equal and not in a position of inferiority, as was the case with the V. They now had a plane that was much faster than the mkV and could outclimb and outturn the FW190.

Those are the facts about the respective planes, whatever spin you want to put on it. If oyu dispute htis, please show me a contemorary SPitfire IX or later model compared with a same period FW190 test where the FW190 has a better climb rate or turn rate. (2 extremely important factors in air combat) You might convince me of the total superiority of the FW190 that way (but I am absolutely sure you never will).

[By the way, I havenet even read any more of this thread yet since I last posted, was just posting interesting info on a SPitfire pilots view of the FW190 and Spitfire, will read it now]

Xiolablu3
08-19-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think we are leaving out some key point made in the report.

This is why I called cultural bias.

The report does state:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The SPitfire IX did have a much better climb than the FW190, it DID have a much better turn. It WAS comparable in top speed to many versions of the FW190A.

However that is an opinion written down by the person making the report!

Read the speed measurements. Niether aircraft has any huge speed advantage.

The altitudes as measured by the RAE are pretty evenly split too.

The FW-190 wins hands down in low level speed and manuverability at all altiudes.

The Spitfire wins hands down in level turn.

There is nothing in the report that says, "Spitfires should dogfight with FW190's". In fact it concludes just the opposite.

Any assumption it says anything different is not borne out by the facts of the report.

http://img141.imagevenue.com/loc65/th_66537_pro_190_survey_b_5_122_65lo.jpg (http://img141.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66537_pro_190_survey_b_5_122_65lo.jp g)

Consider too that the testing was halted due to rough running of the BMW801 as the RAE did not have a supply of the correct fuel, plugs, or properly adjusted the motor for natural petroleum fuels.

It was not until the RAE bench tested the engine and removed it from the airframe that they got it to run correctly. The engine was never flight tested in good working order.

http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc207/th_66665_RAE_Bench_Test_122_207lo.jpg (http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66665_RAE_Bench_Test_122_207lo.jpg)

It gives a good picture of "at least" relative performance.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I just read the rest of the thread, I am quite sure that this report is regarding the early MkIXA or Merlin 61 version, yes? I BELIEVE [<note to CRumpp, thats BELIEVE] the Merlin 66 climbed better than the contemporary FW190?

Most models of SPitfire (most because I am disregarding the poor MkV when the FW190 DID have a slight climb advatage) and Me109's were well known for their staggering climb rates which were far better than the FW190 when regarding the Mk1 (no FW190 to compare),MkVIII MIX, MkXII, MkXIV, I am quite sure.

If I am wrong about this then I am ready to be put straight.

Didnt the Spitfires and Me109 generally climb much better than the FW190?

As in

Spitfire MkIX/Me109G2 > FW190A4-A6
Spitfire MkXIV/Me109K4 > Dora

[Note to Crumpp, I am ASKING here ^^^, NOT MAKING A STATEMENT]


'It gives a good picture of "at least" relative performance.' <------

Havent you already seen me saying that through every one of my posts? All I have ever said is that the MkIX restored parity and was comparable to the FW190, it did some things better and the FW190 did others better.

I dont think you are reading my posts properly, or are assuming too much. The fact that you think me posting Johnnie Johnstons thoughts [WHich I, and I am sure lots of others find extremely interesting, I love reading pilots thoughts) is trolling also adds weight to this theory.


Just one more thing baout the page of 'Spitfire Killers', dont you find it funny/strange that the amount of SPitfires claimed by Luftwaffe pilots in 1939-1940 far outweighs the amount of Hurricanes claimed? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 12:46 AM
When there's high speed enemies around, climbing at your best but low speed is a form of
suicide just as running low speed circles is. At least if the enemy pilots are any good
with tactics. If everybody is mudhens then the turnfighters win.

Speed advantage grants initiative, the choice to fight or not. Spits in dives may have it
for a while but with some alt to burn the FW's can get away if they spot the Spits from far
enough away, well out of guns range.

If you have the faster plane and keep your speed then you can choose the fight to be at your
advantage. Your zoom will counter his low speed climb, your speed will counter his low speed
turn and if he moves fast then he will have less turn and climb than you. He will try and
sucker you into his envelope but if you are good then you will play his game.

