PDA

View Full Version : A spitfire question



DmdSeeker
06-05-2006, 08:53 AM
This is a general question; not aimed at any specific marque or varient; as the minutia of the argument bores me...

However; I generally been led to believe that generally; A Spit will out turn a 109. Generally; a 109 will outclimb a Spit. Generally; the answer to the question "which one is faster" is generally "depends on what alt you're at".

As I said; this are all generall observations; and as such; I believe them true.

However; I've noticed I can generally spiral climb away from a 109 in a Spit; especially to the left.

And I wonder; can any one explain why or how I can spiral climb away from a plane I'm convinced will catch me in a straight climbing contest?

mynameisroland
06-05-2006, 09:03 AM
As soon as the climb becomes a spiral climb you are using lift generated from the wings differently than if you were just climbing vertically. This added to the fact that the Spitfire produces lower torque makes for a difference in spiral performance compared with straight up 90deg attitude climb.

Not saying its correct but its what my guestimations say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WildApes
06-05-2006, 02:57 PM
As someone new to the series the BF-10p seems like flying a brick compared to the spitfire. Feels like it's about to break apart at any second when doing quick turns and I lose an incredible about of altitude when doing loops. Though it feels more solid in combat and seems to stay trimed much better (though it seems very sensitive to small movements when aiming)

Is this generally how the bf-109 should behave in contrast to the spitfire? Or does it just take much more experience to master to BF-109?

The way it behaves would it be best flown diving quickly upon the enemy at a higher altitude and quicker speed perhaps?


Please remember that I am new to this series and new to flight sims in general so I apologize if any of this sounds really trivial.

MucusG
06-05-2006, 05:26 PM
According to many reports much of what made the spitfire so good was that it was an easy plane to fly. The 109 is also an excellent plane but it took a much more skilled pilot to get the best from it.

WTE_Galway
06-05-2006, 06:15 PM
the spitfire was beautiful - smooth and elegant

the 109 awesome - viscious and a beast

leitmotiv
06-05-2006, 06:17 PM
Don't sweat the 109---when I first started using the Maddox sims, I thought the 109 was schizophrenic, and I avoided them except for brief forays that ended in crashes and total humiliation. It's like riding a bicycle---for hours you are crashing and suddenly you are sailing along forgetful you ever had trouble. Don't fret over conventional wisdom---gifted pilots can make airplanes do exceptional things. The great English ace Johnny Johnson got into a turning contest with a very early Fw 190 while in a Spitfire VB. The 190 was out-turning him. Spit fans, if asked which was the best turner, would say the Spit and cite reams of statistics. Johnson was a very experienced Spit pilot and for him to admit to being whipped by a 190 was no small matter. The 190 pilot was just better. In air combat circumstances rule.

MB80
06-05-2006, 06:19 PM
You must fly the bf109 in a hard way, that "feeling" what you have if you do a turn is 'normal'. Beginners on the 109 or 190 mostly think something could happen.. and they stop to circle, stop to follow the enemy.. and mostly lose the dogfight.

To turn is not the best you can do with a late 109, but if there's just one enemy fighter, you should do it. The tactic used usually for 109s and 190s is B&Z.

VW-IceFire
06-05-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
This is a general question; not aimed at any specific marque or varient; as the minutia of the argument bores me...

However; I generally been led to believe that generally; A Spit will out turn a 109. Generally; a 109 will outclimb a Spit. Generally; the answer to the question "which one is faster" is generally "depends on what alt you're at".

As I said; this are all generall observations; and as such; I believe them true.

However; I've noticed I can generally spiral climb away from a 109 in a Spit; especially to the left.

And I wonder; can any one explain why or how I can spiral climb away from a plane I'm convinced will catch me in a straight climbing contest?
The trouble with generalizations is that they are often imprecise and generate the wrong sort of idea when put into practice. The 109 and Spitfire series are roughly similar in their time of conception through to the very last produced. While the 109 didn't last as long (for obvious reasons) the two are roughly similar in that they had long lives and were considered to be cutting edge fighters when they were introduced. So the problem is that there are so many different versions with each leapfrogging the opposition and with the roles changing throughout the war that its hard to make a base comparison.

