PDA

View Full Version : Can K4 "effectively" outclimb SpitIX (not 25lb) series? Track please...



tigertalon
06-08-2007, 05:09 AM
Sorry for yet another spit vs 109 thread, but I moved this from help flying 09G/K into a new thread per Ivans request. Firstly note: I was not comparing the 25lbs but rather any other late mark spit with a K4 in my statements. Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
YES USE THE ROC LUKE!
109K is not able to outclimb spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got track? Seriously... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
YES! Seriously!

The track of the Spit 25lb can be found here..
http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2039&sid=2...26e87499d7e1b1492f53 (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2039&sid=22080b9d096f26e87499d7e1b1492f53)

The track of the 109K-4 can be found here..
http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1967&sid=2...26e87499d7e1b1492f53 (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1967&sid=22080b9d096f26e87499d7e1b1492f53)

Here is the difference in ROC between the two tests
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">00000m ~24.25m/s E+ ~27.00m/s E- Spit by 2.75m/s
02000m ~24.50m/s E+ ~24.00m/s E- 109K-4 by 0.50m/s
02500m ~25.00m/s E+ ~22.00m/s E- 109K-4 by 3.00m/s
04000m ~24.25m/s E+ ~22.75m/s 0 109K-4 by 1.50m/s
06000m ~19.75m/s E+ ~16.00m/s E- 109K-4 by 3.75m/s
08000m ~13.00m/s E- ~09.75m/s E- 109K-4 by 3.25m/s
10000m ~06.50m/s E- ~-3.75m/s E- 109K-4 by 2.75m/s</pre>

Where
E+ = Climbs beter than the real thing
E- = Climbs worse than the real thing
0 = Climbs just like the real thing

As you can see, at all altitudes above sea level the in-game 109K-4 climbs better than the in-game Spit 25lb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the tracks and testing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thus proving you're your statement wrong! With regards to the in-game planes!

Exactly which one of my sentences do you think was(were) wrong? This one below?

109K is not able to outclimb spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere.

Like Brain suggested the term effectively has to defined in order to be able to discuss upper sentence.

By effectively I ment that 109 (with no initial altitude advantage) is able to climb above spitfireIX and get firing solution on spit without alowing spit pilot to get one.

I still believe that's not possible until proven otherwise. Can anyone show me a track, where a 109K4 pilot with no initial alt advantage in a sterile enviroment did effectively outclimb and attack a skilled (human) spitfire pilot (who did not make any big mistakes) and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Thank you.

Interesting matchup is 109F4 vs SpitVb, where F4 actually can effectively outclimb the opponent at low altitudes, barely so but it can. This simply doesn't work with K4 vs IX because both planes will reach 7km alt before K4 will gain sufficient separation, and from that point on Spitfire will start to gain on the opponent.

(And please, spare me lessons in style:"if you are co alt you did not plan it well" this thread is not about my way of fighting, it is about comparing sustained climb performance)

raaaid
06-08-2007, 07:24 AM
i can gurantee you that in previous patches k4 even with gunpods outclimbed anything

it was my main strategy but with the appearance of 25lbs this strategy didnt work anymore

so if the fm didnt change k4 should outclimb spits not 25 lbs

now nobody uses late 109 on ww servers

JG14_Josf
06-08-2007, 08:26 AM
Can anyone show me a track, where a 109K4 pilot with no initial alt advantage in a sterile enviroment did effectively outclimb and attack a skilled (human) spitfire pilot (who did not make any big mistakes) and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Thank you.

If you want to test this on-line, then, let me know. We can.

1 track will leave open the possibility that your computer is superior to mine.

2 tracks where we both fly each plane will eliminate that possibility.

Once those 2 track files exist, then, anyone else can prove our track files to be inaccurate by improving upon our track files. For example; another two people show opposite results, in which case, those computers and those players could be integrated into a new series of tests where all four of us record 4 new track files; each player flying both planes.

If the results continue to prove opposite results, then, the performance of different computers and players will be known as the factor producing opposite results until such time as the results repeat in a consistent manner from computer to computer and from player to player.

My on-line experience confirms to me, without doubt, that the 109K-4 will not effectively out-climb a Spitfire IX with the current version of the game. As to the game's ability to simulate WII era reality it occurs to me to repeat the following Proof (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html):


Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.


Above records actual flight tests done in WWII between a Spitfire IX (25 lb boost) and a 109G-6 Early with underwing cannons. If a similar WWII test between a Spitfire IX and a 109K-4 exists, then, game tests could be compared to that WWII test. If not – then not.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Sorry for yet another spit vs 109 thread, but I moved this from help flying 09G/K into a new thread per Ivans request. Firstly note: I was not comparing the 25lbs but rather any other late mark spit with a K4 in my statements. Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.
Ok

Just so you know, 90% of what I discuss is how well the game performance matches the real world test data performance.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Thanks for the tracks and testing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
My pleasure!


Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thus proving you're your statement wrong! With regards to the in-game planes!

Exactly which one of my sentences do you think was(were) wrong? This one below?

109K is <span class="ev_code_yellow">not able to outclimb</span> spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere.

Like Brain suggested the term effectively has to defined in order to be able to discuss upper sentence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, ok, wait one as I go fetch my 'hair splitting' tools. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by tigertalon:
By effectively I ment that 109 (with no initial altitude advantage) <span class="ev_code_yellow">is able to climb</span> above spitfireIX and get firing solution on spit without alowing spit pilot to get one.
Is that a type-o or are you now saying the oposite of what you were saying? (see <span class="ev_code_yellow">yellow</span> quotes above)


Originally posted by tigertalon:
I still believe that's not possible until proven otherwise.
Which is not posable? In that in one case your sayin the 109 "<span class="ev_code_yellow">not able to outclimb</span>" and in the next breath your saying the 109 <span class="ev_code_yellow">is able to climb</span>? Pick one and Ill give you my answer


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Can anyone show me a track, where a 109K4 pilot with no initial alt advantage in a sterile enviroment did effectively outclimb and attack a skilled (human) spitfire pilot (who did not make any big mistakes) and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Thank you.
Problem with such a test is that it says more about the relitive 'pilot performance' than the 'planes performance'. Thus proving nothing about the plane performance. You could do such a test ten time and get ten different results depending in that each time the pilot(s) are going to do something a little different. Hence ROC testing! ROC charts speak for themselfs, the in-game 109K-4 has a better ROC than the Spit 25lb at allmost all altitudes. Where as in RL that was not the case.. I know I know you do not care about the 109K-4 BUGS and how UBER it is relitive to a real 109K but some do care.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Interesting matchup is 109F4 vs SpitVb, where F4 actually can effectively outclimb the opponent at low altitudes, barely so but it can. This simply doesn't work with K4 vs IX because both planes will reach 7km alt before K4 will gain sufficient separation, and from that point on Spitfire will start to gain on the opponent.
Hair splitting time.. define sufficient


Originally posted by tigertalon:
(And please, spare me lessons in style: "if you are co alt you did not plan it well" this thread is not about my way of fighting, it is about comparing sustained climb performance) Hence the need for ROC testing.. It removes the lesson styles and focus on the plane itself. The pilot takes that information and his 'skill level' to do what he can with it. Long story short, a better pilot can best another pilot in a better plane. No big suprise there!

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 09:09 AM
I can comment on Bf109F4 (My fav 109) vs Spitfire Vb/Vc.

The difference here is that the Spitfire V feels a bit underpowered, and cannot compete with the Bf109F4 in Zoom climbs and dives.

I wouldnt be surprised to see the climb rates quite close - but the 109 is FAR better in energy manouvres. Stay fast and zoom around at high speeds and the Spitfire is left floundering. His only chance is to get you into a turning battle.


I couldnt say between the Bf109K4 and the SPitfire IX because I never fly the K4. I would have thought that the 109K4 would be the better climber in the game however, as it looks like its a bit overmodelled in climb rate where most of hte action takes place, and the Spit IX is very close to its real life figures.

In real world tests I would still expect the very late 1944 BF109K4 to have the better climb than the mid-1943 Spitfire IX, its nearly 1.5 years newer after all.

-----------------

Been reading more about the BF109 design, it reached its peak with the 109F4 and the early G models.

When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

This very light design proved excellent in the early years of the war, when it was carrying a light engine, less armour and light armament. But as the marks added more and more weight, the little airframe just couldnt cope and started to lose the great handling qualities that the early models had.

The redesign of the F model succeded in ironing out some of the less desirable qualities the extra weight had brought to the 'E' model, but then the cycle started again, with more and more weight and bulges being added to accomadate more equipment.

This is backed up by Galland and other Luftwaffe flyers who didnt like the extra weight or lumps and bumps. Leading to the later versions being called 'The Bulge'. Galland himself was desperate to get the Fw190 to the front, as he saw the problems affecting the Bf109 in its later marks (From his Biography)


The Spitfire has almost the same development but 2 years later, the 109F redesigned airframe in 1941, mirrors the Spitfire VIII's redesined frame in 1943. Just as by 1943 the 109G6 was starting to handle differently, so the Spitfire Mk21 in 1945 is losing its great handling qualities. Same results, too much weight for the airframe negatively affects the planes handling.

faustnik
06-08-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

so the Spitfire Mk21 in 1945 is losing its great handling qualities. Same results, too much weight for the airframe negatively affects the planes handling.

I was just reading a Spitfire pilot quote about the MkII being the best out of all the Spitfires. He thought it was the sweetspot of power/weight.

MEGILE
06-08-2007, 10:28 AM
Maybe a comparative TTC for Spit and 109 ingame would be enlightening to the OP?

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Maybe a comparative TTC for Spit and 109 ingame would be enlightening to the OP?

Bf-109K-4 1.80ata TTC (http://us.share.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109K/ME_01/408_ROC_GAME_BCS_Bf-109K-4_1.80ata.pdf)

Spit 25lb TTC (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/SPITIX25LB/ME_01/408_ROC_BCS170_87FUEL_SpitfireMkIX25lbs_SUMMARY.pd f)

DKoor
06-08-2007, 10:52 AM
Well I certainly wouldn't bet that it can, if you ask me (thread title)!
It is clear that K4 is a mean machine regarding climb, but so is Spit especially uberboosted 25 version.

Here;
http://i17.tinypic.com/54l2wra.gif
...an interesting chart with Spit c which is second best regarding climb in game, above is only 25.
Just to be noted Spit Mk.VIII (full wing) has identical climb as this Spit in chart, says IL-2 C0mpare.

So... what can we conclude?
Some simple math (I just suck at it for the most part, but this should be simple enough, I think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif )...
From 0m to 3,000m 109K roughly has 2m/s advantage in climb over Spitfire.

And so when 109K climbs for a 120sec it makes:
120s*25m/s=3,000m

While for the same time IXc makes:
120s*23m/s=2,760m

Conclusion: I'm sorry but no can do on these alts.
109K needs to have at least 1,000m and more advantage over Spitfire to begin bnz, and it is clear like a day that it cannot make such separation.

I choose 0-3,000m altitude because the difference is roughly 2m/s all the way so it kinda looked most suitable and TBH it is always most interesting to see lower altitudes performance because many (I dare to say majority) of classic online dogfights involves these alts.

Now... the funky part for the Spit is the 3,000m-6,000m because its performance drops heavily on those alts while 109K relatively holds it's own.
So if I measure RoC every 500m (very crude math and estimates, I haven't bothered much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , but I've warned you) it looks like:
Spit LF IXc
m/s alt
23 3,000
22 3,500
20 4,000
19 4,500
19 5,000
19,5 5,500
20 6,000
-----------
it equals 20,36m/s average value for 3,000-6,000m alt

Bf-109K4
m/s alt
25 3,000
25 3,500
25 4,000
25 4,500
25 5,000
23 5,500
22 6,000
-----------
it equals 24,28m/s average value for 3,000-6,000m alt

That leads us to the following:

109K climbs with average value of 24,28m/s thru this 3-6k altitudes (most unfavorable for Spitfire) and it needs 124 sec to do that, to climb from 3k to 6k, 3,000m total.

Spitfire LF Mk.IXc climbs with average value of 20,36m/s thru this 3-6k altitudes (most favorable for 109 Vs Spitfire) and it needs 147 sec to do that, to climb from 3k to 6k, 3,000m total.

Difference being 147 sec - 124 sec = 23 sec
Spitfire will get 23 sec later to 6,000m mark.

Or a total conclusion of the story, by the time 109K reaches 6,000m, Spitfire will be at 5,525m mark.
--------------------------------------------
Now combined 0-6,000m
0-3,000m Spitfire lacks 3,000-2,760=240m
3,000-6,000m Spitfire lacks 6,000-5,525=475m
--------------------------------------------
overall lacks 715m

Conclusion overall 0-6k=no can do, it's still not valid tactic.
--------------------------------------------

Grand conclusion of the whole story.
We may note that from the point of 6,000m altitude and over, 109K gains nothing or in the beginning gains so little that we can easily disregard that... and all that leads us to conclude that climbing away from Spitfire in some sort of valid combat maneuver, is a cr@ppy move.

Now... we may discuss it's appliance as a evasive escape move, and in some scenarios it's certainly valid... but consider this - by the time 109K reaches max difference of 715m at 6,000m it will overheat so badly that it wont take much longer before axis player will be forced to lower the throttle and cut the MW50 input.
In the moment when that happens Spitfire (which BTW doesn't have such severe problems with overheat) will start to gain very fast on 109 and the contest/combat is pretty much over at that point.

Interesting.

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

so the Spitfire Mk21 in 1945 is losing its great handling qualities. Same results, too much weight for the airframe negatively affects the planes handling.

I was just reading a Spitfire pilot quote about the MkII being the best out of all the Spitfires. He thought it was the sweetspot of power/weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PLease be aware that the passage I wrote was a mixture of information from 3 books that I read, Len Deightons - Fighter, Adolf Galland -The First and the Last and Jonni Jonsons - The story of Air fighting.

I am not saying its gospel, just the story of the Bf109 told from those 3 books. It seems to fit with other stuff that I have read.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
It is clear that K4 is a mean machine regarding climb, but so is Spit especially uberboosted 25 version.
Uberboosted?

Is that 'code speak' for.. 'it exceeds it's real life ROC by ~10% at some altitudes'?

If so..

Than what is the 'code speak' for the 109K-4 that exceeds it's real life ROC values by ~30% at some altitudes'?

faustnik
06-08-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
just the story of the Bf109 told from those 3 books.

Oh, I think you are right on about the 109! The F4 or the G2 were the best from what I gather.

JG14_Josf
06-08-2007, 11:09 AM
When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

X3,

Can you link a source for your claim above?

It sounds like your source claims that the German engine was inferior to the British engine - in power output.

Also - the claim concerning the effect of weight on ˜handling':

Weight increases density which in turn decreases acceleration by air mass; therefore – increased density increases ˜handling' in the vertical where air mass cannot slow down dive acceleration as much (as it did without the increased density) and increased density decreases ˜handling' in the vertical where air mass cannot slow down zoom climb deceleration as much (as it did without the increased density).

History records how the less dense (less powerful and larger size and shape) Spitfires could not compete in dive acceleration and zoom climb deceleration (vertical ˜handling') against the German planes. This is a known historical fact. This is a known historical fact that is not simulated in the game.

As to your claim concerning the 109F-4, in the game, being able to fight in the vertical against the Spitfire VB – in the game:

The same challenge offered by the initial poster can be applied to your claim.

If you enter a fight with an altitude and/or speed advantage with any plane against any other plane, then, you have an energy advantage at the start of that fight – any plane against any other plane.

If you leave the fight before the energy advantage is gone, with any plane against any other plane, then, your advantage can be maintained if your plane can accelerate faster than the other plane at the speed at which you break off the fight.

If the other plane has an acceleration advantage at the speed at which you break off the fight, then, that plane can close onto your plane.

Example:

Plane A enters fight against plane B.

Plane A enters fight faster and higher.
When Plane A and Plane B are at the same speed and altitude, then, plane A leaves the fight.


Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.

That above is a Spitfire IX (25lb) versus a 109G-6 Early with underwing cannons (and a bad paint job).

Plane A is the 109G-6 Late and it can leave the Spitfire in a comparative dive without any difficulty.

Plane A can also zoom climb from a dive into a climb with identical performance during the zoom portion of the climb.

Plane A cannot sustain a climb rate comparable to Plane B.

"Handling" the vertical portions of flight favor the dense plane (more weight per volume) and that is proven to be true.

Spitfires were light.

Example:


He reported to Group Captain Mumler at Northolt in December, 1942. Northolt held six Polish squadrons of Spitfires; it boasted a macadam runway and permanent buildings. Capt. Gabreski was assigned to 315 Sqn., which was receiving the new Spitfire Mark IXs. These bore standard RAF camouflage and roundels, plus red-and-white Polish checkerboard insignia. They outperformed the P-40s that he was used to. They weighed less, had more horsepower, flew faster, and maneuvered better. Their two-speed superchargers and radio-equipped oxygen masks enabled the Mk IXs to operate at altitudes up to 30,000 feet (compared to 20,000 feet for the P-40s). They were better than the P-40s in every respect except diving; they were just too light.