I look at Spit V vs Spit IX and find the IX's to be able to perform at higher speeds than
the V's. Try fighting IX's in V's Herr Crumpp and tell me there is little difference!
Perhaps the LW did not know the difference because when the IX's were introduced it was
not by complete replacement of the V's en masse and the Brits still had to learn tactics
suited to the new Spitfires, a matter of on-the-job training was it not? They could not
merely copy how the FW's worked against the Spit V's either.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 01:01 AM
I know for a fact that the RAF tried to keep it secret that the new SPitfires were so much more powerful than the old MkV's.

It benefitted them greatly for a Luftwaffe pilot to be sure he had the measure of the SPitfire's performance and suddenly realise this was a very different bird. The planes looked almost identical, and that suited the RAF.

Just like the RAF didnt know if they were fighting a FW190A1 or a FW190A9, to them its just a FW190. Only when long nose planes appeared did they realise this was something new. However until the Dora the difference in FW190 models was not that great, and performance gains were incremental

In fact I have seen a RAF SPitfire XIV pilots combat report from 1944 stating that he shot down a Me109F. (obviously a 109G6/G14 or G10)

I would love to read some German Air combat reports, but I have never seen any.


Just to defend Johnnie Johnson statement on the SPitfire IX being the best CLOSE IN fighter at that time, and even later, read this account of Israeli pilots in 1943 SPitfire IX tangling with RAF Tempest F6's (much later post war models from 1948?) when they mistook them for Egyption fighters


'The Israelis banked right and made an attack. On the first pass, Schroeder knocked a Tempest out of the sky - the RAF airplane had gone out of control and spun in, the pilot, F/O David Crossley Tattersfield, probably killed in the initial attack. A furball ensued, in which the more nimble Spitfire LF 9s of the Israelis could outfight the heavier and faster Tempests. Weizman hit one Tempest with a long burst and his companions damaged two others, but they, like the rest of the RAF aircraft there and below, quit the combat and outran the Israelis. Weizman's target landed safely at Al Arish.'

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/iafvraf.htm

Kettenhunde
08-20-2007, 04:20 AM
I think our perspectives are somewhat different, Xio and M_Gunz. That is why I loath aircraft comparison discussions. They really are silly undertakings given the science of aircraft.

You guys are looking at aircraft performance from your experience in a computer game.

I am looking at it from my experience as a pilot and someone knowledgeable in the science of flight.


I look at Spit V vs Spit IX and find the IX's to be able to perform at higher speeds than
the V's.

Aerodynamically there is very little difference between the Spitfire Mk V series and the Mk IX series. L/D is fixed by design. There were no changes to the aircraft which bring about an L/D change.

The intersection of the Pa/Pr curves was shifted is all.

That is why the Spitfire Mk IX cruise speed remains the same as the Spitfire Mk V's.

Both designs increased in power so the shift is relative.

As for curves, I think Fausnik already did a comparison curve.

I would take any graph comparision with huge grain of salt.

They are all calculated extrapolations that have been converted to that firm's version of "standard conditions". During these calculations the particular atmospheric data, corrections applied, and conversions used make a difference in the outcome.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-20-2007, 04:38 AM
I know for a fact that the RAF tried to keep it secret that the new SPitfires were so much more powerful than the old MkV's.

The Luftwaffe was aware of the Spitfire Mk IX's introduction.

All the best,

Crumpp

Brain32
08-20-2007, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Brain, if you keep the speed UP in FW's then you have the chance.
Wow it really needs a genious to come to conclusion that something modelled as a flying brick(Space Shuttle without engines FM?) has a chance only if it keeps the speed up?



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Spitfire trying to keep speed up cannot turn or climb like one moving under 440kph.
Spitfire moving under 400kph esp turning is easier to intersect.

No way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I've also heard the Earth is round, can you confirm?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Whoever lone wulfs when squad members show up is for sport like fox to hounds.
At least if the squad has it's team act together. Much more fun when two such clash.
Relevance?


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"FW bleeds badly when I just TOUCH the stick!" <<=== IS a Whine and not true.
I've seen you post that one as well.