Some 109 models will outspiral climb a Spitfire and some Spitfire models will do that back to a 109. The Spitfire XIV with its Griffon engine, insane horsepower, and minor redesign will outclimb pretty much every 109 model based on numbers (feet per minute). But even thats a generalization and I'm sure the 109K-4 with MW50 boost can outclimb the XIV somewhere in the flight regime.

But I won't go into any more versions than that as I realize thats not your specific interest but I would warn against making such generalizations because there are constantly exceptions back and forth between the versions and within the versions in different areas of the flight evelope (fast, slow, high, low, etc.).

A spiral climb advantage usually relies on the aircrafts wing type and the torque that it generates. The 109 had a good spiral climb advantage against Soviet fighters mostly because the direction in which it would spiral complemented the engine direction (I think it spun to the right while Soviet aircraft were to the left but I can't remember) so a Soviet aircraft attempting to follow was fighting torque while the 109 pilot was using it. Depending on the 109 involved and the Spitfire involved I have to say that there is no consistent answer but that the two are likely fairly close asnd the better pilot with the best technique is likely to win the day.

Spitfires are easier to handle than 109s historically and in the sim. The 109s heavier elevator versus the Spitfires oversensitive elevator have advantages and disadvantages throughout. The Spitfires slow roll, particularly at speed, compared to the 109s superb roll rate is a substantial difference as is the aiming of the guns, the gun types involved, the huge elliptical wings on the Spitfire versus the small and rounded wings on the later 109s as well as the specific techniques required to close and engage the enemy and so forth. The two are as different as they are similar.

The best pilots in the two types know exactly what they can do better and what their opponent does better and leverages the best attributes of their type against the weaknesses of the enemies. Its relatively simple and painfully obvious but its sometimes missed in the overarching assumption that one is definately better than the other which is not true.

Brain32
06-05-2006, 07:13 PM
I see no positive sides of the late 109's(G6AS-G10-G14-k4) over SpitfireMk9e, controls are far too stiff even at mediocre speeds(500kmh) for it to be remotely effective against Spitfires or any other opposing plane that keeps his speed over 500kmh during the engagement. Although other plane types in the Allied inventory are in big trouble if they slow down or choose to fight in pure horizontal, the Spitfire keeps it's vast superiority in regards to manouverbility throughout the speed range. All in all I wouldn't recommend anybody to engage a close 1vs1 dogfight with the Spitfires. A pass or two with E advantage and that's it. If you choose a close DF you are actually relying on Spitfire pilot's skills to be inferiour to yours...
Of course the situation with the earlier models (F4-G2) is quite different.

VW-IceFire
06-05-2006, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I see no positive sides of the late 109's(G6AS-G10-G14-k4) over SpitfireMk9e, controls are far too stiff even at mediocre speeds(500kmh) for it to be remotely effective against Spitfires or any other opposing plane that keeps his speed over 500kmh during the engagement. Although other plane types in the Allied inventory are in big trouble if they slow down or choose to fight in pure horizontal, the Spitfire keeps it's vast superiority in regards to manouverbility throughout the speed range. All in all I wouldn't recommend anybody to engage a close 1vs1 dogfight with the Spitfires. A pass or two with E advantage and that's it. If you choose a close DF you are actually relying on Spitfire pilot's skills to be inferiour to yours...
Of course the situation with the earlier models (F4-G2) is quite different.
Compaired to the Spitfire Mark IXe with these types yeah the Spitfire does look like the better fighter...but I see that mostly because these types tend to sacrifice their agility for hitting power, climb rate, and speed to the exclusion of all else. If you compare the Spitfire IX vs the late 109s on bomber killing potential than the 109 is not even in the same category as the Spitfire. Pure climbrate in the G-10 and K-4 is probably better and level speed has to be better or similar to the late boost Spitfires.

Its true that the 500kph heavy stick is a problem. Its tricky because you basically have to slow down to engage a manuevering Spitfire and then speed up again to fly away. The best of the 109 pilots I've seen tend to be sneaky so they never let the Spitfire manuever and when they do manuever they seem to know what the cutoff is between too low a speed and too high a speed. I've seen some really top notch 109 pilots around and not much will stop them even in the late war versions. Personally I'm terrible at them and about the time that the G-6 is available so is the FW190A and so thats where I go.