To those who question the above source:

Density is a fact of aerodynamics in all but the gaming industry. In modern times the factor of density is less significant due to, among many factors, engine power exceeding weight. Certainly the WWII fighter pilots knew how density affected ˜handling'.

I will site one more example; many exist.

Example 2:


But I was so furious that scarcely anything could have prevented me from diving after him, especially since I knew that my machine was heavier than his and that I could certainly overtake him.

What really gets me (laughing) is the people who argue with quotes like the above from their position of superior knowledge.

I read the quote above from the source of the quote above and I take that quote to mean something; rather than the above quote to not mean something.

In a game a low density plane with large wings, poor aerodynamic design, and low thrust, comparatively speaking, can be modeled with superior vertical dive acceleration and superior zoom climb deceleration (can accelerated faster going down and decelerate slower going up) despite it's obvious inability to do so in history.

Fabricating stories about how the game models these ˜handling' qualities can further the myths created by these modeling inaccuracies.

Having a track file proving these fabrications can end them in either case.

The British WWII side by side flight tests, such as they were, documented simple concepts like the finding out of which plane can accelerate faster in a dive and which plane can accelerate into a climb from a dive faster.

That can be proven in the game too.

Of course; the plane with the higher top speed can accelerated faster above the top speed of the slower plane. At least that much makes perfect sense.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:11 AM
Poor Nancy

luftluuver
06-08-2007, 11:14 AM
Faust, remember the early models of the 109 used DB600 and Jumo 210 engines. These engine put around 600hp. The Merlin was putting out around 1000hp at the time. It was not til the DB601 that the 109 had comparable hp to the Merlin.

DKoor
06-08-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
It is clear that K4 is a mean machine regarding climb, but so is Spit especially uberboosted 25 version.
Uberboosted?

Is that 'code speak' for.. 'it exceeds it's real life ROC by ~10% at some altitudes'?

If so..

Than what is the 'code speak' for the 109K-4 that exceeds it's real life ROC values by ~30% at some altitudes'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah... I referred to the great power of that Spitfire in game, not about overmodel/undermodel thing.

Here I'm not interested in that part of the story... I was focused to find answer of the posters question.

TBH I was "caught" by some part of that story... as I thought that Kurfurst can "effectively" outclimb a Spitfire non 25lbs. Effectively in terms that it can eventually start to exploit that as a valid offensive combat maneuver.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Nah... I referred to the power of that Spitfire, not about overmodel/undermodel thing.

Here I'm not interested in that part of the story... I was focused to find answer of the posters question.
But it's power is less than it should be.. Yet you refer to it as uber?

So if the 'uber' statement is NOT relative to a real spit..

What is it relative too?

Certainly not the in-game 109K-4?

On that note..

Still interested in the 'code speak' term you would use to classify the 109K-4?

In that if you consider the in-game Spit power to be 'uberpower'..

Than..

What do you consider and call the 109K-4 power?

Just curious..

Consider this a case of me trying to calibrate your statements!

In that I don't think I have seen you refer to the 109K-4 in any manor as to imply that it is 'uber' in any aspect relative to anything real or game.

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 11:25 AM
Josf :-


I dont have time to read your whole post now, but I will write ou the passage where I got the information from for you :-



'Just as Hawkers Sydney Camm had taken his Fury biplane fighter as the basis for the Hurricane, So WIlly Messerschmitt used his previous design as a basis for his fighter.

But Messerschmitt had no engine that could compare with the Rolls ROyce Merlin. German engine designers concentrated on the reliability that civil airliners needed. All such engines were heavy. He chose the Jumo 210D to go into production models of the fighters but it proved difficult to modify. While the Merlin was being pushed from 720hp to 990hp (in 1936) the Jumo even in 1938 was still delivering a miserable 670hp.

Knowing hte Limitations of German engines, Messerchmitt designed the smallest, lightest, and most aerodynamically effiecientai airframe thatwould fit around the Jumo engine. He used the lessons of the Bf108 to evolve a very sophisticated all metal semi-monocoque airframe. To offset the high wing loading he employed Handley Page leading edge slats for extra lift as well as slotted ailerons interconnected to the flaps.'


From 'Fighter - The True Story of the Battle of Britain' - Len Deighton

They actually used a ROlls ROyce Kestral Engine for the Prototype, if I remember rightly.

Of course when they did finally get an engine which had power near the Merlin, the small size and weight of the Bf109 made it an incredible performer.

faustnik
06-08-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Faust, remember the early models of the 109 used DB600 and Jumo 210 engines. These engine put around 600hp. The Merlin was putting out around 1000hp at the time. It was not til the DB601 that the 109 had comparable hp to the Merlin.

Makes sense, but, weight creep was a factor for most planes, Spit & 109 both included. Don't you think?

Anyway, I was just reading Spit pilot opinions and thought it was interesting that the MkII was a favorite.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont have time to read your whole post now Who does or who would for that matter?

DKoor
06-08-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Nah... I referred to the power of that Spitfire, not about overmodel/undermodel thing.

Here I'm not interested in that part of the story... I was focused to find answer of the posters question.
But it's power is less than it should be.. Yet you refer to it as uber?

So if the 'uber' statement is NOT relative to a real spit..

What is it relative too?

Certainly not the in-game 109K-4?

On that note..

Still interested in the 'code speak' term you would use to classify the 109K-4?

In that if you consider the in-game Spit power to be 'uberpower'..

Than..

What do you consider and call the 109K-4 power?

Just curious..

Consider this a case of me trying to calibrate your statements!

In that I don't think I have seen you refer to the 109K-4 in any manor as to imply that it is 'uber' in any aspect relative to anything real or game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>TAGERT I have a honest question for you:

What does the uber word means on English language?

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont have time to read your whole post now Who does or who would for that matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shhhhh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I was trying to be nice....

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
TAGERT I have a honest question for you:

What does the uber word means on English language? This sight sums it up nicely

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uber

But for me personally I have seen it used to mean imply something is doing something it should not be able to do. As in it exceeds what it should be able to do.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:33 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 AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont have time to read your whole post now Who does or who would for that matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shhhhh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I was trying to be nice.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Brain32
06-08-2007, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Nah... I referred to the power of that Spitfire, not about overmodel/undermodel thing.

Here I'm not interested in that part of the story... I was focused to find answer of the posters question.
But it's power is less than it should be.. Yet you refer to it as uber?

So if the 'uber' statement is NOT relative to a real spit..

What is it relative too?

Certainly not the in-game 109K-4?

On that note..

Still interested in the 'code speak' term you would use to classify the 109K-4?

In that if you consider the in-game Spit power to be 'uberpower'..

Than..

What do you consider and call the 109K-4 power?

Just curious..

Consider this a case of me trying to calibrate your statements!

In that I don't think I have seen you refer to the 109K-4 in any manor as to imply that it is 'uber' in any aspect relative to anything real or game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well since you are so curious I'll tell you that I used to call 109K4 a "Climbing coffin'". Because the 109K4 in this game is among the biggest pieces of cr@p with, as we found out recently, overmodelled RoC. I doubt that will be corrected as that would mean an even greater disadvantage on the Eastern front against the RedStar-ed allied wonders that are overmodelled in more than just climb rate since the very begining of this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:36 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 AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Nah... I referred to the power of that Spitfire, not about overmodel/undermodel thing.

Here I'm not interested in that part of the story... I was focused to find answer of the posters question.
But it's power is less than it should be.. Yet you refer to it as uber?

So if the 'uber' statement is NOT relative to a real spit..

What is it relative too?

Certainly not the in-game 109K-4?

On that note..

Still interested in the 'code speak' term you would use to classify the 109K-4?

In that if you consider the in-game Spit power to be 'uberpower'..

Than..

What do you consider and call the 109K-4 power?

Just curious..

Consider this a case of me trying to calibrate your statements!

In that I don't think I have seen you refer to the 109K-4 in any manor as to imply that it is 'uber' in any aspect relative to anything real or game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well since you are so curious I'll tell you that I used to call 109K4 a "Climbing coffin'". Because the 109K4 in this game is among the biggest pieces of cr@p with, as we found out recently, overmodelled RoC. I doubt that will be corrected as that would mean an even greater disadvantage on the Eastern front against the RedStar-ed allied wonders that are overmodelled in more than just climb rate since the very begining of this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sorry, you seem to have confused 'DKoor' with 'Brain32'

Brain32
06-08-2007, 11:40 AM
Anybody that flew K4 in v4.08 will answer like that, make no mistake about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:41 AM
Disagree 100%

Either way.. I'm just glad that you realize I was not asking you, but asking DKoor.. I know it must be hard, what with you following me around and all just looking for a chance to chime in..

But

Don't think your fooling anyone by making unsupported statements about RedStar-ed allied wonders! That may be how you 'FEEL' after getting shot down by one.. but that does not make it true! Now if you have some tests to support your 'FEELINGS' by all means start your own thread and show us! Otherwise keep your but hurt 'FEELINGS' to yourself.

Thanks!

Kurfurst__
06-08-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Anyway, I was just reading Spit pilot opinions and thought it was interesting that the MkII was a favorite.

IRRC J Johnson considered the Mk V the best from the handling and manouveribilty point of view. It shouldn't come as a surprise, since the Mk V was basically a Mk I albeit with a much more powerful engine, and not that much of a weight inrease either, altough it took plenty of drag when those cannons were stick in the wing..

Johnson considered the IX the best overall, not as nice as handling as the light Mk V, but a great compromise between power and manouveribility. The XIV and later ones he considered powerful, but the weight increase was such it was 'not a Spitfire anymore'.

mbfRoy
06-08-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Well I certainly wouldn't bet that it can, if you ask me (thread title)!
It is clear that K4 is a mean machine regarding climb, but so is Spit especially uberboosted 25 version.

Here;
http://i17.tinypic.com/54l2wra.gif
...an interesting chart with Spit c which is second best regarding climb in game, above is only 25.
Just to be noted Spit Mk.VIII (full wing) has identical climb as this Spit in chart, says IL-2 C0mpare.

So... what can we conclude?
Some simple math (I just suck at it for the most part, but this should be simple enough, I think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif )...
From 0m to 3,000m 109K roughly has 2m/s advantage in climb over Spitfire.

And so when 109K climbs for a 120sec it makes:
120s*25m/s=3,000m

While for the same time IXc makes:
120s*23m/s=2,760m

Conclusion: I'm sorry but no can do on these alts.
109K needs to have at least 1,000m and more advantage over Spitfire to begin bnz, and it is clear like a day that it cannot make such separation.

I choose 0-3,000m altitude because the difference is roughly 2m/s all the way so it kinda looked most suitable and TBH it is always most interesting to see lower altitudes performance because many (I dare to say majority) of classic online dogfights involves these alts.

Now... the funky part for the Spit is the 3,000m-6,000m because its performance drops heavily on those alts while 109K relatively holds it's own.
So if I measure RoC every 500m (very crude math and estimates, I haven't bothered much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , but I've warned you) it looks like:
Spit LF IXc
m/s alt
23 3,000
22 3,500
20 4,000
19 4,500
19 5,000
19,5 5,500
20 6,000
-----------
it equals 20,36m/s average value for 3,000-6,000m alt

Bf-109K4
m/s alt
25 3,000
25 3,500
25 4,000
25 4,500
25 5,000
23 5,500
22 6,000
-----------
it equals 24,28m/s average value for 3,000-6,000m alt

That leads us to the following:

109K climbs with average value of 24,28m/s thru this 3-6k altitudes (most unfavorable for Spitfire) and it needs 124 sec to do that, to climb from 3k to 6k, 3,000m total.

Spitfire LF Mk.IXc climbs with average value of 20,36m/s thru this 3-6k altitudes (most favorable for 109 Vs Spitfire) and it needs 147 sec to do that, to climb from 3k to 6k, 3,000m total.

Difference being 147 sec - 124 sec = 23 sec
Spitfire will get 23 sec later to 6,000m mark.

Or a total conclusion of the story, by the time 109K reaches 6,000m, Spitfire will be at 5,525m mark.
--------------------------------------------
Now combined 0-6,000m
0-3,000m Spitfire lacks 3,000-2,760=240m
3,000-6,000m Spitfire lacks 6,000-5,525=475m
--------------------------------------------
overall lacks 715m

Conclusion overall 0-6k=no can do, it's still not valid tactic.
--------------------------------------------

Grand conclusion of the whole story.
We may note that from the point of 6,000m altitude and over, 109K gains nothing or in the beginning gains so little that we can easily disregard that... and all that leads us to conclude that climbing away from Spitfire in some sort of valid combat maneuver, is a cr@ppy move.

Now... we may discuss it's appliance as a evasive escape move, and in some scenarios it's certainly valid... but consider this - by the time 109K reaches max difference of 715m at 6,000m it will overheat so badly that it wont take much longer before axis player will be forced to lower the throttle and cut the MW50 input.
In the moment when that happens Spitfire (which BTW doesn't have such severe problems with overheat) will start to gain very fast on 109 and the contest/combat is pretty much over at that point.

Interesting.
Ok so I wanted to check the influence of the best climb speed to see how it accounts into true distance between both planes.

So, I noticed that the MAX ROC graph doesn't match with the best climb values in the left panel even when converted to m/s, OR, I'm missing something. Anyway...

In 120 secs, using the graphs as reference:
Altitude gain for the Spit @ 6.52m/s = 783.3m
Altitude gain for the Bf109-K @ 6.94m/s = 833.3m

Best climb speed (numbers in the left panel)
Spit best climb spd in m/s being 68.88m/s
Bf109 best climb spd in m/s being 73.88m/s

Distance travelled in 120 secs:

Spit IXc = 8817.7m, climb angle ~ 5º (?)
Bf109-K4 = 9456.6m, climb angle ~ 5º (?)

The angle difference is smaller than 0.1 degrees so I'll just simplify it and say that both are going through the same line, so:

Distance between both = 638.9m if I didn't mess anything.

Now, does MAX ROC take place when best climb speed is used? or is it a different speed?

Brain32
06-08-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%
Yes I've seen this disagreements a few times, I've heard something like "You guys need to learn how to fly it, there are people there who know how to do it". I've heard that almost one year ago, I still didn't see one of those pilots, I usually shoot down 109's online in two digit numbers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It's so easy it's ridiculous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Brain32
06-08-2007, 11:49 AM
That may be how you 'FEEL' after getting shot down by one.. but that does not make it true! Now if you have some tests to support your 'FEELINGS' by all means start your own thread and show us! Otherwise keep your but hurt 'FEELINGS' to yourself.

Tests were done by me and others, many, many times ago. But we can always choose not to see them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:49 AM
So what part of "Now if you have some tests to support your 'FEELINGS' by all means start your own thread and show us" did you not understand?

DKoor
06-08-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
TAGERT I have a honest question for you:

What does the uber word means on English language? This sight sums it up nicely

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uber

But for me personally I have seen it used to mean imply something is doing something it should not be able to do. As in it exceeds what it should be able to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I asked because of one reason: I referred to Spit 25 as uberboosted as the most powerful Spitfire in game... for me personally that term "uber" means "super".
So I used it simply to describe that it is, in fact the most powerful, super(boosted) Spitfire in game.

By saying that I don't say anything about modeling of Kurfurst or Spitfire, I can't say that because I don't have necessary real world data. I only referred to the game... as I said that is what interest me here, because 109 Vs Spitfire fight in game is very popular... the classic.
So any "new" (relatively speaking of course) facts of how they should properly fight each other is welcomed by me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So far my conclusion was, from IL-2 Compare chart and my post on page #1, that 109K cannot fight Spitfire by doing climb combat maneuver.
Of course I'm not ruling out two factors:
#1 - error in my calculations
#2 - IL-2 Compare error

But... by the time that is cleared, I'll take my crude conclusions as valid.

Brain32
06-08-2007, 11:52 AM
TAGERT, such editing really shows like of culture, but coming from you, I'm not suprised

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:53 AM
How is it I just knew you would not be able to support your claims?

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Thanks. I asked because of one reason: I referred to Spit 25 as uberboosted as the most powerful Spitfire in game... for me personally that term "uber" means "super".

So I used it simply to describe that it is, in fact the most powerful, super(boosted) Spitfire in game.
Ah, so the 'uber' statement is relitve to the other Spits?

So, any in-game plane that has more than one version represented..

The most powerful version you would allways refert to as 'uberpower'?

Ok, got it! Thanks!


Originally posted by DKoor:
By saying that I don't say anything about modeling of Kurfurst or Spitfire, I can't say that because I don't have necessary real world data. I only referred to the game... as I said that is what interest me here, because 109 Vs Spitfire fight in game is very popular... a classic.