Well maybe I did say it, but if I did it was a true not a whine. And know one thing Gunz, if you had 1/4 of my skillZ you would be unbareable on this forums. However you are still most notable as an "UBI ace".

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 05:44 AM
Just to defend Johnnie Johnson statement on the SPitfire IX being the best CLOSE IN fighter at that time, and even later, read this account of Israeli pilots in 1943 SPitfire IX tangling with RAF Tempest F6's (much later post war models from 1948?) when they mistook them for Egyption fighters


So what exactly is a CLOSE IN fighter?
Is there any FAR OUT fighter?

Has Mr. Johnson ever hat the chance to fly DACT against a Spit, himself sitting in a different plane?

Let me wave the BS-flag here.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just to defend Johnnie Johnson statement on the SPitfire IX being the best CLOSE IN fighter at that time, and even later, read this account of Israeli pilots in 1943 SPitfire IX tangling with RAF Tempest F6's (much later post war models from 1948?) when they mistook them for Egyption fighters


So what exactly is a CLOSE IN fighter?
Is there any FAR OUT fighter?

Has Mr. Johnson ever hat the chance to fly DACT against a Spit, himself sitting in a different plane?

Let me wave the BS-flag here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Are you dense or something? I wish Johnson was still alive so you could tell him you know better than him. Of course he will have flown mock combat against a Spitfire, he was a Wing Commander in the RAF, he MADE the tactics they used in WW2. He was the scorer on the Western Front on the Allied side.

A close in fighter is a fighter which is good for turn fighting/dogfighting. It has a small radius of turn and an excellent climb rate. It is better for defence than attack. Its pilots are advised to 'get in close' with the enemy if he will play ball. If an enemy gets behind you then break into a hard turn, as tight as possible.


German pilots very rarely got into dogfights with Spitfires because they were such good close in fighters. They used different tactics to beat Spitfires unless they were absolutely sure of their superiority in some area, (As in FW190A vs SPitfire V when they were totally superior) The FW190A excelled in Speed, Roll and Dive and the tacics were changed accordingly. Hit them hard, dont mess about in hard turns losing your speed, if anyone gets on your tail flip and dive cfor the deck, you will outrun them.

Look up Gallands quote 'I would like a flight of Spitfires for my wing' and the meaning behind why he said it. It might explain a few things to you.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think our perspectives are somewhat different, Xio and M_Gunz. That is why I loath aircraft comparison discussions. They really are silly undertakings given the science of aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp


Honestly I am not talkign about the game in this thread, mate. I was simply posting real life interesting quotes from the current book I am reading which seemed relevant and interesting.


I love discussing the relative advatages each plane had over the other in WW2, I love reading books by real WW2 pilots, German, British or American.

I love trying to find out the truths about the planes advatages over one another from the real pilots and documents.



I apologise for the earlier rant, but when you said I was trolling I hadnt even read the last two pages of the thread! I had just been reading my book, seen the FW190 thread and thought 'I am sure the guys would like to hear what Johnson says about this, and this on the FW190 - Oooo thats interesting on the SPits range, I'll just put that in etc etc'

The funny thing was that I had already leftout the staements that I thought might upset people!! For example Bader says in 1940 'We can ALWAYS turn inside the b*stards' (talking about Me109's)


All I was trying to say throughout the whole thread was that the Spitfire V was totally outclassed by the Fw190, wheras the SPitfire IX gave them a plane which was much more up to the job of fighting the Fockes and elaborate on just why this was....

Bremspropeller
08-20-2007, 08:08 AM
Are you dense or something? I wish Johnson was still alive so you could tell him you know better than him. Of course he will have flown mock combat against a Spitfire, he was a Wing Commander in the RAF, he MADE the tactics they used in WW2. He was the scorer on the Western Front on the Allied side.

Got a source of him flying DACT against a Spit?


A close in fighter is a fighter which is good for turn fighting/dogfighting. It has a small radius of turn and an excellent climb rate. It is better for defence than attack. Its pilots are advised to 'get in close' with the enemy if he will play ball. If an enemy gets behind you then break into a hard turn, as tight as possible.

Quite a stupid way to fight as history proved.
There's a nice story of a Spit getting owned by another Johnson (this time it's Robert S. Johnson), flying a P-47B.
Not quite a nice outcome for the Spit, I tell ya.