Xiolablu3
06-05-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Don't sweat the 109---when I first started using the Maddox sims, I thought the 109 was schizophrenic, and I avoided them except for brief forays that ended in crashes and total humiliation. It's like riding a bicycle---for hours you are crashing and suddenly you are sailing along forgetful you ever had trouble. Don't fret over conventional wisdom---gifted pilots can make airplanes do exceptional things. The great English ace Johnny Johnson got into a turning contest with a very early Fw 190 while in a Spitfire VB. The 190 was out-turning him. Spit fans, if asked which was the best turner, would say the Spit and cite reams of statistics. Johnson was a very experienced Spit pilot and for him to admit to being whipped by a 190 was no small matter. The 190 pilot was just better. In air combat circumstances rule.

He was probably at very high speed, if he was at low or medium speed then the Spitfire would have outurned the FW190.

The Spitfire always had a far smaller turning circle at normal/slow speeds. The FW190 was a good turner at very fast speeds only.

Also maybe he meant 'out rolled' rather than outurned. Some people may say that the FW190 could 'turn' faster to explain to less knowledgable people, but mean what we talk about as roll.

WTE_Galway
06-05-2006, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I see no positive sides of the late 109's(G6AS-G10-G14-k4) over SpitfireMk9e, controls are far too stiff even at mediocre speeds(500kmh) for it to be remotely effective against Spitfires or any other opposing plane that keeps his speed over 500kmh during the engagement. Although other plane types in the Allied inventory are in big trouble if they slow down or choose to fight in pure horizontal, the Spitfire keeps it's vast superiority in regards to manouverbility throughout the speed range. All in all I wouldn't recommend anybody to engage a close 1vs1 dogfight with the Spitfires. A pass or two with E advantage and that's it. If you choose a close DF you are actually relying on Spitfire pilot's skills to be inferiour to yours...
Of course the situation with the earlier models (F4-G2) is quite different.

There are some advantages to the late 109 .. not the least of which being the Mk108. But bear in mind these late model 109's were designed to be high altitude bomber killers first and dogfighters second. They sacrificed a lot in terms of modern online airquake attributes for the ability to intercept B17's at 35,000 feet.

leitmotiv
06-05-2006, 10:45 PM
"With wide-open throttle I held the Spitfire in the tightest of shuddering vertical turns. I was greying-out, and where was this Italian [Johnson mistook a marking on the side for the 190 for Italian insignia], who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I couldn't see him, and little wonder, for the brute was gaining on me and in another couple turns would have me in his sight. .... I asked the Spitfire for all she'd got in the turn, but the 190 hung behind like a leech." Johnson got away by diving steeply and flattening out over the sea, and charged right for a destroyer which missed him and fortuitously "nailed" the 190. WING LEADER. Johnny Johnson. Ballantine, NY, 1978 ed. Page 125. 19 August 1942 (Dieppe).

WWMaxGunz
06-06-2006, 12:03 AM
And what were the initial conditions of all that? Was he being bounced by any chance?

The only way to simulate 2 arms pullin hard in this sim is through trim which is not fast but
does work. Just remember you gotta neutralize trim sometime unless you're on a slider and
then it takes time or the slider is out of calibration... not as fast as muscles can be but
then what pilot gets tired in IL2? They don't. So maybe look at speed of trim as slower
moving the stick with both high stickforce and also high G forces. Or tell me what combat
flight sim is more real about stick forces and pilots? I'm pretty sure I've flown ones with
where you pulled your joystick is where the controls moved except past a high strength limit
like 100lbs force. With the IL2 way, you get pressure feel from the stick and the other way
it is only position of the stick and you can't trim the pressure out and fly almost-hands off.
But you can hold the controls steady with position method regardless of changes in trim or
backforces changes. So there is problems and advantages with each. I can deal with the way
it is by knowing how it works and working with it by the design and intent of the maker,
which is how I try to learn every sim by derstanding the approach for what it is and seeing
how it works that way and not how do I make this fit my last sim experience? Bad move.