Than you should be able to link me to a quote by you where you refer to the 109K-4C3 as the 'uberpowered'? Assuming that you allways refer to the most powerful in-game version as uber. Assuming there is consistancy in your statments and not some bias at play.. That is the calbration part I am looking for. I hope I am wrong and it is there somewhere and I just missed it!

faustnik
06-08-2007, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Johnson considered the IX the best overall, not as nice as handling as the light Mk V, but a great compromise between power and manouveribility. The XIV and later ones he considered powerful, but the weight increase was such it was 'not a Spitfire anymore'.

Makes sense to me.

The Soviets sure respected the G2, seeing it as a big increase in the 109 performance advantage. It wasn't easy for them to catch up in terms of technical performance, not until the Yak-3 and La5FN from the way I read things.

Brain32
06-08-2007, 11:54 AM
Geeez and people slam Josf all this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Johnson considered the IX the best overall, not as nice as handling as the light Mk V, but a great compromise between power and manouveribility. The XIV and later ones he considered powerful, but the weight increase was such it was 'not a Spitfire anymore'.

Makes sense to me.

The Soviets sure respected the G2, seeing it as a big increase in the 109 performance advantage. It wasn't easy for them to catch up in terms of technical performance, not until the Yak-3 and La5FN from the way I read things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were very few changes between the F and the G models, so I have read. So the early G models are very very simlar to the late F models. It makes sense that the F4 and G2 are very close in performance and handling.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Geeez and people slam Josf all this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't see any link to any tests?

tigertalon
06-08-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Sorry for yet another spit vs 109 thread, but I moved this from help flying 09G/K into a new thread per Ivans request. Firstly note: I was not comparing the 25lbs but rather any other late mark spit with a K4 in my statements. Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.
Ok

Just so you know, 90% of what I discuss is how well the game performance matches the real world test data performance.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, initially a new guy came in, asking for tips on how to deal with spitfire when flying K4 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the IL2 1946 simulator</span>. I stated my opinion about situation <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the IL2 1946 simulator</span>. You then stated I am wrong, and you and only you brought up this RL - IL2 '46 comparison which has absolutely nothing to do with the following issue: How to deal with a spitfire when flying a Bf109K4 in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the IL2 1946 simulator</span>, ver. 408. Now whenever I am accused of being wrong, I want the accuser to justify his accusation, so I am kindly asking you: Which my sentence was wrong and why?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thus proving you're your statement wrong! With regards to the in-game planes!

Exactly which one of my sentences do you think was(were) wrong? This one below?

109K is <span class="ev_code_yellow">not able to outclimb</span> spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere.

Like Brain suggested the term effectively has to defined in order to be able to discuss upper sentence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, ok, wait one as I go fetch my 'hair splitting' tools. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found it yet?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
By effectively I ment that 109 (with no initial altitude advantage) <span class="ev_code_yellow">is able to climb</span> above spitfireIX and get firing solution on spit without alowing spit pilot to get one.
Is that a type-o or are you now saying the oposite of what you were saying? (see <span class="ev_code_yellow">yellow</span> quotes above)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sentence was used only for the purpose of defining the term effectively. Let me rephrase it a bit in order to become more understandable:

If a plane A (with no initial altitude advantage) is able to climb above plane B and get firing solution on plane B without alowing plane B to get one in return, we can entitle plane A of being able to effectively outclimb plane B.

My claim still stands: in IL2 1946 v4.08 109K4 is unable to effectively outclimb SpitfireMkIX.



Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I still believe that's not possible until proven otherwise.
Which is not posable? In that in one case your sayin the 109 "<span class="ev_code_yellow">not able to outclimb</span>" and in the next breath your saying the 109 <span class="ev_code_yellow">is able to climb</span>? Pick one and Ill give you my answer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Can anyone show me a track, where a 109K4 pilot with no initial alt advantage in a sterile enviroment did effectively outclimb and attack a skilled (human) spitfire pilot (who did not make any big mistakes) and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Thank you.
Problem with such a test is that it says more about the relitive 'pilot performance' than the 'planes performance'. Thus proving nothing about the plane performance. You could do such a test ten time and get ten different results depending in that each time the pilot(s) are going to do something a little different.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's exactly why I claim 109K4 cannot effectively outclimb the spit! If it could, pilot factor wouldn't be that important. It's good to even further minimize pilots skill by switching them and repeat the scenario many times. Take two skilled 1946 sim pilots, sat one in a G2 and other in a P40C. In 9 out of 10 cases G2 will outclimb P40C effectively regardless of which pilot flies it.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT: Hence ROC testing! ROC charts speak for themselfs, the in-game 109K-4 has a better ROC than the Spit 25lb at allmost all altitudes. Where as in RL that was not the case.. I know I know you do not care about the 109K-4 BUGS and how UBER it is relitive to a real 109K but some do care.


Again, I was speaking about IL2 sim, not RL. Hell I care about nuclear physics, but do I discuss it here?? No, it has NOTHING to do with this thread, like RL performance has nothing to do with an answer to question "How to deal with a spitIX in a K4 in a IL2 v4.08".

Personally I care a LOT about IL2 being historically correct, you probably haven't overlooked my whining for API in a .50 cals! Why? Not because .50cals would be weak in IL2PF (they are very strong, for me at least), but because .50 cal weapon in IL2 1946 v4.08 is wrong compared to what this weapon seems to resemble in RL.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Interesting matchup is 109F4 vs SpitVb, where F4 actually can effectively outclimb the opponent at low altitudes, barely so but it can. This simply doesn't work with K4 vs IX because both planes will reach 7km alt before K4 will gain sufficient separation, and from that point on Spitfire will start to gain on the opponent.
Hair splitting time.. define sufficient </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll rather rephrase my upper sentence(s):
Interesting matchup is 109F4 vs SpitVb, where F4 actually can effectively outclimb the opponent at low altitudes, barely so but it can.
However, K4 cannot effectively outclimb spitfireMkIX.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
(And please, spare me lessons in style: "if you are co alt you did not plan it well" this thread is not about my way of fighting, it is about comparing sustained climb performance)


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:Hence the need for ROC testing.. It removes the lesson styles and focus on the plane itself. The pilot takes that information and his 'skill level' to do what he can with it. Long story short, a better pilot can best another pilot in a better plane. No big suprise there!

Agreed 100%. If you define "better plane".

luftluuver
06-08-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

IRRC J Johnson considered the Mk V the best from the handling and manouveribilty point of view. It shouldn't come as a surprise, since the Mk V was basically a Mk I albeit with a much more powerful engine, and not that much of a weight inrease either, altough it took plenty of drag when those cannons were stick in the wing.. Yes the Mk V with cannons was draggier by a whopping -1mph.

SpitVa - 375mph @ 20,800' (8 mgs)

SpitVc - 374mph @ 19,000' (4 cannons + 4 mgs)

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
109K is not able to outclimb spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere.
You are wrong about the in-game 109K-4 not being able to outclimb the SpitfireIX! To what degree the 'effectiveness' of it is debatable, but it does not change the FACT that the in game 109K-4 can outclimb it at most altitudes.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
and you and only you brought up this RL - IL2 '46 comparison which has absolutely nothing to do with the following issue:
Not true, I brought up 'BOTH' real and in-game comparisons


Originally posted by tigertalon:
How to deal with a spitfire when flying a Bf109K4 in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the IL2 1946 simulator</span>, ver. 408.
Also not true, look at my fist post in that thread for the proof.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Now whenever I am accused of being wrong, I want the accuser to justify his accusation, so I am kindly asking you: Which my sentence was wrong and why?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thus proving you're your statement wrong! With regards to the in-game planes!

Exactly which one of my sentences do you think was(were) wrong? This one below?

109K is <span class="ev_code_yellow">not able to outclimb</span> spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
See above. Not mater what the margin is in 'effectiveness' it does not change the FACT that the in-game 109K-4 outclimbs the Spit at most altitudes.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Found it yet?
I lost mine so I had to borrowed yours for a few.. Hope you don't mind? Oh and I took your stapler too!


Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
By effectively I ment that 109 (with no initial altitude advantage) <span class="ev_code_yellow">is able to climb</span> above spitfireIX and get firing solution on spit without alowing spit pilot to get one.
Is that a type-o or are you now saying the oposite of what you were saying? (see <span class="ev_code_yellow">yellow</span> quotes above)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sentence was used only for the purpose of defining the term effectively. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you had to do a 180? to define something?


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Let me rephrase it a bit in order to become more understandable:

If a plane A (with no initial altitude advantage) is able to climb above plane B and get firing solution on plane B without alowing plane B to get one in return, we can entitle plane A of being able to effectively outclimb plane B. What?

You said Plane A 'climb above plane B'?

So plane A has guns out the rear of the plane?

Or..

Were you planing on your plane having an ROC that was so much better than plane B that you could pull away in a climb..

TURN AROUND

And point his guns at plane B while he was climbing up to plane A?

Well.. that scenario does shed some light on your definition of 'effectively'

[quote]Originally posted by tigertalon:
My claim still stands: in IL2 1946 v4.08 109K4 is unable to effectively outclimb SpitfireMkIX.
True..

Starting from the same altitude and E state..

The 109K-4 ROC advantage over the SpitIX's ROC is NOT large enough to allow the 109K-4 to climb above the SpitIX, turn around, and face it's guns back at the SpitIX below to shoot him.. But it is close!

Let's just stop here.. In that to go any further would just be too cruel IMHO.

DKoor
06-08-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by mbfRoy:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you miss the best climb speed? as it would be important for the Bf109 to put some more space in between. Absolutely, I missed it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif ! 109 will put more space for sure, it will increase the distance just... as I'm not really good with math, how much of that space can be translated into potential energy or eg. altitude?
I'll say it more clear because it is possible that I may formulated it wrong: 109 will increase horizontal distance but... will it be able to translate that horizontal distance into vertical distance, to exploit the speed more?

Why is all that important for me and in the end for the tigertalons question?

Because he (and me too) want to determine whether 109K can outclimb a Spitfire after certain amount of time in that manner that it can start to attack a Spitfire that has followed a 109 in climb.


You have said here;

So in short, the bf is 639m further than when both started climbing. IMO it's good enough to run away if you can stay alive for 2 minutes. ...what does that means?

In the end I mean... what is the answer to the tigertalons question?

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 12:06 PM
I believe that the Spitfire Va was 1mph faster than the Spitfire Vc with the 'draggy' cannons.

Guns alone really dont add too much drag at the 300-350mph speed range as far as I know. Maybe someone can set me straight if I am wrong?

JG14_Josf
06-08-2007, 12:14 PM
but I will write ou the passage where I got the information from for you

Thanks that does clarify the claim well.

The WWII 109 engine was made by Daimler.

The German fighter aircraft were made as small as possible for more than one reason.

One is volume or displacement or whatever actual word describes how the smallest possible size will contact the least amount of air mass.

The idea, if this is the idea, that the German's only reason for making a small plane was to minimize the problems associated with competing against the Merlin Engine is an idea that is rather, ahhhhhh, narrow minded.

Of course I can be wrong. The fact is however that the two main German fighter planes were smaller than the Spitfire. The Russians made even smaller planes no?

How about a quick look at comparative power outputs for these planes?

--------------------Thrust (Power) continuouis---------Thrust (Power) maximum
Spitfire I -----------------blank---------------------------------blank
109E --------------------- etc.
Spitfire V
109F
190A-3

Such a comparison is half the power equation.

The other half is the Power Required half of the power equation.

Power Required is divided by weight just like the Power Available half of the equation.

Poor Nancy is sooooooo appropriate.

DKoor
06-08-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ah, so the 'uber' statement is relitve to the other Spits? Yes.


So, any in-game plane that has more than one version represented..

The most powerful version you would allways refert to as 'uberpower'? Sometimes but not always... as I originally didn't used the term uberpower but uberboost and I was 100% clear about it. Uberboost = superboost, boost that no other Spitfire in game has http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.


Ok, got it! Thanks! Rgr but slightly corrected.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
By saying that I don't say anything about modeling of Kurfurst or Spitfire, I can't say that because I don't have necessary real world data. I only referred to the game... as I said that is what interest me here, because 109 Vs Spitfire fight in game is very popular... a classic.

Than you should be able to link me to a quote by you where you refer to the 109K-4C3 as the 'uberpowered'? Assuming that you allways refer to the most powerful in-game version as uber. Assuming there is consistancy in your statments and not some bias at play.. That is the calbration part I am looking for. I hope I am wrong and it is there somewhere and I just missed it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why would I do that? That has nothing to do with all my posts here... C3 and all that stuff. I wouldn't go that far in size because if we start to discuss and hang onto every word explaining and discussing what I meant what you meant and not taking a very friendly explanation into consideration, when asked, what this or that is all about... we may end up writing meaningless posts which is what I'm doing right now.

Explaining already explained http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

MEGILE
06-08-2007, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

IRRC J Johnson considered the Mk V the best from the handling and manouveribilty point of view. It shouldn't come as a surprise, since the Mk V was basically a Mk I albeit with a much more powerful engine, and not that much of a weight inrease either, altough it took plenty of drag when those cannons were stick in the wing.. Yes the Mk V with cannons was draggier by a whopping -1mph.

SpitVa - 375mph @ 20,800' (8 mgs)

SpitVc - 374mph @ 19,000' (4 cannons + 4 mgs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Perhaps Kurfurst was mistaken. I would like to see his reply.

luftluuver
06-08-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The WWII 109 engine was made by Daimler. Nope, Jumos 210s, aka Junkers, powered some of the early models.

Later, Daimler-Benz, NOT Daimler, powered the 109.

luftluuver
06-08-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Interesting. Perhaps Kurfurst was mistaken. I would like to see his reply. He is almost always wrong when it comes to facts on the Spit. You forget he has a BIG hate on for the Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but I will write ou the passage where I got the information from for you

Thanks that does clarify the claim well.

The WWII 109 engine was made by Daimler.

The German fighter aircraft were made as small as possible for more than one reason.

One is volume or displacement or whatever actual word describes how the smallest possible size will contact the least amount of air mass.

The idea, if this is the idea, that the German's only reason for making a small plane was to minimize the problems associated with competing against the Merlin Engine is an idea that is rather, ahhhhhh, narrow minded.

Of course I can be wrong. The fact is however that the two main German fighter planes were smaller than the Spitfire. The Russians made even smaller planes no?

How about a quick look at comparative power outputs for these planes?

--------------------Thrust (Power) continuouis---------Thrust (Power) maximum
Spitfire I -----------------blank---------------------------------blank
109E --------------------- etc.
Spitfire V
109F
190A-3

Such a comparison is half the power equation.

The other half is the Power Required half of the power equation.

Power Required is divided by weight just like the Power Available half of the equation.

Poor Nancy is sooooooo appropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Remember that the piece is talking about the prototype Bf109's and not the later models. Willy didnt know that the DB was going to be such a good engine in 1936.

faustnik
06-08-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
There were very few changes between the F and the G models, so I have read. So the early G models are very very simlar to the late F models. It makes sense that the F4 and G2 are very close in performance and handling.

I think the BD605 gave the G2 a significant increase in performance. At least that's what the VVS thought.

???

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Than you should be able to link me to a quote by you where you refer to the 109K-4C3 as the 'uberpowered'? Assuming that you allways refer to the most powerful in-game version as uber. Assuming there is consistancy in your statments and not some bias at play.. That is the calbration part I am looking for. I hope I am wrong and it is there somewhere and I just missed it! Why would I do that? That has nothing to do with all my posts here... C3 and all that stuff. I wouldn't go that far in size because if we start to discuss and hang onto every word explaining and discussing what I meant what you meant and not taking a very friendly explanation into consideration, when asked, what this or that is all about... we may end up writing meaningless posts which is what I'm doing right now.

Explaining already explained http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah.. sorry to hear that I was right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
There were very few changes between the F and the G models, so I have read. So the early G models are very very simlar to the late F models. It makes sense that the F4 and G2 are very close in performance and handling.

I think the BD605 gave the G2 a significant increase in performance. At least that's what the VVS thought.

??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, sorry I mean in the general structure and weight of the aircraft.

I have read that the changes made between the F and the G model were the smallest of changes made between any other models.

It could be wrong of course, its out of a book. I am sure Kurfurst will explain if its wrong.

DKoor
06-08-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Than you should be able to link me to a quote by you where you refer to the 109K-4C3 as the 'uberpowered'? Assuming that you allways refer to the most powerful in-game version as uber. Assuming there is consistancy in your statments and not some bias at play.. That is the calbration part I am looking for. I hope I am wrong and it is there somewhere and I just missed it! Why would I do that? That has nothing to do with all my posts here... C3 and all that stuff. I wouldn't go that far in size because if we start to discuss and hang onto every word explaining and discussing what I meant what you meant and not taking a very friendly explanation into consideration, when asked, what this or that is all about... we may end up writing meaningless posts which is what I'm doing right now.