Ask the Japaneese why "close in fighting" sucks so much, I guess they can tell you.


Look up Gallands quote 'I would like a flight of Spitfires for my wing' and the meaning behind why he said it. It might explain a few things to you.

Yeah, that was a cynical note to Goering on stupid tactics involved during escort sorties.
Nothing serious hidden in there.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Is there any FAR OUT fighter?

Okay.. apologies but I just gotta say that some of these fighters are really FAR OUT!

JG14_Josf
08-20-2007, 11:35 AM
There's a nice story of a Spit getting owned by another Johnson (this time it's Robert S. Johnson), flying a P-47B.

A P-47C (according to Shaw),

The missing element appears to be an understanding of how a Ps (acceleration) advantage works in Air Combat.

The Earlier version fighters (Spit,109,and 190) were lighter, less dense, and underpowered compared to the later version fighters (generally) and therefore the Earlier version fighters did not have the Ps (acceleration) advantage.

The Spitfire 1, 109E, and 190A-0 were less capable energy fighters (less Ps) compared to the Spitfire XIV, 109K, and 190D-9.

How can this not be understood?

The best 'close in' fighter can mean something specific or 'close in' can mean something ambiguous.

If 'close in' means an anchored fight where both planes turn to get onto the other's six in a horizontal turn, then, the fight will end up on the deck as each pilot brings his plane down to a minimum 'sustainable' radius on the deck at just above stall.

The Spitfire I will win that fight against the Spitfire XIV.

The margin of 'superiority' for the Spitfire I against the Spitfire XIV in a 'stall fight' or 'close in' fight defined as a 'stall fight' is not as great as the margin of 'superiority' in 'close in' fighting compared to the Me-262.

Energy fighting is not the same kind of 'close-in' dog-fighting as the 'stall fight'.

The fight between a pilot who has no understanding of nose to tail geometry, and/or, vertical manuevering tactics flying a Spitfire IX against a Spitfire I (or Spitfire V) will be in the 'inferior' plane in a 'close in' 'stall fight' because the strenghts of the Spitfire IX over the Spitfire V (depending upon the thrust output, density, and aerodynamic quality of each example of each plane 'type') will be 'under-utilized' by the Spitfire IX pilot failing to know Energy Fighting Tactics.

On the other hand: a Spitfire IX pilot who is fully capabable of employing a Ps advantage to advantage (with effective geometry and vertical manuvering tactics)can defeat a pilot of any calibre in a Spitfire V if the Spitfire V abandons its superior slow speed stall fighting envelope and tries to fight using the wrong tactics (Energy Fighting in the vertical against a plane with superor Specific Excess Power = acceleration).

Again; the Early, light, less thrust, and lower density fighter planes were superior close in fighters if 'stall fighting' with angles tactics (horizontal, nose to nose geometry, lead turns, etc.) is the type of tactics meant when the word 'close in' is used to describe the actual fight - because the early, light, less thrust, and lower density fighter planes could not accelerate as fast going down and could not decelerate as slow going up compared to the heavy, more thrust, later, more dense versions of the same fighter plane design.

It is easy to see why someone like Crumpp fails to see the increase in capability from Spitfire V to Spitfire IX when someone fails to understand basic physics - over and over again - as if knowledge and belief were the same thing.

The reason why the Spitfire Vs in early 1942 could not follow the Fw190s in vertical dives and zooms is the same reason why a Spitfire V can't keep up with a Spitfire IX in vertical dives and zooms. The Spitfire V was too light, not dense enough, and produced less thrust.

It is easy to see why someone would confuse a report claiming that the Spitfire IX was a better 'close in' dog fighter than the Spitfire V when someone fails to understand the difference between 'stall fighting' (close in) and 'energy fighting' (close in) when, over and over again, the person believes that 'hit and run' is a 'dog fight'.

Any plane (including 4 engine bombers) can 'hit and run' any other plane. "Hit and Run" is hardly a 'dog-fight'.

If a British fighter pilot were to describe the difference between 'stall fighting' in the horizontal compared to 'energy fighting' in the vertical, then, that description with words might end up reading like the following:


It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to ˜mix it' with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed – even below the German fighter's stalling speed – it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilot's endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal.