WTE_Galway
06-06-2006, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And what were the initial conditions of all that? Was he being bounced by any chance?

The only way to simulate 2 arms pullin hard in this sim is through trim which is not fast but
does work. Just remember you gotta neutralize trim sometime unless you're on a slider and
then it takes time or the slider is out of calibration... not as fast as muscles can be but
then what pilot gets tired in IL2? They don't. So maybe look at speed of trim as slower
moving the stick with both high stickforce and also high G forces. Or tell me what combat
flight sim is more real about stick forces and pilots? I'm pretty sure I've flown ones with
where you pulled your joystick is where the controls moved except past a high strength limit
like 100lbs force. With the IL2 way, you get pressure feel from the stick and the other way
it is only position of the stick and you can't trim the pressure out and fly almost-hands off.
But you can hold the controls steady with position method regardless of changes in trim or
backforces changes. So there is problems and advantages with each. I can deal with the way
it is by knowing how it works and working with it by the design and intent of the maker,
which is how I try to learn every sim by derstanding the approach for what it is and seeing
how it works that way and not how do I make this fit my last sim experience? Bad move.

the inaccuracies of sims is most apparent with force feeback sticks

in a sim you trim correctly and the plane flys hands off with the stick centred

in most real aircraft you hold the stick in the correct position and wind on trim until the pressure disappears and the stick sits in its current position without force .. and that new "hands off" position may be nowhere near centred

Kurfurst__
06-06-2006, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I see no positive sides of the late 109's(G6AS-G10-G14-k4) over SpitfireMk9e, controls are far too stiff even at mediocre speeds(500kmh) for it to be remotely effective against Spitfires or any other opposing plane that keeps his speed over 500kmh during the engagement.

Well it's true, but a bit artificial since the Il2 engine only simulates the force of one hand on the stick, wheareas IRL, two hands were used, so that's naturally limits things on all planes that had heavier control forces (Spits on the roll, 109s on the pitch for example). Trim is an alternate method, USE IT. Wartime 109 manuals also prescribe their use, ie entering dive with normal speed trim will result pitch-up at high speed, and ease things considerably.

Basically the late-war types you mention were, with the exception of the G-14, high altitude fighters designed to operate at 6-8000m alt band. At these altitudes they have considerable speed adv. over the 9e, so get him up there, and then fly it like a 51 or 190, keeping speed high, using teamwork and making slashing attacks, outrunning him in trouble. Of course that's not for airquake...

mynameisroland
06-06-2006, 05:07 AM
If you fight a Spitfire IX e at 6000/8000m You will have a speed advantage but at speeds of 600km/h and above this advantage is effectively unusable in an engagement where the Spitfire pilot knows you are trying to get an angle. The Spitfire maintains manuverability and elevator effectiveness and makes for a better fighter in IL2 - it is also controllable down to a lower speed at high altitudes so I can turn and continue to turn for longer than would be comfortable to a Bf 109 G10 because his minimum speed to manuver at 8000m is higher than mine.

Brain32
06-06-2006, 05:23 AM
Exactly, higher you go, worse it gets and yes G14 is the best but still, I'll take a FW190 any given day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-06-2006, 06:20 AM
I find the speed advantage good enough when flying the G6A/S. Also the nose is not too heavy on that model on account of no 30mm cannon.

Its the only late 109 which I can fly.

I guess I need to start using trim more, maybe get a slider? I find with the 109 you CAN turn amazingly tight (I was outturned by a 109 while I was in a Spitfire the other day on WC) but it loses a LOT of energy if you pull it past the 'sweet spot' for turning. You hear the buffeting and watch the speed drop off fast. The Spitfire maintains its speed much better, but this can often be an advantage, the slower the turn, the tighter the turn (sometimes). YOu can often outurn the Spitfire a few times if you really need to, but you pay a high cost in energy.

I think the 109F4 is far nicer plane than the Spitfire MkV in the game. You have so much more power and climb that he cannot touch you unless you make a mistake.

I think we have needed the 20mm option on late 109's for too long now. Surely they would lose some of the 'nose heaviness' if we took the 20mm option?