Explaining already explained http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah.. sorry to hear that I was right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, you are!
You're always right when we disagree, be sure!
When we're both right, you are more right than me!

Meaning: your right is really an uberright compared to my plain, non-boosted right.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Yes, you are!
You're always right when we disagree, be sure!
When we're both right, you are more right than me!
Big gold start for honestly.. A blue happy face for sarcasm!


Originally posted by DKoor:
Meaning: your right is really an "uberright" compared to my plain, non-boosted right.
Show me a link where you referred to a 109K-4 as uber anything and I will admit I was wrong about you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS other than the guns! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
06-08-2007, 12:35 PM
So where is the expectation of models of 109 to outclimb Spitfires based on?

Charts or stories?

And how does that fit into actual WWII aerial action?

IRL when fast planes are present it is suicide to slow down to best climb speed unless of
course you are all ready well above all the enemy. So what kind of idiot bases strategy
on best climb comparisons? How many fights IRL took place as two fighters starting co-E
in sight of each other? Why does fantasy shape the comparison, compare stupid DF matchup
to reality except leave out most of the real situation since story does the same!

So where is the expectation made from?

DKoor
06-08-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Yes, you are!
You're always right when we disagree, be sure!
When we're both right, you are more right than me!
Big gold start for honestly.. A blue happy face for sarcasm!


Originally posted by DKoor:
Meaning: your right is really an "uberright" compared to my plain, non-boosted right.
Show me a link where you referred to a 109K-4 as uber anything and I will admit I was wrong about you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS other than the guns! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
109K4 is overmodeled in climb.

But don't worry TAG you still... aren't "wrong about me" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Because sarcasm or not... you're right!

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
109K4 is overmodeled in climb.
As in uberclimb?

Come on!

You can say it!

u-b-e-r--c-l-i-m-b


Originally posted by DKoor:
But don't worry TAG you still... aren't "wrong about me" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Because sarcasm or not... you're right!
True.

tigertalon
06-08-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
My claim still stands: in IL2 1946 v4.08 109K4 is unable to effectively outclimb SpitfireMkIX.

True..

Starting from the same altitude and E state..

The 109K-4 ROC advantage over the SpitIX's ROC is NOT large enough to allow the 109K-4 to climb above the SpitIX, turn around, and face it's guns back at the SpitIX below to shoot him.. But it is close! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks!

http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Let's just stop here.. In that to go any further would just be too cruel IMHO.

No need to go further now, is it? Huh I need a beer after this one! Cheers!

mbfRoy
06-08-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you miss the best climb speed? as it would be important for the Bf109 to put some more space in between. Absolutely, I missed it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif ! 109 will put more space for sure, it will increase the distance just... as I'm not really good with math, how much of that space can be translated into potential energy or eg. altitude?
I'll say it more clear because it is possible that I may formulated it wrong: 109 will increase horizontal distance but... will it be able to translate that horizontal distance into vertical distance, to exploit the speed more?

Why is all that important for me and in the end for the tigertalons question?

Because he (and me too) want to determine whether 109K can outclimb a Spitfire after certain amount of time in that manner that it can start to attack a Spitfire that has followed a 109 in climb.


You have said here;

So in short, the bf is 639m further than when both started climbing. IMO it's good enough to run away if you can stay alive for 2 minutes. ...what does that means?

In the end I mean... what is the answer to the tigertalons question? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I have absolutely no idea. I guess it can put enough distance in between to run away safely? or maybe climb to 3000m, then stop climbing to get more speed (it accelerates faster I guess), and use that speed for some other thing.

I didn't go into calculating the distance (true distance between both planes) from 0 to 6000m because I came across a problem with the graphs and the numbers on the left panel not matching (or I'm missing something most definitely), but my guess is that if the numbers are correct, at 6000m height the 109 should be a few kms away from the Spit.

Not sure if that's what tigertalon was looking for though

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 12:41 PM
I do actually agree with M_Gunz that climbing in a steady climb is not a good tactic in a fight, even if you have a better climbing plane.

Diving is an excellent way to avoid if you have the faster diving plane as a diving plane is so much harder to hit.

One of my favourite tactics vs SPitfires in a Fw190 is diving away.

I know its not going to win you a dogfight, but if you are being attacked then you can live to fight another day.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:42 PM
Anyone can dream up one scenario of where a better ROC will not save you!

But..

For every scenario that he can dream up where a better ROC would not mater I can dream up one where it does mater.

Like I said, anyone can do it!

That is not the point!

No one said a climb is or is not the best 'tactic' in every senario!

I was talking about in-game and real 'performance' values.

And how 'relative performance' will dictate the 'tactics' you can and can not use.

It is that simple!

Yet guys like Max will focus on just one senario as if it is the only senario.

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 12:52 PM
I didnt mean to suggest ROC is not important, mate!

It EXTREMELY important, especially for the times you zoom climb into powered climb and if you dont stall first its the difference between life and death. ALso for extending and climbing, in fact every manouvre you do , the more power you have to climb, the more energy you can make up in a certain amount of time.

I was just saying that I didnt recommend a slow steady climb in a fight.

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:53 PM
Roger that!

I was just pointing out that presenting one senario where it does not work proves nothing!

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 12:56 PM
Time for lunch.. You all will have to carry on without me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
06-08-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Faust, remember the early models of the 109 used DB600 and Jumo 210 engines. These engine put around 600hp. The Merlin was putting out around 1000hp at the time. It was not til the DB601 that the 109 had comparable hp to the Merlin.

Makes sense, but, weight creep was a factor for most planes, Spit & 109 both included. Don't you think?

Anyway, I was just reading Spit pilot opinions and thought it was interesting that the MkII was a favorite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

some planes bear the extra weight better tho. Like wingloading.

Many opinions about pilots of their favourte mark, eg some liked the spitv the best, some spitVIII. Depends on what types the pilots got to fly, pilots who had ago on many types seem to favour the VIII the most as being most balanced etc.

DKoor
06-08-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
109K4 is overmodeled in climb.
As in uberclimb?

Come on!

You can say it!

u-b-e-r--c-l-i-m-b </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah! No prob...

<span class="ev_code_RED">u-b-e-r--c-l-i-m-b</span>

In red http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif
Just to make you happy and state just how much you are right.

Jasko76
06-08-2007, 02:39 PM
Guys, guys guys! You're all wrong! Who cares which fighter climbs better when ability to outturn your opponent is the most important feature. Just ask the Japanese!

M_Gunz
06-08-2007, 03:11 PM
I'm just wondering what this "I should be able to outclimb and drop down on the Spit in my
109." is based on that 109K vs Spit IXc LF is a suitable set?

Charts?
Stories?
Common Rumor... errr, Sense (yeah, that's it... sense). BTW Common Sense ain't either.

It's like the old threads where a plane should not be able to loop continuous and yet there's
records in old planes of over 100 loops in a row. Or that planes should not be able to turn
without losing alt or speed when most of these WWII planes could sustain over 2G continuous
turn and still have power left to climb. People get some idea in their heads and then they
set up a 'test' and they prove that IL2 doesn't conform to their idea. When others disagree
the 'test' just gets more convoluted. Or 'gravity is not understood, read these sites on
relativity...." or some other more artful dodge by people that don't understand how dead
their line of, errrr, thought was from the start.

IOW, most of these 'sided' (pick a color, it don't matter) beliefs are BS from the start.

So how about an account that gives complete blanket coverage, the 109K could from co-E
outclimb and dominate any Spit IX up to 18 lbs boost or something that warrants the sobbing
over climb rates based on reality not wannabe, should-be, must-be or mustabeen.

JG14_Josf
06-08-2007, 03:15 PM
Remember that the piece is talking about the prototype Bf109's and not the later models. Willy didnt know that the DB was going to be such a good engine in 1936.

X3,

The 'piece' does not offer anything more than opinion concerning what "Willy" knew or did not know about future engine performance. Suggesting that "Willy didnt know that the DB was going to be such a good engine in 1936" is lacking evidence to back up such a claim. For all the information that you provide to back up that claim there can easily be a counter claim (with just as much evidence backing it up) that "Willy" was severely disappointed in the DB when it was delivered for use in the 109.

Again; your claim suggests that the design of the 109 was driven by the ˜superior' Rolls Royce engine. That is an interesting perspective as if making an airplane small can only be the result of inferior engine output; as if making a plane small depended upon inferior engine power. A small plane displaces a small amount of air mass. A small plane will generate a small amount of drag force compared to the same exact shape plane twice its size regardless of the engine power output.

Example:

Plane A and B are the same exact shape and use the same exact engine.

Plane A and B are the same exact weight and therefore the same exact power to weight.

Plane A is twice the scale (size) of Plane B.

Which plane dives faster in an unloaded dive (vertical)?

Which plane will slow down faster in an unloaded zoom climb (vertical)?

Which plane will sustain a higher turn rate while maintaining altitude?

The answer should be obvious concerning the dive and zoom ˜handling'. The denser plane displaces much less air mass and therefore will generate much less drag force; therefore – the less dense plane will accelerate faster in the dive and decelerated slower in the zoom climb.

The ˜sustained' turn performance question is more complicated. The obvious change; however – is an increase in wing area and therefore a decrease in wingloading for the less dense plane. If the additional volume does not add more Power Required than Power Available (power of lift enters into this power equation since this flight condition includes lift whereas the unloaded flight condition does not include lift), then, the less dense plane will sustain a higher turn rate while maintaining altitude.

On the other hand; if the additional volume increases power required (parasite drag and induced drag or dynamic pressure and lift pressure) beyond what the power available can handle, then, the double sized model will not sustain a higher rate turn while maintaining altitude.

Making planes small decreases volume. Making planes large increases volume. In terms of displacement; the larger the plane the more air mass required to be displaced by the larger plane and that is true no matter how much thrust is available.

In short; small is uber. I think the Germans and Russians understood this fact of aerodynamics. I can back that claim up by pointing out that the German and Russian planes were small and uber (in reality).

A game is a game.

Xiolablu3
06-08-2007, 03:18 PM
Of COURSE WIlly Messerscmhitt didnt know how the Daimler Benz engine was going to turn out, could he see 5-8 years into the future? I think its quite safe to state what I did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine, in fact it wasnt, it was built for the inferior (at the time) German engines. Please show me where I said anything of the sort. I didnt.

If you have any other pieces offering better views into Messerschmitts reasons for what he did, then please print them.

I have no reason to doubt that Len Deighton has not done his reasearch well, unless you print something contradictory from another reliable historian.

The German engines were poor at the time the Messerscmitt was produced thats a fact. If you can show a German engine thats on par with the Rolls Royce in 1935-38 then please, do tell.

'Small is Uber' - Please tell that to Hawker who made the Typhoon, USA who made the P51 and the P47. Small is SOMETIMES uber. Big is SOMETIMES uber. Especially when you want a fuel tank witht he range to get into Germany to escort bombers. Ask Me 262 pilots if they feared the 'small' Spitfire or the 'Big' Tempest the most. Your argument 'Small is uber' is flawed. How uber was the small Lagg3?

John_Wayne_
06-08-2007, 03:26 PM
Bump for Kurfy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

tigertalon
06-08-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I'm just wondering what this "I should be able to outclimb and drop down on the Spit in my
109." is based on that 109K vs Spit IXc LF is a suitable set?

Charts?
Stories?
Common Rumor... errr, Sense (yeah, that's it... sense). BTW Common Sense ain't either.

It's like the old threads where a plane should not be able to loop continuous and yet there's
records in old planes of over 100 loops in a row. Or that planes should not be able to turn
without losing alt or speed when most of these WWII planes could sustain over 2G continuous
turn and still have power left to climb. People get some idea in their heads and then they
set up a 'test' and they prove that IL2 doesn't conform to their idea. When others disagree
the 'test' just gets more convoluted. Or 'gravity is not understood, read these sites on
relativity...." or some other more artful dodge by people that don't understand how dead
their line of, errrr, thought was from the start.

IOW, most of these 'sided' (pick a color, it don't matter) beliefs are BS from the start.

So how about an account that gives complete blanket coverage, the 109K could from co-E
outclimb and dominate any Spit IX up to 18 lbs boost or something that warrants the sobbing
over climb rates based on reality not wannabe, should-be, must-be or mustabeen.

I see your point M_Gunz. I did not start this topic because I would believe K4 should be able to "effectively" outclimb spitIX, but apparently it doesn't, nor I ever stated "I should be able to outclimb and drop down on the Spit in my
109".

I only started it because I said in some other thread that K4 cannot outclimb spitfire effectively without any implication it should (like I'd say you can't outturn a zero with a hellcat), tagert then said I am wrong, while Ivan asked all of us to take this matter out of that thread. I only wanted to find out what he ment by "wrong".

Again, I was not in any way shape or form critisizing the game/FM.

MEGILE
06-08-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Bump for Kurfy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Maybe if we make an overly pessimistic chart, insult fletner tabs, and take Willis name in vain.. maybe, just maybe... we will get his attention

JG14_Josf
06-08-2007, 03:43 PM
I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine, in fact it wasnt, it was built for the inferior (at the time) German engines. Please show me where I said anything of the sort. I didnt.

X3,

I would like to know what the above means.

What does the following mean?


When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.


This:

I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine

And this:

When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

This:

I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine

I don't know X3 speak well enough to confirm or deny what you mean when you say that you never suggested that ˜When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the Rolls Royce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.' or when you never suggest that "Messerschmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine'.

One appears to suggest that you did, in fact, suggest that Messerschmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine and the other states that you did not.

Now, of course, since you can interpret X3 speak, you can claim that all the confusion is my responsibility.

I stand corrected. You merely twist words around to mean anything you want when you want.

One minute Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the Rolls Royce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible and the next minute Messerschmitt wasn't driven by the Rolls Royce.

What I meant remains the same.

Messerschmitt made his plane a small as possible for more reasons than one and for as much data as you provide as proof - the claim that Messerschmitt did not know anything or everything concerning the future output of the Daimler engine – is merely a claim.

Either claim could be backed up or not backed up.

In WWII the 109 was sporting the Daimler engine.

faustnik
06-08-2007, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
In WWII the 109 was sporting the Daimler engine.

Which 109?

In WW2, Bf109s flew with with both DB and Jumo engines.

tigertalon
06-08-2007, 03:50 PM
109 was tested with Rolls Royce Kestrel engine (700hp more or less) and by that time Willy had no clue about new generation of top secret high powered (by that time almost unimaginable 1000hp) Merlin engine being under developement in Great Britain.

JG14_Josf
06-08-2007, 04:06 PM
Which 109?

Faustnik,

Why do you respond to my posts? You asked me to leave your forum, so, what gives?

The answer to your question is self-evident.

The 109s sporting the Daimler engine in WWII were, in fact, the 109s in WWII sporting the Daimler engine.

I think it is safe to also say: Almost all of them. Not safe here mind you.

Are these lessons to be remembered?

The suggest was that the Powerful Rolls Royce engine drove Willy into making his fighter plane as small as possible.

That was the suggestion. I found that suggestion to be so much false propaganda; par for the course. Of course you, moderator of all that is true and right for wasting time, do occasionally stoop to my level no?

What gives?

Do you really have an issue concerning which 109 in WWII sported the Daimler engine or are you just wasting more of my time?

faustnik
06-08-2007, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Faustnik,

Why do you respond to my posts?

I am discussing Bf109 engines, aren't you?

HellToupee
06-08-2007, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
109 was tested with Rolls Royce Kestrel engine (700hp more or less) and by that time Willy had no clue about new generation of top secret high powered (by that time almost unimaginable 1000hp) Merlin engine being under developement in Great Britain.


it wasnt about knowing what engine britian had, but the engine powers they knew had in their current engines that influenced the design. The



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

The 109s sporting the Daimler engine in WWII were, in fact, the 109s in WWII sporting the Daimler engine.


u do know not all 109s had the DB engine, like the prototypes(things u build when designing the plane)and the a/b/c/d variants.

luftluuver
06-08-2007, 05:13 PM
LOL, Joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nice to know this revisionist history that it was a British produced engine that powered ALL the Bf109s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The engines for the Bf109 were produced by the firm of Daimler-<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Benz</span>. Daimler was a BRITISH car maker. Daimler built armour scout cars for the British army.

"From the scout, the armoured car was developed. During the war, over 6,600 scouts and 2,700 armoured cars were built, while at the same time, Daimler were also producing aero engine parts, components for the Bren gun and double-decker buses for the Ministry of Supply.

I wouldn't worry to much about Josf's lack of English comprehension Xio. The rest of us know perfectly well and understand what you said. One can readily see why faust banned him from his board.