The same 'difference' in performance capabilities that exist between the Spitfire V (low density, low Ps) and the Spitfire IX (high density, high Ps) exist between the 109 against the Fw190.

Example:


I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.

Why?


Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

The 'turn' described (in context) is 'pull out' from a dive.

Like this:


50.
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

When the Spitfire IX (denser, more thrust, more mass, stronger wings?) replaced the lighter, less dense, and weaker? Spitfire V the Spitfire's vertical performance increased OBVIOUSLY.

Example:


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

That is the interum Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61 (vs Fw190A-3 with wrong gas and rough engine)


The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


That last quote was from
Douglas Bader (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbaderD.htm)


This strategy suited Bader and during the summer of 1941 he obtained 12 kills. His 23 victories made him the fifth highest ace in the RAF. However, on 9th August 1941, he suffered a mid-air collision down near Le Touquet, France. He parachuted to the ground but both his artificial legs were badly damaged.

Bader was taken to a hospital and with the help of a French nurse managed to escape. He reached the home of a local farmer but was soon arrested and sent to a prison camp. After several attempts to escape he was sent to Colditz.

Bader was freed at the end of the Second World War and when he returned to Britain he was promoted to group captain. He left the Royal Air Force in 1946 and became managing director of Shell Aircraft until 1969 when he left to become a member of the Civil Aviation Authority Board.


It may be true that the Spitfire IX was unchallenged in the vertical envelope after the Spitfire V (after 1941). The point is obviously made concerning the Early, Light weight, less dense, and less thrust Spitfire versions compared to the later, heavier, more thrust, and denser Spitfire versions.


A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots.

Xiolablu3
08-21-2007, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you dense or something? I wish Johnson was still alive so you could tell him you know better than him. Of course he will have flown mock combat against a Spitfire, he was a Wing Commander in the RAF, he MADE the tactics they used in WW2. He was the scorer on the Western Front on the Allied side.

Got a source of him flying DACT against a Spit?


A close in fighter is a fighter which is good for turn fighting/dogfighting. It has a small radius of turn and an excellent climb rate. It is better for defence than attack. Its pilots are advised to 'get in close' with the enemy if he will play ball. If an enemy gets behind you then break into a hard turn, as tight as possible.

Quite a stupid way to fight as history proved.
There's a nice story of a Spit getting owned by another Johnson (this time it's Robert S. Johnson), flying a P-47B.
Not quite a nice outcome for the Spit, I tell ya.

Ask the Japaneese why "close in fighting" sucks so much, I guess they can tell you.


Look up Gallands quote 'I would like a flight of Spitfires for my wing' and the meaning behind why he said it. It might explain a few things to you.

Yeah, that was a cynical note to Goering on stupid tactics involved during escort sorties.
Nothing serious hidden in there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Geez you really havea got a chip on your shoulder havent you.

Galland said that to Goering because the Spitfire was better at close defense, that Goering Had JUST asked him to perform. He was asked to stay very close to the bombers, not high above, in this case they would have been better off with a SPitfire which was a better dogfighter/turnfighter. He explains in in a video and in his book!

The Japanese were almost invincible in the first half of the war using such tactics in the Zero and Ki43 vs the British/Commonwealth and the Americans.


Your claims that 'such tactics are stupid' is hilarious. Yes they are ridiclous if you dont have a plane which is good at it, other times it cant be avoided. If you have a plane that excellls at it then its extrememly useful.

Planes have been dogfighting since 1914 to 2008.

Bremspropeller
08-21-2007, 02:43 AM
Geez you really havea got a chip on your shoulder havent you.

Galland said that to Goering because the Spitfire was better at close defense, that Goering Had JUST asked him to perform. He was asked to stay very close to the bombers, not high above, in this case they would have been better off with a SPitfire which was a better dogfighter/turnfighter. He explains in in a video and in his book!

I'm aware of that story. But Galland knew pretty well that it didn't matter which plane escorted the bombers closely. The whole tactic was flawed. Even your "close in" Spit can't do anything when being bounced from above.
Dragging escort-planes into turnfights will just do the job, as other planes get free access to the unprotected bombers.