Oh and the 109 was designed to be powered by the BMW 116 engine. By the time the prototype was being constructed, the Jumo engine was preferred. When this was not availalble, through the assistance of Heinkel several RR Kestrel IIS engines were aquired.

edit: corrected spelling

JZG_Thiem
06-08-2007, 06:43 PM
in germany its actually not uncommon to refer to Daimer-Benz or Daimler-chrysler or whateveryouwant as simply...Daimler

luftluuver
06-08-2007, 06:52 PM
Fine but Josf is not in Germany but in the USA. Ppl on the other side of the pond usually say Benz.

Pollack2006
06-08-2007, 07:35 PM
BREAKING NEWS.....

In an unexpected turn of events, a thread at one of Ubisoft's most popular gaming forums was hijacked by a known group of over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s.

"I'm really suprised" one forum member commented, "...this is the last place i'd expect to see a group of over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s hijacking someone's thread".

Unconfirmed reports suggest this is not the first time that threads in the Forgotten Battles General Discussion forum have been hijacked by over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s.

We'll keep you updated....

MrMojok
06-08-2007, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Pollack2006:
BREAKING NEWS.....

In an unexpected turn of events, a thread at one of Ubisoft's most popular gaming forums was hijacked by a known group of over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s.

"I'm really suprised" one forum member commented, "...this is the last place i'd expect to see a group of over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s hijacking someone's thread".

Unconfirmed reports suggest this is not the first time that threads in the Forgotten Battles General Discussion forum have been hijacked by over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s.

We'll keep you updated....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-08-2007, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Pollack2006:
BREAKING NEWS.....

In an unexpected turn of events, a thread at one of Ubisoft's most popular gaming forums was hijacked by a known group of over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s.

"I'm really suprised" one forum member commented, "...this is the last place i'd expect to see a group of over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s hijacking someone's thread".

Unconfirmed reports suggest this is not the first time that threads in the Forgotten Battles General Discussion forum have been hijacked by over-opinionated, grandstanding and narcissistic ******s.

We'll keep you updated.... Hijacked?

But all of the posts thus far have had something to do with the title of the thread..

So how does that qualify as being hijac..

Oh.. wait

Except for one.. the BREAKING NEWS post!

Are you referring to the BREAKING NEWS post that has nothing to do with the title of the thread?

If so, than don't be so hard on yourself!

Your a short yellow bus rider for sure, but not full blow ******.

VW-IceFire
06-08-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
In WWII the 109 was sporting the Daimler engine.

Which 109?

In WW2, Bf109s flew with with both DB and Jumo engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And shortly thereafter the Spanish wipped up quite the mix with that lovely Rolls Royce engine used by some other fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
06-08-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Which 109?

Faustnik,

Why do you respond to my posts? You asked me to leave your forum, so, what gives?

The answer to your question is self-evident.

The 109s sporting the Daimler engine in WWII were, in fact, the 109s in WWII sporting the Daimler engine.

I think it is safe to also say: Almost all of them. Not safe here mind you.

Are these lessons to be remembered?

The suggest was that the Powerful Rolls Royce engine drove Willy into making his fighter plane as small as possible.

That was the suggestion. I found that suggestion to be so much false propaganda; par for the course. Of course you, moderator of all that is true and right for wasting time, do occasionally stoop to my level no?

What gives?

Do you really have an issue concerning which 109 in WWII sported the Daimler engine or are you just wasting more of my time? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I read all of the other posts about this and you seem to be really confused. Let me summarize as best as possible.

1) Willy Messerschmidt was faced with trying to make a high performance fighter without a high powered engine (the majority of engine development being for airliners which needed bigger and more reliable but less powerful engines). Thus he was driven to make a small and lightweight aircraft in order to get what he needed in terms of performance to theoretically match what the British were doing with more powerful engines (at the time!). Luckily for him and the Luftwaffe, DB came out with a much higher powered engine and the combination produced the classic fighter.

2) The 109 prototype was evidently tested with a RR Kestrel engine.

3) The production 109 used a combination of Jumo and DB engines during WWII. Preference to the DB engines as time went along.

Anything else?

At no point did Xiola or anyone else in this entire thread mention anything about the 109 not being driven by either the Diamler Benz or Jumo engines. It was also pointed out in a separate point that a Kestrel engine (produced by Rolls Royce) was apparently used in a early prototype.

Badsight-
06-08-2007, 10:36 PM
oh those kestrals , yeah they were like aweeeeeesome

Josf is right in assuming willy wasnt worried , at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
06-08-2007, 11:31 PM
From here, a bit taken from a larger text with full meaning of its own:


When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

To this:


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The suggest was that the Powerful Rolls Royce engine drove Willy into making his fighter plane as small as possible.

Just take out half or more of the reality behind the whole text, add 1/2 cents worth of
joke-sense, and you too can make your own straw men!

Kurfurst__
06-09-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
109 was tested with Rolls Royce Kestrel engine (700hp more or less) and by that time Willy had no clue about new generation of top secret high powered (by that time almost unimaginable 1000hp) Merlin engine being under developement in Great Britain.

I'd very much doubt. In the pre-war years, engine development was not a particular secret as fighters were meant for export and competing each other; German engineers even visited R-R's facilities and vica versa; the specs were known. The Spitfire and the 109 were competing for Swiss export for example, amongst others. It's little recognized that in the late 1930s, the 109 and Hurricane were probably the most successfull export fighter in all Europe.

Besides, the Merlin had it's share of early development troubles and was simply not fit for production and service for some time. There's much talk about the RR Kestrel engine in the first 109 when it made it's first flight in September 1935, and how much this represented the 'backward' nature of German engine development, as these comparison artificilly pit the early Jumo engines with the Merlins..

Well, let's see.

The Hurricane made it's first flight on November 1935 the same year and at about the same time as the 109, powered by the (eventually discontinued because of troubles) Merlin C, which otoh was in spite of the fact that the engine was simply not ready for production :

Bench tests of the Merlin 'B' revealed faults and a Merlin C failed it's firs civil 50-hour non-stop running trials in May 1935; the Merlin E also failed it's 100-hour test in March 1936. An emergency solution to the many problems was a decision to scale up the Kestrel head to fit the Merlin and to make the head and the cylinder block in one piece. Designs of the Merlin G with all modifications incorporated were issued in May 1936.
The First Merlin engine to enter full scale production was the F, an improved version of the E, and as the Merlin I the first examples were delivered in July 1936. Production ceased after 180 had been built, and all were used for the Fairey Battle single engined light bomber. The Merlin II, production version of the G, followed and the first engines were delivered in August 1937.

Source : Morgan-Schacklady : Spitfire, the History, page 17-18.

In reality the DB 601 and Merlin development went hand in hand : the DB 600 for which DB got contract to develop and build for six prototypes in 1933, and was developed from the F4 series (first run in 1931). The DB 601, with 1000 PS output was being around from 1934 with 2281 of it being built.

The DB 601 differed from having direct fuel injection (F4E), the first running in 1935. The RLM ordered the first 150 engines in February 1936, the first DB 601 running in a Ju 52 testbed in June 1936, series production of the DB 601 begun in November 1937, with apprx. 19 000 engines built in total.

The problems were such that the first fully equipped (16 aircraft) Hurricane Squadron become operational not until February 1938. So sorry, what we comparing, British engines in development running on a test bench that were simply not yet fit for service use to actual production engines running in fighters serving in operational Squadrons..? By the time the Merlin II for fighters even started to roll off the production line (August 1937), and the operational Spitfire and Hurricane being 9-12 months away from reality, most existing Jagdgeschwaders were already equipped with the Jumo powered variants of the Bf 109. The RAF had only biplane fighters.

In any case, the Spitfire entered operational service in August 1938. As a matter of fact it was in service only on paper. To quote dr. Alfred Price :

New Spitfires arrived at Duxford from the makers one at a time at irregular intervals. Not until 31 October was Cozens able to put up a formation of six aircraft for the first official air-to-air photographs of the new fighter in RAF service. And it was December 1938 before No 119 Squadron had it's full compliment of sixteen Spitfires.

dr. A.P : The Spitfire Story, page 71.

In contrast, the 109 was around for some time already; Messerschmitt delivered 791 Jumo powered 109B/C/D versions up to December 1938 (entering service February 1937), and no less than 168 of the new DB 601 powered Bf 109Es. It already fought in the Spanish civil war, it's teething troubles were ironed out and already set a new speed record 109V-13 with an 1650 horsepower DB 601 engine in November 1937; the prototype Bf 109E powered by a DB 601A made it's flight in spring of 1938, and entered production a that year.

MEGILE
06-09-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
altough it took plenty of drag when those cannons were stick in the wing..



Kurfurst, would the assesment that your comment is innacurate be an agreeable statement in your opinion?

Kurfurst__
06-09-2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
altough it took plenty of drag when those cannons were stick in the wing..



Kurfurst, would the assesment that your comment is innacurate be an agreeable statement in your opinion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Here's some free info for ya.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cannondrag.png

It looks like to me as a good 10 mph chop-chop at 360 mph in the most common config (C-wing, 2 cannons, stubs, small bulge over wing). More of course at faster speeds wit hfaster variants.

HellToupee
06-09-2007, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
it's teething troubles were ironed out and already set a new speed record 109V-13 with an 1650 horsepower DB 601 engine in November 1937.

didnt it not even break 400mph? hows that a record, supermarine seaplane had record of 407mph in 1931.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2007, 05:32 AM
Land based aircraft record IIRC.

HellToupee
06-09-2007, 05:49 AM
still hardly impressive considering seaplanes have huge floats. Italians had an even faster float plane.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2007, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
still hardly impressive considering seaplanes have huge floats. Italians had an even faster float plane.

Of course they had floats. Floatplanes were the only way to make a raceplane back then (well until the hughes, Heinkels and Messerschmitts came) for technical reasons. That's how they could put enourmous sized engines in them and provide the takeoff runs. That's why seaplanes were a different record category than landplanes.

The Supermarine craft was a purpose built racer, with 2350 HP engine, it did a bit over 400 mph, the Macchie had 3000 HP and did 440 mph.

109V-13 was a modified fighter, with 1650 HP and did about 379.38 mph in 1937. That's about 45 mph faster than the IXLF was capable of at similiar power. The 'proper' racer '109R' had 2700 PS and reached up to around 485 mph, and avaraging 468 mph.

http://www.messerschmitt109.com/suisse/met19373.JPG
V-13, the fastest landplane from 1937.

luftluuver
06-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
109V-13 was a modified fighter, with 1650 HP and did about 379.38 mph in 1937. That's about 45 mph faster than the IXLF was capable of at similiar power. The 'proper' racer '109R' had 2700 PS and reached up to around 485 mph, and avaraging 468 mph.

http://www.messerschmitt109.com/suisse/met19373.JPG
V-13, the fastest landplane from 1937. So nice of Kurfurst to continue with his manipulations and misrepresentations.

First off, the record was set at around 1500', not SL, so this gives a speed differnce of 35mph, NOT 45mph.

Second, the HP for the Merlin 66 was more like 1300hp near SL.

At FTH (10,800') were max HP would be created, the Spit did 384mph. So a fully combat ready fighter was faster than his Teutonic specially prepared pseudo fighter.

JG14_Josf
06-09-2007, 09:21 AM
When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

To whom it may concern:

"...so he..."

Previous to "...so he...." are words and after "...so he...." are words.

"...so he...." connects the previous to the after words.

"When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the Rolls ROyce he tested with..."

OHHHHHHH poor Willy is shaking in his boots eh?

"...so he...."

"designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines."

You can arrange the words in any manner you wish and I'll call that ˜twisting', ˜spinning', and ˜falsifying', so he, can cover up and divert focus from your error to me.

"....so he...."

The topic was about a challenge concerning accusations. When it becomes time to put up or shut up the trolls prefer to keep running at the mouth and put up the same old tired, ahhh, stuff.

I can help make any track file desired – if that is what you wish to do to back up your claims and accusations.

This thread will, instead, be about something else – like – poor Willy's fears about the POWERFUL Rolls Royce!!!!

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 09:24 AM
Looks like someone needs a hug?

JtD
06-09-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

Second, the HP for the Merlin 66 was more like 1300hp near SL.

No.


At FTH (10,800') were max HP would be created, the Spit did 384mph. So a fully combat ready fighter was faster than his Teutonic specially prepared pseudo fighter.

Hardly surprising, considering this was well above the critical alt of the DB special. Whatever engine/Spit variant you decided to use here.

Fact remains, this Messerschmitt set a speed record Supermarine tried to beat and failed.

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
altough it took plenty of drag when those cannons were stick in the wing..



Kurfurst, would the assesment that your comment is innacurate be an agreeable statement in your opinion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Here's some free info for ya.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cannondrag.png

It looks like to me as a good 10 mph chop-chop at 360 mph in the most common config (C-wing, 2 cannons, stubs, small bulge over wing). More of course at faster speeds wit hfaster variants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, what plane was this document for? And what date is it? I had always thought that it was much less than that.

Gotta wonder if it wasnt worth trying to bury the 4 cannon barrels into the wings of the FW190 if thats the case.

2xbarrels = 8mph, thats an extra 16mph for the FW190 4 gun version.

Whats the difference between
a) Two CAnnon
and
b)Two Cannon Stubs

Please?

Surely 2 holes in the wing wont make for 6.5mph difference. Maybe its including the extra weight as well? Look at the massive hole in the Me109 prop thats about twice as big as any cannon muzzle. If the small 20mm holes add 6.5mph drag, then that holes got to add over 12mph. (Not a tit for tat, just a comparison)

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 11:08 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">When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

To whom it may concern:

"...so he..."

Previous to "...so he...." are words and after "...so he...." are words.

"...so he...." connects the previous to the after words.

"When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the Rolls ROyce he tested with..."

OHHHHHHH poor Willy is shaking in his boots eh?

"...so he...."

"designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines."

You can arrange the words in any manner you wish and I'll call that ˜twisting', ˜spinning', and ˜falsifying', so he, can cover up and divert focus from your error to me.

"....so he...."

The topic was about a challenge concerning accusations. When it becomes time to put up or shut up the trolls prefer to keep running at the mouth and put up the same old tired, ahhh, stuff.

I can help make any track file desired – if that is what you wish to do to back up your claims and accusations.

This thread will, instead, be about something else – like – poor Willy's fears about the POWERFUL Rolls Royce!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, I dont see it Josf, sorry. I simply cut the earlier piece up into a short sentence rather than print it all out. Whatever you seem to 'see' that others dont, is your imagination.

Obviously Willy wanted the most powerful egine he could get, thats just common sense. He would want something as powerful as the Merlin.

I already said that the 109 turned into a fantastic fighter later with the more powerful engines, why would I be trying to hide/manipulate anything?

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 11:16 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">I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine, in fact it wasnt, it was built for the inferior (at the time) German engines. Please show me where I said anything of the sort. I didnt.

X3,

I would like to know what the above means.

What does the following mean?


When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.


This:

I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine

And this:

When designing his new fighter, Messerschmitt knew that he would not have an engine as powerful as the ROlls ROyce he tested with, so he designed the 109 to be as small and light as possible, to take full advantage of every bit of power he could get out of the lower powered German engines.

This:

I never suggested that the Messerscmitt was driven by the Rolls Royce engine

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Either you dont understand English that well, or you are seeing something that isnt there.

By 'DRIVEN', it could mean that it 'powered' it a few times. -> is this the mistake you are making?

By 'DRIVEN' I do NOT mean that the whole design was designed with the Rolls ROyce engine in mind - WHich is what your piece above seems to imply.

Maybe its a language barrier thing?


The Rolls ROyce 'powered' the Me109 a few times in its development phase. However the whole Me109 project was not 'driven' by the Rolls Royce engine. It was 'driven' by the less powerfull (at the time) German engines.

(I just KNOW I am going to regret this.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

HellToupee
06-09-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Fact remains, this Messerschmitt set a speed record Supermarine tried to beat and failed.

well the speed spitfire in 1938 was faster than the bf109 record attempt, doing about 408mph.

MEGILE
06-09-2007, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cannondrag.png



What document is this table from?

JG14_Josf
06-09-2007, 11:55 AM
I already said that the 109 turned into a fantastic fighter later with the more powerful engines, why would I be trying to hide/manipulate anything?

X3,

Why would you be trying to hide/manipulate anything?

The 109 was designed to be small; the smaller the better.

The Merlin engine is powerful.

"...so he..." is English for something.

If you didn't mean to connect the Merlin engine Power to the 109's small design, then, you didn't need to use "...so he..." in between the Merlin engine power comment and the 109 small design comment, or did you, mean to connect the two – on purpose – for some reason?

Why would you being trying to hide/manipulate anything at all?

I don't know the answer to that question. This thread is about people making accusations without backing up their accusations – I think.

I don't really know that either since I didn't start this thread.

My point, for getting into this tar baby, was to point out that the 109 was designed to be small for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the Merlin engine.

Small fighter planes displace less air mass. That is reason enough to make a fighter plane small. I think, but could be wrong, that Messerschmitt knew this fact more than I do – and the proof existed in the form of more than one 109 fighter plane (most of which were powered by Daimler engines = Benz and all).