Galland put that in to piss off Goering, nothing else.



The Japanese were almost invincible in the first half of the war using such tactics in the Zero and Ki43 vs the British/Commonwealth and the Americans.


Yeah, b/c american planes sucked, not because it was a good tactic.
Wildcats did quite well agains Zeroes despite the Zero's "close in" ability.


Your claims that 'such tactics are stupid' is hilarious. Yes they are ridiclous if you dont have a plane which is good at it, other times it cant be avoided. If you have a plane that excellls at it then its extrememly useful.

Ask Erich Hartmann why you're wrong.


Planes have been dogfighting since 1914 to 2008.

To "dogfight" does not entirely mean level-turnfighting. Dogfighting also incluses e-tactics.
A "furball" is what you're thinking of.

Xiolablu3
08-21-2007, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Geez you really havea got a chip on your shoulder havent you.

Galland said that to Goering because the Spitfire was better at close defense, that Goering Had JUST asked him to perform. He was asked to stay very close to the bombers, not high above, in this case they would have been better off with a SPitfire which was a better dogfighter/turnfighter. He explains in in a video and in his book!

I'm aware of that story. But Galland knew pretty well that it didn't matter which plane escorted the bombers closely. The whole tactic was flawed. Even your "close in" Spit can't do anything when being bounced from above.
Dragging escort-planes into turnfights will just do the job, as other planes get free access to the unprotected bombers.

Galland put that in to piss off Goering, nothing else.



The Japanese were almost invincible in the first half of the war using such tactics in the Zero and Ki43 vs the British/Commonwealth and the Americans.


Yeah, b/c american planes sucked, not because it was a good tactic.
Wildcats did quite well agains Zeroes despite the Zero's "close in" ability.


Your claims that 'such tactics are stupid' is hilarious. Yes they are ridiclous if you dont have a plane which is good at it, other times it cant be avoided. If you have a plane that excellls at it then its extrememly useful.

Ask Erich Hartmann why you're wrong.


Planes have been dogfighting since 1914 to 2008.

To "dogfight" does not entirely mean level-turnfighting. Dogfighting also incluses e-tactics.
A "furball" is what you're thinking of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Totally pointless converstation, you have made you your mind and are so sure you know everything. (but you definintely dont)

Ask Erich Hartman why I am wrong? Ask every pilot who was sure he was flying a better turning plane than the opposition why he would try to draw the enemy into a turning fight, and hence why YOU are wrong.

Hartmann developped tactics which worked extermely well in his Bf109, had he been flying a SPitfire or different plane he would have worked out tactics for that plane too!


If your plane does something better than the opposition you USE that against them! The sign of a good pilot.

If Johnnie Johnson uses the term 'Close in fighter' and you claim it doesnt exist, then I'm afraid I will go with the Allies top scoring fighter pilot on the estern front, if you dont mind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
08-21-2007, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Geez you really havea got a chip on your shoulder havent you.

Galland said that to Goering because the Spitfire was better at close defense, that Goering Had JUST asked him to perform. He was asked to stay very close to the bombers, not high above, in this case they would have been better off with a SPitfire which was a better dogfighter/turnfighter. He explains in in a video and in his book!

I'm aware of that story. But Galland knew pretty well that it didn't matter which plane escorted the bombers closely. The whole tactic was flawed. Even your "close in" Spit can't do anything when being bounced from above.
Dragging escort-planes into turnfights will just do the job, as other planes get free access to the unprotected bombers.

Galland put that in to piss off Goering, nothing else.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


FOr GODS SAKE its NOT a bloody STORY! Its FACT!

From Adolf Galland - ' The First and the Last' :-


'Goering clearly represented the view of the bombers and demanded more CLOSE and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tries to point out that the the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which althoug a little slower, was much more manouvrable. He rejected my objections. We recieved many more harsh words. FInally as time ran short, he grew more amiable. He asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Molders asked for a Me109 with more powerful engines. 'And you?' Goering turned to me.. I did not hesitate long ' I should like an outfit of SPitfires for my squadron.'


Again, forgive me if I believe Galland and not you.