JtD
06-09-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
well the speed spitfire in 1938 was faster than the bf109 record attempt, doing about 408mph.
True. It beat the 109's record. My bad.

I always put the Speed Spitfire and the 209 in the same corner. The 209 was a lot faster, and thus the Speed Spitfire project basically failed. I wrongly projected this into the 109<->Spit issue as well.

Thanks for the correction.

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cannondrag.png



What document is this table from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That and you got to wonder what was in the part of the table that got cut off at the bottom. Bet it was some 'bad news' for 109s or 'good news' for Spits. Allways take partial scans/copies with a grain of salt.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
well the speed spitfire in 1938 was faster than the bf109 record attempt, doing about 408mph.
True. It beat the 109's record. My bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It beat the 109V13s record using the 1650 HP DB race engine (not really, since in the meantime it was already broken by the Heinkel 100 racer); the Speed Spitfire had something like 2200 horsepower engine vs the earlier DB's 1650 PS. Obviously, later engines give more power. This is also true for the DB engine, since the final record setter (until the Rare Bear came) Me 209 was powered by the DB 601Re V, putting out no less than 2700 HP with which it did 499 mph (on avarage, actually it peaked around at around 480 mph in one of the four runs). By that time the Me 209 racer was ready and coupled with the He 100s record, it meant the Speed Spitfire project was basically a futile attempt with the given airframe and engine combination. If it would be the original 109V13 using the improved DB racer engine, it would have been capable of around 440-450 mph.

The Speed Spitfire could simply not match that. Even to increase the speed to 425 mph, they planned to eliminate radiator and cooling completely and beyond that, little could be done apart from increasing power.

In any case they just realised they just can't so they gave it up.

LStarosta
06-09-2007, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cannondrag.png



What document is this table from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FakeChart.PSD

HellToupee
06-09-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In any case they just realised they just can't so they gave it up.

they realised they couldnt use a production fighter conversion to compete with a race plane yes. Just like the germans realised they couldnt make the me209 into a fighter and gave up.

The important thing being which speed plane was faster 109 or spitfire, it was the spitfire :P

Also bf209s record is not 490mph its 470mph.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/1-N17-02-001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/1-N17-01-001.jpg

DKoor
06-09-2007, 03:24 PM
Quick up-to-date:
Have we determined yet, can a 109K outclimb a Spitfire or not in a offensive combat maneuver and bnz it?

Kurfurst__
06-09-2007, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In any case they just realised they just can't so they gave it up.

they realised they couldnt use a production fighter conversion to compete with a race plane yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... maybe they should have asked Herr Prof. Heinkel and Herr Prof. Messerschmitt how they have done that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Just like the germans realised they couldnt make the me209 into a fighter and gave up.

Actually they realized it can't compete with the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The important thing being which speed plane was faster 109 or spitfire, it was the spitfire :P

It's like when two guys besieging the same girl, and more witty and charming one becoming her best friend after she had married the other guy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Also bf209s record is not 490mph its 470mph.

It did four speed runs for the record, and they were avaraged. The avarage of all four runs was 470. The avarage speed of one of the four runs (since these were timed speeds on given lenght course) was 490 mph or so. Of course for records it was the avarage that was taken 'official.'

So while the record of the Me 209 was 470 mph, it could actually push for 490 or so.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/1-N17-02-001.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/Mark12/1-N17-01-001.jpg

Nice paintjob. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Do you recall the ending dialogoues of 1492 : Conquest of the Paradise ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

HellToupee
06-09-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmmm... maybe they should have asked Herr Prof. Heinkel and Herr Prof. Messerschmitt how they have done that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

they already knew, impractical cooling solutions, surface cooling etc.


Actually they realized it can't compete with the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but we know the 109 couldnt compete with the spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



It's like when two guys besieging the same girl, and more witty and charming one becoming her best friend after she had married the other guy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

obviously spitfire driver being better looking gets the girl, the 109 can only hope to be friends with.


Also bf209s record is not 490mph its 470mph.

It did four speed runs for the record, and they were avaraged. The avarage of all four runs was 470. The avarage speed of one of the four runs (since these were timed speeds on given lenght course) was 490 mph or so. Of course for records it was the avarage that was taken 'official.'

So while the record of the Me 209 was 470 mph, it could actually push for 490 or so.[/quote]

spitfire to could push 490, when u pointed its nose towards the ground, spiteful also managed 494mph.

JG14_Josf
06-09-2007, 04:34 PM
1) Willy Messerschmidt was faced with trying to make a high performance fighter without a high powered engine (the majority of engine development being for airliners which needed bigger and more reliable but less powerful engines). Thus he was driven to make a small and lightweight aircraft in order to get what he needed in terms of performance to theoretically match what the British were doing with more powerful engines (at the time!). Luckily for him and the Luftwaffe, DB came out with a much higher powered engine and the combination produced the classic fighter.
While anxiously awaiting someone to prove or disprove the objective of this thread I missed the above notion.

The above is a notion.

The word "thus" is used in much the same way as the other notion uses the words "...so he..." whereby an earlier statement is linked with a later statement as if the earlier statement has something to do with the later statement.

I choose to move onto the later statement and ignore the earlier statement that has little or nothing to do with the later statement, which is, if you pardon my expression, hogwash.
With the earlier statement out of the way (as hogwash, or a false notion, with respect to the later statement):

he was driven to make a small and lightweight aircraft in order to get what he needed in terms of performance
Any fighter plane designer will be driven to make a small aircraft in order to improve performance.
Can that be known as true without the other clutter?
The drive to make a plane small for the sake of performance is a drive that needs no other motive other than to decrease the acceleration of the plane caused by contact with air mass.
Think in terms of air to air missiles; those little bitty aircraft. They are small. They were driven to be designed small for reasons other than how well the British were doing in WWII relative to fighter or washing machine design.

Missiles do not have huge radiators hanging down under their wings. Missiles do not have huge wings (that eventually get clipped shorter).

Missiles accelerate fast. Missiles do not decelerate fast. Missiles perform very well in the vertical compared to, say, balloons.
Gamers like to think in terms of the Spitfire myth whereby that plane somehow can do everything well including turning at slow speed with big wings and low weight, well, that means low density. Gamers perpetuate myths when games are made to gamer specifications.

That is a fine thing. It is however a myth.
Meanwhile the merry go round continues to go around – kind of like the soap opera "As the Stomach Turns" or something like that – perhaps – "Poor Nancy" is appropriate.

tigertalon
06-09-2007, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Quick up-to-date:
Have we determined yet, can a 109K outclimb a Spitfire or not in a offensive combat maneuver and bnz it?

I think we came to consensus that Bf109K-4 does indeed climb faster than spitfire at all alts below 7k, but not fast enough to gain sufficient separation to be able to attack it. But it's close.

DKoor
06-09-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Quick up-to-date:
Have we determined yet, can a 109K outclimb a Spitfire or not in a offensive combat maneuver and bnz it?

I think we came to consensus that Bf109K-4 does indeed climb faster than spitfire at all alts below 7k, but not fast enough to gain sufficient separation to be able to attack it. But it's close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rgrt m8.

Now when that has been solved boys can continue with their fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 06:00 PM
Can someone who Kurfurst is NOT ignoring (I relaise its a longshot, but I think HellsToupee is not ignored at this moment) ask him where that drag chart is from?

I am interested in taking a look at it.

If just the barrel holes (in the wing) add 6.25mph and the actual long barrels add just 2.25, then surely any fighter with a 20mm cannon barrel is going to get that much drag, and the Me109 with the massive deep hole in the prop is going to add at least that much.

Or am I reading the chart wrong?

Still wondering what the difference is between

A CAnnons
B. Cannon Stubs

I see that the 20mm HOLES add 6.25 mph (which almost every fighter has at that time, 2x20mm) and the 2 cannon barrels (stubs) add just 2.25mph? If this is the case then vs the (8 MG/hole) Spitfire, I can only think that it may add even less drag than an 8 MG barrel/hole Spitfire.



Am I being thick with the 'cannon/cannon stub' part? (as usual)

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can someone who Kurfurst is NOT ignoring (I relaise its a longshot, but I think HellsToupee is not ignored at this moment) ask him where that drag chart is from?
GOOD LUCK!

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can someone who Kurfurst is NOT ignoring (I relaise its a longshot, but I think HellsToupee is not ignored at this moment) ask him where that drag chart is from?
GOOD LUCK! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh,

Its definitely worth finding out. As it clearly states, this chart is versus a Spitfire with NO holes in the wing at all, not versus an 8xMG barrelled Spitfire Va.

Therefore you must first find out how much drag 8x.303 MG adds and subtract it away.

You cannot just do what Kurfurst is implying and say that the 8xMg added NO DRAG and say that the 2x20 added 10mph.

What we need to find out is how much drag 8 mg barrels and ejector chutes add.

If just the BARREL HOLES of the 20mm add 6.5 mph, then I would think that 8x .303 holes would add that much too.

It clearly states that the BARRELS/STUBS only add 2.25 MPH.

If I am understanding the word 'Stubs' correctly.

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 06:11 PM
Come on..

You know that when he posts partial scans of some table, data, or chart that it means there is something 'on that page' that says something negative about a 109 or something positive about a Allied plane.

Thus you will never see the whole page from him and he will dance around and avoid at all cost as to where it came from so you can not go find it yourself.

Except sometimes when you call him on it as I just did! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
06-09-2007, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Come on..

You know that when he posts partial scans that it means there is something on that page that says something negative about a 109 or something positive about a Allied plane.

Thus you will never see the whole page from him and he will dance around the oragin of that scan so you can not go find it yourself.

That's because I wouldn't be surprised if he just makes is own charts in photoshop and uses a lot of noise filters to make them look legit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
That's because I wouldn't be surprised if he just makes is own charts in photoshop and uses a lot of noise filters to make them look legit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Well he has been know to be very.. Oh what is the word? Artistic when it comes to drawing ROC graphs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
06-09-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
That's because I wouldn't be surprised if he just makes is own charts in photoshop and uses a lot of noise filters to make them look legit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Well he has been know to be very.. Oh what is the word? Artistic when it comes to drawing ROC graphs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a good thing we're on his ignore list so he doesn't know that we're onto his deplorable practices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 06:23 PM
true

by the way the T-shirts are allmost ready! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 06:32 PM
Sorry to go OT, Are you guys playing now (and anyone else?)?

I am on Hyperlobby but I dont see your names from here. Do you have different names on there?

Brain32
06-09-2007, 07:05 PM
YASC* and YAKLT*

*
YASC - Yet another Spitfire Celebration
YAKLT - Yet another Kurfurst Lovin' Thread

With so much content how could they possibly find some time to play? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 07:09 PM
Did I forget to mention that you should expect the blue crew to run to his aid by posting some dribble in the hopes of taking the focus off the fact that he has not provided the..

Oh wait..

Never mind..

Too late.

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
109 was tested with Rolls Royce Kestrel engine (700hp more or less) and by that time Willy had no clue about new generation of top secret high powered (by that time almost unimaginable 1000hp) Merlin engine being under developement in Great Britain.

I'd very much doubt. In the pre-war years, engine development was not a particular secret as fighters were meant for export and competing each other; German engineers even visited R-R's facilities and vica versa; the specs were known. The Spitfire and the 109 were competing for Swiss export for example, amongst others. It's little recognized that in the late 1930s, the 109 and Hurricane were probably the most successfull export fighter in all Europe.

Besides, the Merlin had it's share of early development troubles and was simply not fit for production and service for some time. There's much talk about the RR Kestrel engine in the first 109 when it made it's first flight in September 1935, and how much this represented the 'backward' nature of German engine development, as these comparison artificilly pit the early Jumo engines with the Merlins..

Well, let's see.

The Hurricane made it's first flight on November 1935 the same year and at about the same time as the 109, powered by the (eventually discontinued because of troubles) Merlin C, which otoh was in spite of the fact that the engine was simply not ready for production :

Bench tests of the Merlin 'B' revealed faults and a Merlin C failed it's firs civil 50-hour non-stop running trials in May 1935; the Merlin E also failed it's 100-hour test in March 1936. An emergency solution to the many problems was a decision to scale up the Kestrel head to fit the Merlin and to make the head and the cylinder block in one piece. Designs of the Merlin G with all modifications incorporated were issued in May 1936.
The First Merlin engine to enter full scale production was the F, an improved version of the E, and as the Merlin I the first examples were delivered in July 1936. Production ceased after 180 had been built, and all were used for the Fairey Battle single engined light bomber. The Merlin II, production version of the G, followed and the first engines were delivered in August 1937.

Source : Morgan-Schacklady : Spitfire, the History, page 17-18.

In reality the DB 601 and Merlin development went hand in hand : the DB 600 for which DB got contract to develop and build for six prototypes in 1933, and was developed from the F4 series (first run in 1931). The DB 601, with 1000 PS output was being around from 1934 with 2281 of it being built.

The DB 601 differed from having direct fuel injection (F4E), the first running in 1935. The RLM ordered the first 150 engines in February 1936, the first DB 601 running in a Ju 52 testbed in June 1936, series production of the DB 601 begun in November 1937, with apprx. 19 000 engines built in total.

The problems were such that the first fully equipped (16 aircraft) Hurricane Squadron become operational not until February 1938. So sorry, what we comparing, British engines in development running on a test bench that were simply not yet fit for service use to actual production engines running in fighters serving in operational Squadrons..? By the time the Merlin II for fighters even started to roll off the production line (August 1937), and the operational Spitfire and Hurricane being 9-12 months away from reality, most existing Jagdgeschwaders were already equipped with the Jumo powered variants of the Bf 109. The RAF had only biplane fighters.

In any case, the Spitfire entered operational service in August 1938. As a matter of fact it was in service only on paper. To quote dr. Alfred Price :

New Spitfires arrived at Duxford from the makers one at a time at irregular intervals. Not until 31 October was Cozens able to put up a formation of six aircraft for the first official air-to-air photographs of the new fighter in RAF service. And it was December 1938 before No 119 Squadron had it's full compliment of sixteen Spitfires.

dr. A.P : The Spitfire Story, page 71.

In contrast, the 109 was around for some time already; Messerschmitt delivered 791 Jumo powered 109B/C/D versions up to December 1938 (entering service February 1937), and no less than 168 of the new DB 601 powered Bf 109Es. It already fought in the Spanish civil war, it's teething troubles were ironed out and already set a new speed record 109V-13 with an 1650 horsepower DB 601 engine in November 1937; the prototype Bf 109E powered by a DB 601A made it's flight in spring of 1938, and entered production a that year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dig up every little bit you can against the RR engines and don't say what problems 109 went
through but fact is that Willi used the Kestrel engine and was it because he loved RR that
much? Uh-uh. He had to. Hide what you want, expand and innuendo all you can but it changes
nothing that happened. Good old lawyer ethics, it's not a lie unless you get caught.

Why didn't he use a DB 601, already 'proven' and so much more powerful than Kestrel? It was
in 1934 if I am to believe "The DB 601, with 1000 PS output was being around from 1934 with
2281 of it being built. ". Tell me that he could not have gotten even ONE! Better answer is
just as you say with Spitfires later, it was ready and it wasn't. Or we are to believe that
German engines did not have problems to be dealt with that you just don't want to list all?

So really why the Kestrel engine without recourse to pointing at Spitfires and change subject?

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Rolls ROyce 'powered' the Me109 a few times in its development phase. However the whole Me109 project was not 'driven' by the Rolls Royce engine. It was 'driven' by the less powerfull (at the time) German engines.

(I just KNOW I am going to regret this.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

But - but - but - the DB 601 in 1934 made over 1000 PS!
Don't ask about 50 and 100 hour straight test runs. If it wasn't written down, it could not
have failed so it must have been cherry from the start!

Notice how one side gets dragged down and must-be'd to death while the other is only positive?

And for the Joke... out of a page of text he can only focus on a sentence or two and that's
pushing it. But from one sentence he can build a whole different reality and defend it.
Just please don't try dragging in the rest of the text. Fixation only works on small bytes.
If a page says thrust - weight - lift and drag then the Joke will compare any planes on no
more than 2 of those and any number of other factors is likewise ignored. How ELSE does he
apply a F-86 vs MiG chart to every WWII prop fighter comparison he wants to post on and then
from that come up with the IL2 models are wrong? Dude, it takes more ignorance than nerve
to go that far!

HellToupee
06-09-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can someone who Kurfurst is NOT ignoring (I relaise its a longshot, but I think HellsToupee is not ignored at this moment) ask him where that drag chart is from?

im a proud member of kurfys special list

plus its HellToupee as in hell to pay http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Quick up-to-date:
Have we determined yet, can a 109K outclimb a Spitfire or not in a offensive combat maneuver and bnz it?

Some Spitfires it can. If both are flying high speed and the Spit is a good deal slower, same
as with FW.

In battle most often one side starts higher than the other and gets to choose if there will be
a fight. Most often, not always. Spit V's were slower than FW's and cruised slower. Before
FW's came they cruised much slower and what did they face and how did they fare?

So the faster FW's at higher alt than Spitfires trying to sneak in were able to dive on the
Spits and really hit them. Some of the group would attack and then others while the first
extended and climbed back up. The group on top working as a team can keep the lower group
from doing much more than dodging and running. If the lower group has slower planes then
they won't do well trying run and certainly won't be turning tables unless the upper group
makes some very bad mistakes.

WHERE in that most often played-out scene is there any chance for one or more of the lower
(and slower from turning dodges and the upper group at dive speed) group to use a sustained
at best climb speed advantage? The upper group holds the good cards. It's NICE to have
5%-10%-20% more this or that but alt and speed advantage combined with Team Tactics negates
a whole lot of side by side advantages.

And if you don't include teamwork then why bother comparing to history except for the
exceptions in history?

It's the situation and the pilots before the plane. Does 25% more one thing guarantee that
the plane will prove the difference always? Count the situation as 100+% easily possible
and count that the advantage holders there will be the ones to decide if there is a fight.
Possibly the difference in pilots could lower that to where the Plane makes the Difference
but there, the plane only makes a fraction.

In DF, what counts more... player or plane? I see posts from players that tell me the plane
is the most, the plane does (or should do) this or that, whatever. And my favorite, two
clowns who are better at one plane than another switch off to determine the best plane which
of course the plane both are more suited to, tactics/control, is of course the winner but that
does not say which plane is better at all.

Give it up! Compare the game to charts and get the right charts if you must argue.

Better to spend the time forming teams and learning group tactics together. Then you get the
real results even if you lose. If the plane made the difference then at times one side or
the other would be taking no losses while the other would be slaughtered.

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Any fighter plane designer will be driven to make a small aircraft in order to improve performance.
Can that be known as true without the other clutter?

Tell it to Republic Aviation and North American Aviation.

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Gamers like to think in terms of the Spitfire myth whereby that plane somehow can do everything well including turning at slow speed with big wings and low weight, well, that means low density.

No it does not. Not in THE REAL WORLD.

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 09:31 PM
Hey ISEGRIM!

Someone you have on Ignore wants to know some things from you!


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can someone who Kurfurst is NOT ignoring (I relaise its a longshot, but I think HellsToupee is not ignored at this moment) ask him where that drag chart is from?

I am interested in taking a look at it.

If just the barrel holes (in the wing) add 6.25mph and the actual long barrels add just 2.25, then surely any fighter with a 20mm cannon barrel is going to get that much drag, and the Me109 with the massive deep hole in the prop is going to add at least that much.

Or am I reading the chart wrong?

Still wondering what the difference is between

A CAnnons
B. Cannon Stubs

I see that the 20mm HOLES add 6.25 mph (which almost every fighter has at that time, 2x20mm) and the 2 cannon barrels (stubs) add just 2.25mph? If this is the case then vs the (8 MG/hole) Spitfire, I can only think that it may add even less drag than an 8 MG barrel/hole Spitfire.



Am I being thick with the 'cannon/cannon stub' part? (as usual)

ImpStarDuece
06-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Is not Spitfires, but Hawker Typoons didn't seem to lose nearly as much speed with full cannon armament as Spitfires.

Typhoon IBs with four cannon armament typically lost between 4 and 6 mph at FS full throttle height (390-405 mph, 20-21,000 feet) compared to the all machine gun armed Typhoon IA, or a loss of about 1 to 1.5 mph per cannon. At MS full throttle height (380-395 mph, 8-9,000 feet), they usually lost about 2 mph.

However, fitting smooth cannon fairings, as opposed to the bare barrels and early half barrel cannon farings, returned about 1-2 mph to top speed, depeding on height.

JG14_Josf
06-09-2007, 11:45 PM
X3,

Thanks for the invite to fly with you. I went to Spits and 109s instead. I saw you on.

Teamspeak is a must.

While waiting for this thread to be resolved according to the thread starter?

I managed on my own (or here is a commercial break)

http://4jg53.org/gallery/albums/userpics/Lonely_me.jpg

Xiolablu3
06-09-2007, 11:49 PM
I saw mate, You were owning!

XXXX has been destroyed by JG14_Josf

XXXX has been destroyed by JG14_Josf

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


I am a bit out of practice, I'm afraid, I have had the game uninstalled for a few months. Need to set up all my keys again and get Teamspeak sorted out.

Well done in a FW190A8 versus Spitfire 25lbs!

I htought it was a bit of a one sided planeset and made some suggestions to the admin to change the SPit 25lbs for the normal SPitfire. That would balance with the FW190A8 and 109G6A/S much better. Not complaining but just suggesting.

Do you have track IR?

JG14_Josf
06-09-2007, 11:59 PM
X3,

Not yet on Track IR; I use Cougar left thumb microstick for now.

So...I may know how to boom and zoom?

I could, for example, be able to answer the topic question with, at least, some measure of accuracy?

It is possible, perhaps, for me to be in a possition to offer some persective on which plane can or cannot do whatever; in the game?

It isn't any big deal to me; as you say - it's just a game.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 12:03 AM
Yes, OK, I was wrong, you are a good pilot.

I concede... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

But honestly when you used to write that you couldnt outdive a SPitfire in a FW190, I did wonder why not.

Being a bad pilot was one of the reasons I thought it might be.

I never seem to have trouble outdiving a SPitfire in FW190, as long as I see him coming.

Plus you do need to read up on the differences between the Spitfire V and the Spitfire IX before you try and make comparisons with the FW190. It was a big jump in performance.

But anyway, thats for another FW190 vs SPitfire thread....

JtD
06-10-2007, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:

they realised they couldnt use a production fighter conversion to compete with a race plane yes.

The speed Spitfire wasn't exactly a production fighter conversion...it was totally reworked. It had less in common with a Spitfire than the Reno race planes have in common with their WW2 fighter namesakes.

Kurfurst__
06-10-2007, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Dig up every little bit you can against the RR engines and don't say what problems 109 went
through but fact is that Willi used the Kestrel engine and was it because he loved RR that
much? Uh-uh. He had to. Hide what you want, expand and innuendo all you can but it changes
nothing that happened. Good old lawyer ethics, it's not a lie unless you get caught.

Why didn't he use a DB 601, already 'proven' and so much more powerful than Kestrel? It was
in 1934 if I am to believe "The DB 601, with 1000 PS output was being around from 1934 with
2281 of it being built. ". Tell me that he could not have gotten even ONE! Better answer is
just as you say with Spitfires later, it was ready and it wasn't. Or we are to believe that
German engines did not have problems to be dealt with that you just don't want to list all?

So really why the Kestrel engine without recourse to pointing at Spitfires and change subject?

Dear Glunz,

You are officially a bore. And since I have no time for such bores who don't actually have any point just argue-argue-argue, forgive that I'll have little time in the future for you. As for the 1934 date for the DB 601 it's probably a date referring the when the design was conceived, or I wonder why do I have to say the DB wasn't ready in November 1935 for the 109 first flight when the engine was first tested in the air in June 1936; but that should have been dead obvious from the context, well of course not for your grumpyness.

To put it simple, you're only here to keep your mouth running. I guess you were a major bore smartass even in primary school just like here. I don't have time for that. Keep up the show for those who are interested in that, if there's any.

As for those being ignored, they're being ignored and that's it. It's funny they want all the extra info after they did all they could to get onto the list. Sumtin for sumtin.

John_Wayne_
06-10-2007, 03:00 AM
Spread the love, Kurfy. Spread the love.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 04:02 AM
But we know that we arent REALLY being ignored, because we are answered in other threads http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ignore when it suits the purpose http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
06-10-2007, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cannondrag.png



What document is this table from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what is on the bottom of the chart... I assume it would be relevant to the discussion at hand.

Ratsack
06-10-2007, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:





What document is this table from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



And what is on the bottom of the chart... I assume it would be relevant to the discussion at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might also ask what has been cut out between the first line of data and the column headings. You can see the scan has been truncated.

Now, giving Kurfy the benefit of the doubt, he probably only truncated it to remove irrelevant data. But this nevertheless demonstrates why there is no such thing as a primary source for WWII on the internet. There are secondary sources, at best.

cheers,
Ratsack

Manu-6S
06-10-2007, 07:04 AM
Since there is the word "aerial" you can suppose that the other lines maybe are about engine...

But only Kurfy can answer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 07:40 AM
BUt nevertheless, the dispute was about how much cannon barrels add as drag compared to 8x.303 version, and so we need to see how much drag the holes for the .303 barrels add.

It would be handy if the bottom of that chart had drag speed corrections for an 8 barreled .303 MG version - Spitfire Va vs a clean leading edge. Then we could calculate this perfectly.

The comparison on the chart is given next to a plane with NO holes on the leading edge, not a 8 barrelled MG verion.

The chart tells us part of what we want to know, that the 20mm barrels alone only add 2.25 mph drag.

Now we need to know how much drag 4x.303 MG holes add, and is it more or less than 2x20mm holes at 6.5mph. I cant see it being that much different. the 4 smaller holes might actually add even more drag than 2 bigger holes. - I am not sure.

Thats if IF Cannon 'STUBS' means cannon 'barrels' like I am assuming. Can anyone confirm, or put me straight on this?

luftluuver
06-10-2007, 07:54 AM
We all know Kurfurst has an agenda > 109 was the greatest fighter and the Spit was the worst fighter. One can't expect him to post anything postive about the Spit. One can only expect him to post the worst data he can find, like the chart, dispite the Spit Vc with 4 cannons only lossing 1mph over the Spit Va, from flight testing.

There is no mention on his chart how those speeds were obtained > calculations or flight trials.

No Xio, cannon stubs are the fairings over the unused cannon postition.

M_Gunz
06-10-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
You are officially a bore. And since I have no time for such bores who don't actually have any point just argue-argue-argue, forgive that I'll have little time in the future for you.

And yet you still run on....


To put it simple, you're only here to keep your mouth running. I guess you were a major bore smartass even in primary school just like here. I don't have time for that. Keep up the show for those who are interested in that, if there's any.

As for those being ignored, they're being ignored and that's it. It's funny they want all the extra info after they did all they could to get onto the list. Sumtin for sumtin.

I won't bother writing what you come across as except that I don't just wipe my shoe off
when I step in it, I wash that shoe before stepping inside on it.

Keep up with your characterizations though, people should remember what a **** you are.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
We all know Kurfurst has an agenda > 109 was the greatest fighter and the Spit was the worst fighter. One can't expect him to post anything postive about the Spit. One can only expect him to post the worst data he can find, like the chart, dispite the Spit Vc with 4 cannons only lossing 1mph over the Spit Va, from flight testing.

There is no mention on his chart how those speeds were obtained > calculations or flight trials.

No Xio, cannon stubs are the fairings over the unused cannon postition.


I apologise wholeheartedly for the rubbish I have posted then.

Please excuse me while I bash my head against a wall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Ignore when it suits the purpose http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Exactly!

I don't know what is funnier.. That K thinks he is fooling anyone or the sad sac blue crew.. that is getting smaller ever day mind you.. that run to his aid during these times of need.

While at the same time the blue crew has the nerve to say Mike Williams sight can not be trusted.. Even though we have example after example where K has altered data to fit his needs.. He also has a very.. shall we say.. creative license when he translates documents by putting his own spin on it.. Which results in things being said that were never actually said in the original document.

Brain32
06-10-2007, 09:37 AM
You guys are great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I really can't say which one is better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LStarosta
06-10-2007, 09:37 AM
Nono, my favorite part is when Kurfy tells people that they don't have a life even though he runs an entire website devoted to worshiping a WWII airplane and in effect calls himself a guru on its subject. Some dress up as Klingons, others as Jedi Knights and fantasize about lasers, spaceships and whatnot, but Kurfy does his Goering thang and fantasizes about the 109 winning a war.

John_Wayne_
06-10-2007, 09:56 AM
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b71/Big_Duke/capture_05062007_232658.jpg


Having considered the evidence, Kurfy I find you...guilty as charged. Now say sorry to the nice people here and get your sorry @ss outa my courthouse.

Brain32
06-10-2007, 10:22 AM
Wow, only that? I thought you will bring the constitution of the federal state - Spitfire in which everybody that doesen't religiously use a 1:32 Spitfire model as a ***** would be presecuted and punished with immidiate death sentence.
Heil Spitfire
Heil Spitfire
Heil Spitfire

...or better yet....

SPITFIRE AKBAR!!! ---> KABOOOOM!!!!

Nice role models guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:06 AM
Poor Nancy

Brain32
06-10-2007, 11:11 AM
Yeah sure, whatever you say, just don't suicide into my house with a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Spitfire Akbar!

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:12 AM
Poor Blue Crew

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
I think we came to consensus that Bf109K-4 does indeed climb faster than spitfire at all alts below 7k, but not fast enough to gain sufficient separation to be able to attack it. But it's close. Only if your definition of effectively means you can..

<LI>Start out at co-alt co-E with him..
<LI>Out climb him and extend beyond him..
<LI>Than TURN AROUND and bring your guns to bare on him.

That is a summary of what you said your definition of effectively means..

Using your definition of effectively I would agree with you.

But..

Using a 'reasonable' definition of effectively I would NOT agree with you!

Brain32
06-10-2007, 11:16 AM
Start out at co-alt co-E with him..

Out climb him and extend beyond him..

Than TURN AROUND and bring your guns to bare on him.

I can do that to a 109K4 in a plain SpitIXe after 2 or 3 climbing turns, speaking about REASONABLE

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:18 AM
Fighting AI does not count Nancy

Brain32
06-10-2007, 11:32 AM
Not AI Tagert, ti Stara Pederčino, against real humans, ofcourse I actually have hands so I can do it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:35 AM
What ever gets you to sleep at night Nancy..

Now do you have anything to contribute to the topic at hand other than your strange obsession with a ***** that looks like a Spitfire? Or your Nazi salutes to Spitfires? Or your insulting reference to the Muslim religion?

Anything remotely on topic?

Or is your goal to get yet another topic locked?

One that is highlighting the FACT that the 109 was not all that and that some of the data used by others to make it 'look' like it was all that is actually manipulated data.

Brain32
06-10-2007, 11:38 AM
Wanna' try to beat me in a Spit(plain IXe) flying that uber K4? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Shouldn't be a problem right, with all those percentage errors and overmodellness, you should pwn my lil' Spitty easily stara pederčino http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Wanna' try to beat me in a Spit(plain IXe) flying that uber K4? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Shouldn't be a problem right, with all those percentage errors and overmodellness, you should pwn my lil' Spitty easily stara pederčino http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif That goes for your obsession with me too!

So do everyone a favor and PM me when you need some att from me and allow this thread to stay on topic!

Thanks!

Brain32
06-10-2007, 11:46 AM
Chickened out I see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well I can't blaim you, many do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
06-10-2007, 11:48 AM
To any persons trying to get this thread locked: go and play with yourselves in PM.

I want Kurfurst to have the oppurtunity to post the reference.

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 11:52 AM
But honestly when you used to write that you couldnt outdive a SPitfire in a FW190, I did wonder why not.

Being a bad pilot was one of the reasons I thought it might be.

I never seem to have trouble outdiving a SPitfire in FW190, as long as I see him coming.

Plus you do need to read up on the differences between the Spitfire V and the Spitfire IX before you try and make comparisons with the FW190. It was a big jump in performance.

But anyway, thats for another FW190 vs SPitfire thread....

X3,

We are having a problem communicating. Take this thread for example. Someone accused someone else of something wrong; the accused asks - put up or shut up.

Has anyone put up? Has anyone shut up?

I think not. What do you think?

A. The game does something specific
B. The game does not do something specific

Does that sound at all familiar?

Example:

The Fw190A-4 can dive away from the Spitfire VB (1941).

How does one go about finding out if the above is true or false?

My take on this:

Two guys on-line at the same time in both planes try to out dive each other:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

You can form an opinion concerning the picture above. My wingman and I (we have been playing combat flight sim games for over 10 years) form our opinions while conducting the tests on-line (side by side).

That is one way. Another way is to conduct single player test.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Anatamy%20of%20Drag%20Test.jpg
I did the math myself using my own method of reverse calculation based upon measured distance over time; where the total drag force is a product of accelerating mass.

You can do that too; or you can simply accuse me of doing something wrong and then keep on repeating your accusation for years.

Being able to enter an on-line fight with more speed and more altitude and then being able to leave that fight before the target plane builds energy up to your level is one thing.

I know how that works. Assuming that I do not was an assumption.

Assuming that the cartoon characters here on this board have effectively refuted my mathematical calculations is another assumption. What I find particularly interesting is how you manage to rationalize your assumptions over and over again based upon the same lack of actual data.

One would think at some point you might question your store of data; finding it empty.