Xiolablu3
08-21-2007, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's a nice story of a Spit getting owned by another Johnson (this time it's Robert S. Johnson), flying a P-47B.

A P-47C (according to Shaw),

The missing element appears to be an understanding of how a Ps (acceleration) advantage works in Air Combat.

The Earlier version fighters (Spit,109,and 190) were lighter, less dense, and underpowered compared to the later version fighters (generally) and therefore the Earlier version fighters did not have the Ps (acceleration) advantage.

The Spitfire 1, 109E, and 190A-0 were less capable energy fighters (less Ps) compared to the Spitfire XIV, 109K, and 190D-9.

How can this not be understood?

The best 'close in' fighter can mean something specific or 'close in' can mean something ambiguous.

If 'close in' means an anchored fight where both planes turn to get onto the other's six in a horizontal turn, then, the fight will end up on the deck as each pilot brings his plane down to a minimum 'sustainable' radius on the deck at just above stall.

The Spitfire I will win that fight against the Spitfire XIV.

The margin of 'superiority' for the Spitfire I against the Spitfire XIV in a 'stall fight' or 'close in' fight defined as a 'stall fight' is not as great as the margin of 'superiority' in 'close in' fighting compared to the Me-262.

Energy fighting is not the same kind of 'close-in' dog-fighting as the 'stall fight'.

The fight between a pilot who has no understanding of nose to tail geometry, and/or, vertical manuevering tactics flying a Spitfire IX against a Spitfire I (or Spitfire V) will be in the 'inferior' plane in a 'close in' 'stall fight' because the strenghts of the Spitfire IX over the Spitfire V (depending upon the thrust output, density, and aerodynamic quality of each example of each plane 'type') will be 'under-utilized' by the Spitfire IX pilot failing to know Energy Fighting Tactics.

On the other hand: a Spitfire IX pilot who is fully capabable of employing a Ps advantage to advantage (with effective geometry and vertical manuvering tactics)can defeat a pilot of any calibre in a Spitfire V if the Spitfire V abandons its superior slow speed stall fighting envelope and tries to fight using the wrong tactics (Energy Fighting in the vertical against a plane with superor Specific Excess Power = acceleration).

Again; the Early, light, less thrust, and lower density fighter planes were superior close in fighters if 'stall fighting' with angles tactics (horizontal, nose to nose geometry, lead turns, etc.) is the type of tactics meant when the word 'close in' is used to describe the actual fight - because the early, light, less thrust, and lower density fighter planes could not accelerate as fast going down and could not decelerate as slow going up compared to the heavy, more thrust, later, more dense versions of the same fighter plane design.

It is easy to see why someone like Crumpp fails to see the increase in capability from Spitfire V to Spitfire IX when someone fails to understand basic physics - over and over again - as if knowledge and belief were the same thing.

The reason why the Spitfire Vs in early 1942 could not follow the Fw190s in vertical dives and zooms is the same reason why a Spitfire V can't keep up with a Spitfire IX in vertical dives and zooms. The Spitfire V was too light, not dense enough, and produced less thrust.

It is easy to see why someone would confuse a report claiming that the Spitfire IX was a better 'close in' dog fighter than the Spitfire V when someone fails to understand the difference between 'stall fighting' (close in) and 'energy fighting' (close in) when, over and over again, the person believes that 'hit and run' is a 'dog fight'.

Any plane (including 4 engine bombers) can 'hit and run' any other plane. "Hit and Run" is hardly a 'dog-fight'.

If a British fighter pilot were to describe the difference between 'stall fighting' in the horizontal compared to 'energy fighting' in the vertical, then, that description with words might end up reading like the following:


It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to ˜mix it' with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed – even below the German fighter's stalling speed – it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilot's endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal.

The same 'difference' in performance capabilities that exist between the Spitfire V (low density, low Ps) and the Spitfire IX (high density, high Ps) exist between the 109 against the Fw190.

Example:


I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.

Why?


Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

The 'turn' described (in context) is 'pull out' from a dive.

Like this:


50.
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW. 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

When the Spitfire IX (denser, more thrust, more mass, stronger wings?) replaced the lighter, less dense, and weaker? Spitfire V the Spitfire's vertical performance increased OBVIOUSLY.

Example:


The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

That is the interum Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61 (vs Fw190A-3 with wrong gas and rough engine)


The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


That last quote was from
Douglas Bader (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbaderD.htm)


This strategy suited Bader and during the summer of 1941 he obtained 12 kills. His 23 victories made him the fifth highest ace in the RAF. However, on 9th August 1941, he suffered a mid-air collision down near Le Touquet, France. He parachuted to the ground but both his artificial legs were badly damaged.

Bader was taken to a hospital and with the help of a French nurse managed to escape. He reached the home of a local farmer but was soon arrested and sent to a prison camp. After several attempts to escape he was sent to Colditz.

Bader was freed at the end of the Second World War and when he returned to Britain he was promoted to group captain. He left the Royal Air Force in 1946 and became managing director of Shell Aircraft until 1969 when he left to become a member of the Civil Aviation Authority Board.


It may be true that the Spitfire IX was unchallenged in the vertical envelope after the Spitfire V (after 1941). The point is obviously made concerning the Early, Light weight, less dense, and less thrust Spitfire versions compared to the later, heavier, more thrust, and denser Spitfire versions.


A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very interesting read and opinions, thanks.

K_Freddie
08-21-2007, 05:56 AM
So I take it that none of you can fly the FW190 properly, that is being able to fly it well in all B-and-Z, Lo-and-Slo and finally Turn-and-Burn DFs.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
08-21-2007, 06:55 AM
Hartmann developped tactics which worked extermely well in his Bf109, had he been flying a SPitfire or different plane he would have worked out tactics for that plane too!


For aguing with you is a waste of time I'm only going to comment this one...

Hartman would've used this tactic in any plane at any time.
It's kinda strange how most tacticians agree with him.

"See, decide, attack, coffe break" - Hartmann

"Find the enemy and shoot him down - anything else is rubbish" - Richthofen

"Turn to kill, not to engage" - Driscoll (IIRC)

That's what most pilots who excelled in their fighters used to teach their students.

It's not about using your plane's strengths, it's about avoiding useless turning. Find him, kill him and do this in one pass - that'll get you a long life.
"Mixing it" will get you KIA quite quickly.

BTW: that's not MY thoughts (well, it is, but it wasn't me who thought of that first), that's what leading tacticians tell their students.

Get a copy of Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat", I can really recommend that one. You'll not only find lots of quotes on fighter combat, you'll also get a real insight in tactics.

Xiolablu3
08-21-2007, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hartmann developped tactics which worked extermely well in his Bf109, had he been flying a SPitfire or different plane he would have worked out tactics for that plane too!


For aguing with you is a waste of time I'm only going to comment this one...

Hartman would've used this tactic in any plane at any time.
It's kinda strange how most tacticians agree with him.

"See, decide, attack, coffe break" - Hartmann

"Find the enemy and shoot him down - anything else is rubbish" - Richthofen

"Turn to kill, not to engage" - Driscoll (IIRC)

That's what most pilots who excelled in their fighters used to teach their students.

It's not about using your plane's strengths, it's about avoiding useless turning. Find him, kill him and do this in one pass - that'll get you a long life.
"Mixing it" will get you KIA quite quickly.

BTW: that's not MY thoughts (well, it is, but it wasn't me who thought of that first), that's what leading tacticians tell their students.

Get a copy of Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat", I can really recommend that one. You'll not only find lots of quotes on fighter combat, you'll also get a real insight in tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its funny that you think that arguing with ME is a waste of time when you are actually arguing with Galland and Johnson over what THEY said!

Of COURSE energy is important but so is fighting with your planes strengths!!

I am not going to deny that Hartmanns taxctics were excellent, but htey are not the be all and end all of air combat.

'Sharkey' Ward , Mr Sea Harrier, describes in his book that the horizontal turn was the most important manouvre in the Falklands War, and in his opinion in Air Combat.

At Top Gunin the USa, they teach dogfighting and turnfighting.

The F15 was MADE to be a close in fighter 'Not a pound for air to ground.' was the motto when building it. It was to be as light and manouvrable as possible.

Yes energy tactics are important, but so is manouvrability.

I would like to read the Shaw book, I am sure its very good.