While I conducted my tests I wrote everything down on Faustniks Web page. I gained permission to do this beforehand. The method and all the calculations remain on that web page although the thread is locked. I can safely say that the Fw190 (in that patch) was incapable of effectively accelerating away from the Spitfire VB (1941) in a dive (from co altitude and co-energy).

How about hiring a lawyer to define the word ˜effectively'?

No need – we have Poor Nancy on board.

Brain32
06-10-2007, 11:52 AM
I made my on topic post here. It's 4th post in case you guys can't see it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif For making such statement I got slammed. So, don't blaim me for going OT.
I stand by those words in 4th post. And that post was ON TOPIC so don't look at ME, Nanycies.

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:56 AM
Please spare us your justification for your ill behavior.

All we ask is that you stop trying to get 109 threads locked!

Thanks!

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Two guys on-line at the same time in both planes try to out dive each other:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

You can form an opinion concerning the picture above.
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
I think we came to consensus that Bf109K-4 does indeed climb faster than spitfire at all alts below 7k, but not fast enough to gain sufficient separation to be able to attack it. But it's close. Only if your definition of effectively means you can..

<LI>Start out at co-alt co-E with him..
<LI>Out climb him and extend beyond him..
<LI>Than TURN AROUND and bring your guns to bare on him.

That is a summary of what you said your definition of effectively means..

Using your definition of effectively I would agree with you.

But..

Using a 'reasonable' definition of effectively I would NOT agree with you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

define reasonable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif j/k

actually the only 'reasonable' 'reason' that I see for K4 to try to outclimb spitfireIX is to get into a favourable position to attack it. As we both agree, it can't (but it's close!). If a K4 needs to save his arse, he can just firewall it and leave the spit in the dust in a level run or shallow dive at any altitude. Why risk climbing?

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
define reasonable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif j/k http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by tigertalon:
actually the only 'reasonable' 'reason' that I see for K4 to try to outclimb spitfireIX is to get into a favourable position to attack it.
Well open up that closed mind of yours than!

In that evading is the other side of the coin!


Originally posted by tigertalon:
As we both agree, it can't (but it's close!).
No, I don't agree! I only agree with you when using your unreasonable definition.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
If a K4 needs to save his arse, he can just firewall it and leave the spit in the dust in a level run or shallow dive at any altitude. Why risk climbing?
Because a DF is a dynamic world where your next move is not some hard coded response. You have to constantly take into consideration your situation relative to the enemy plane.

The point your missing here is the game is 180? out!

In RL the Spit 25lb had a better ROC than the 109K-4!

But..

In IL2 the 109K-4 has a better ROC than the Spit 25lb!

You can debate tactics all day and all night and it will not change that!

We either care that planes are simulated correctly such that the historic relative advantages and disadvantage exist or we don't.

Clearly you don't!

But.. Ill bet if that tables were turned and the Spit 25lb had a ~30% better ROC than it should have..

Thus making it climb much better than the 109K-4.. Better than it historically could..

Many would suddenly care alot!

Brain32
06-10-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Please spare us your justification for your ill behavior.

All we ask is that you stop trying to get 109 threads locked!

Thanks!
I could ask the same from you

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:13 PM
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 AKA_TAGERT:
Please spare us your justification for your ill behavior.

All we ask is that you stop trying to get 109 threads locked!

Thanks!
I could ask the same from you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You could.. but no one would fall for it.

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

Tagart,

Are you really as dense as you prove with your writing?

This thread:

I still believe that's not possible until proven otherwise.

We have computers. We have internets [sic]. We obviously have time and energy. Do we have the will?


But.. Ill bet if that tables were turned and the Spit 25lb had a ~30% better ROC than it should have.. Thus making it climb much better than the 109K-4.. Many would suddenly care alot!

What part of:


Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.


Do you not understand?

Imagine in the future a new type of thread (we can imagine can't we?) whereby a poster suffers physical and mental trauma if he begins to wander off the specified topic.

What would the Trolls do?

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

Tagart,

Are you really as dense as you prove with your writing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look Josf.. I know your upset with me for pointing out how that kind of testings says more about the pilots than the planes.. But that is no reason to resort to name calling.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This thread:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still believe that's not possible until proven otherwise.

We have computers. We have internets [sic]. We obviously have time and energy. Do we have the will?


But.. Ill bet if that tables were turned and the Spit 25lb had a ~30% better ROC than it should have.. Thus making it climb much better than the 109K-4.. Many would suddenly care alot! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry Josf.. I have no idea what your getting at here? So I won't comment on it. Please try and reword that if you would like a response from me.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.

Do you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but it is you that does not understand!

Need proof?

Take a look at what I said that got you so upset! i.e.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

In that quote do you see any reference to REAL 'historical/overmodelled/uber' performance?

I hope not in that there is NONE!

It is a comment about two pilots and their relative skills. There is no reference to REAL or GAME performance!

Thus proving once again that you are seeing things that are NOT there.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Imagine in the future a new type of thread (we can imagine can't we?) whereby a poster suffers physical and mental trauma if he begins to wander off the specified topic.
That may explain a lot about you and your actions!

In that you are the one that WANDERED OFF from me talking about relative pilot skills to GAME vs. REAL performance!

Thus maybe it is actully happening at this very moment?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What would the Trolls do?
Get a mirror and find out!

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 12:34 PM
You could.. but no one would fall for it.

Tagert,

Do you feel that you have been born with the ability to speak for everyone automatically?

The topic suggests (from my view) for you to put up or shut up.

You have done neither. Apparently the stuff entering your brain goes right through without any effect whatsoever. That is a talent. I think it is called megalomania. You may call it something else – of course.

Poor Nancy

You could put up. You could shut up. You could simply do whatever makes you happy. How about redefining the dictionary?

Let's suppose that you find someone to prove your accusation as true. I'm speaking of this:


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Thus proving you're your statement wrong! With regards to the in-game planes!

This:


109K is not able to outclimb spitfireIX effectively in a sustained climb, even if going from sea level to stratosphere.

Suppose, for example, that you find some other troll to accompany you on-line in a game test to accomplish something specific. You do this. You then send the track file to someone. That someone then looks at the track file and responds with something like this:


Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Suppose that you get this far (caught up to me at this point) and you find the next step to be a challenge to the person you accuse; something like this:

If you ˜feel' as if the skills of the pilots in question are in question, then, perhaps you can offer an ˜authorized' pilot designate. Do you have anyone in mind?

Most of the good pilots are megalomaniacs. Do you know of any?

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:36 PM
Poor Nancy

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 12:38 PM
Poor Nancy

To whom it may concern,

I stand corrected; again - obviously the data going into the troll does not go through the troll without causing something to happen.

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Poor Nancy

To whom it may concern,

I stand corrected; again - obviously the data going into the troll does not go through the troll without causing something to happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I noticed that you had no comment on the following (in black) from a previous reply from me to you


<span class="ev_code_yellow">Example of Josf seeing things that are not there:</span><span class="ev_code_black">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.

Do you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but it is you that does not understand!

Need proof?

Take a look at what I said that got you so upset! i.e.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

In that quote do you see any reference to REAL 'historical/overmodelled/uber' performance?

I hope not in that there is NONE!

It is a comment about two pilots and their relative skills. There is no reference to REAL or GAME performance!

Thus proving once again that you are seeing things that are NOT there.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must have really nailed it huh?

In that I left YOU SPEECHLESS for once in your life! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 12:43 PM
Get a mirror and find out!

Tagert,

Are you talking to me?

I don't need a mirror to make track files with my fellow trolls.

http://4jg53.org/gallery/albums/userpics/5_and_double_chevron.jpg

We fire up the game. We connect on the internet. We find out who blows the most wind.

It can be fun!

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 12:52 PM
Oh Dear, what have I created?

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Oh Dear, what have I created? YES!

It has turned into a comic book! With about as much realism attached! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Im just waiting for him to put some text in those pictures that say

ZIIIIING!

BLAMO!

BOOM!

ZOOOOOOOOM!

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
define reasonable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif j/k http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by tigertalon:
actually the only 'reasonable' 'reason' that I see for K4 to try to outclimb spitfireIX is to get into a favourable position to attack it.
Well open up that closed mind of yours than!

In that evading is the other side of the coin!


Originally posted by tigertalon:
As we both agree, it can't (but it's close!).
No, I don't agree! I only agree with you when using your unreasonable definition.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
If a K4 needs to save his arse, he can just firewall it and leave the spit in the dust in a level run or shallow dive at any altitude. Why risk climbing?
Because a DF is a dynamic world where your next move is not some hard coded response. You have to constantly take into consideration your situation relative to the enemy plane.

The point your missing here is the game is 180? out!

In RL the Spit 25lb had a better ROC than the 109K-4!

But..

In IL2 the 109K-4 has a better ROC than the Spit 25lb!

You can debate tactics all day and all night and it will not change that!

We either care that planes are simulated correctly such that the historic relative advantages and disadvantage exist or we don't.

Clearly you don't!

But.. Ill bet if that tables were turned and the Spit 25lb had a ~30% better ROC than it should have..

Thus making it climb much better than the 109K-4.. Better than it historically could..

Many would suddenly care alot! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Let's just stop here.. In that to go any further would just be too cruel IMHO.

Please Tagert stop with this childish "you is a luftwhiner" implications, which couldn't be more far from the truth - ask ANYONE who knows me. Find me a single person that will claim I am a luftwhiner I can find 50 which will mark you as an allywhiner who would NEVER post test results if they showed an axis plane is underperforming according to historical data.

Also, do not try to patronisingly teach me how to fly in this sim... Find me online, shoot me down 5 times in a row (when I am not flying bomber), THEN come back with advices - I'll be glad to listen!

I do want this sim to be as historically accurate as it gets. If K4 climb is overmodelled, then it should get fixed. If 25lb spit climbs to slow, then it should get fixed. If spitfire retains energy too well, then it should get fixed. If beaufighter is impossible to set on fire (no fuel tanks modelled) then it should be fixed. If Hellcat has wrong ammo load (270rpg for outer 4 guns when it should actually have 400) then it should be fixed. If MiG-9 has wrong guns modelled (VYA-23 instead of NS-23) then it should be fixed. Want me to go on? Unfortunately I don't have 25 hours a day to spend them testing all the different aspects of this game and compare them to real life. I am interested in weapon modelling that's why I dedicated some time to it and as I said, I tested Mg151/20 and .50cals to death because I found inconsistancies with real world. 151 got fixed, .50cals haven't (yet). Next on my list (if I'll still find it worth considering BOB is around the corner) will be Italian UBERLY-undermodelled paintball guns.

Only to try to show you that I do care about historical fidelity of this sim, and that this thread has nothing to do with RL data, you can go back, reread all my posts made in this thread (or even on whole UBI forums), and feel free to add , BUT K4 should climb slower and Spitfire should climb faster according to RL data!" It won't in any way shape or form change the point of my comments.

I thought you were serious when you posted:

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Let's just stop here.. In that to go any further would just be too cruel IMHO.

I'm out of this one because this is pointless. It is obviously impossible to seriously discuss with "some" people here who simply cannot abstain from calling names, pointing finger and insulting.

It's always easier to discredit the messenger rather than to pay attention to the mail he is carrying, especially if mail is unconfortable for the receiver.

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Please Tagert stop with this childish "you is a luftwhiner" implications,which couldn't be more far from the truth - ask ANYONE who knows me. Find me a single person that will claim I am a luftwhiner I can find 50 which will mark you as an allywhiner who would NEVER post test results if they showed an axis plane is underperforming according to historical data.
Looks like your seeing things too! In that I did not call you a luft anything!

I simply pointed out that from your posts you clearly don't care about how realistically the sim portrays the real planes. I went on to point out that if the table was turned that I think 'many' would be upset! I never said 'you' would be upset, thus if you were offended it was due to your own guilty feelings and not what I said.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Also, do not try to patronisingly teach me how to fly in this sim... Find me online, shoot me down 5 times in a row (when I am not flying bomber), THEN come back with advices - I'll be glad to listen!
Well when someone tries to imply there is only one option in any situation I feel obligated to point out that is not the case. If you see that as patronizing, well than it is just another case of you guilt kicking in and getting but hurt.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
I do want this sim to be as historically accurate as it gets. If K4 climb is overmodelled, then it should get fixed. If 25lb spit climbs to slow, then it should get fixed. If spitfire retains energy too well, then it should get fixed. If beaufighter is impossible to set on fire (no fuel tanks modelled) then it should be fixed. If Hellcat has wrong ammo load (270rpg for outer 4 guns when it should actually have 400) then it should be fixed. If MiG-9 has wrong guns modelled (VYA-23 instead of NS-23) then it should be fixed.
Nice to know!


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Want me to go on?
Nah one DUH statement is enough for one day.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Unfortunately I don't have 25 hours a day to spend them testing all the different aspects of this game and compare them to real life.
Sorry to hear what takes me an hour takes you 25 hours. What can I say, it's a gift


Originally posted by tigertalon:
I am interested in weapon modelling that's why I dedicated some time to it and as I said, I tested Mg151/20 and .50cals to death because I found inconsistancies with real world. 151 got fixed, .50cals haven't (yet). Next on my list (if I'll still find it worth considering BOB is around the corner) will be Italian UBERLY-undermodelled paintball guns.
Guess that took you less than 25 hours than?


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Only to try to show you that I do care about historical fidelity of this sim, and that this thread has nothing to do with RL data, you can go back, reread all my posts made in this thread (or even on whole UBI forums), and feel free to add , BUT K4 should climb slower and Spitfire should climb faster according to RL data!" It won't in any way shape or form change the point of my comments.
And this has what to do with your unreasonable definition of effectively?


Originally posted by tigertalon:
I thought you were serious when you posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Let's just stop here.. In that to go any further would just be too cruel IMHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was.. which is why I stop at that point and did not reply to any more of your post. What did you think I was saying? Note I did not refer to anything in your post after your unrealistic definition of effectively.


Originally posted by tigertalon:
I'm out of this one because this is pointless. It is obviously impossible to seriously discuss with "some" people here who simply cannot abstain from calling names, pointing finger and insulting.

It's always easier to discredit the messenger rather than to pay attention to the mail he is carrying, especially if mail is unconfortable for the receiver.
Again, if you read what I wrote you will see that I did NOT call you a Luft anything!

JtD
06-10-2007, 01:07 PM
Sorry to get back to the original question, I gave it a few tries against the AI in the FMB. The K-4 can outclimb the Spit IX by a large enough margin to get into an advantageous position from almost any situation. It has to do it in combination with it's superior speed, though, to be reasonably effective. Starting from an advantageous position, the K-4 can utilize the climb without the speed to dictate the fight.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Sorry to get back to the original question

Thats got to be quote of the year.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Originally posted by JtD:
Starting from an advantageous position, the K-4 can utilize the climb without the speed to dictate the fight.

Could you explain this ^ a bit better JTD? I dont understand what you mean..


Are you saying that the 109K4 can use his climb against the SPitfire even without a large initial speed advantage?

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Look up the dictionary for "implication". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JtD
06-10-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Could you explain this ^ a bit better JTD? I dont understand what you mean..

Are you saying that the 109K4 can use his climb against the SPitfire even without a large initial speed advantage?

I mean that the K-4 can maintain a position above the Spit in a fight without resorting to high speed maneuvers. Also meaning that if you are a some meters, say two or three hundred, above the Spit you can effectively enlarge that advantage in an all out climb to a degree where it allows an attack. And once the Spit has to start to dodge, it is lost.

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 01:38 PM
I must have really nailed it huh?

In that I left YOU SPEECHLESS for once in your life!

Tagert,

Are you creating the universe again?

A. You accuse someone of something.
B. That person asks you to put up or shut up.
C. You do neither

That is an accurate assessment of this thread from my perspective. I admit to being wrong – often.

Your creations concerning other ˜things' going on in this thread where you are somehow made into the victor of all, above all, king if you will, are pathetic. Again – that is how things look from my perspective and I admit, again, that I can be wrong – often.

X3,

What is it that you think you have created? I am curious.

I am more curious about the topic.

Note:


Originally posted by JtD:
Starting from an advantageous position, the K-4 can utilize the climb without the speed to dictate the fight.

Compared to:


By effectively I ment that 109 (with no initial altitude advantage) is able to climb above spitfireIX and get firing solution on spit without alowing spit pilot to get one.

Note:


with no initial altitude advantage

Compared to this:


Starting from an advantageous position

Apples and oranges come to mind. This is the zoo. Elephants and Donkeys?

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Could you explain this ^ a bit better JTD? I dont understand what you mean..

Are you saying that the 109K4 can use his climb against the SPitfire even without a large initial speed advantage?

I mean that the K-4 can maintain a position above the Spit in a fight without resorting to high speed maneuvers. Also meaning that if you are a some meters, say two or three hundred, above the Spit you can effectively enlarge that advantage in an all out climb to a degree where it allows an attack. And once the Spit has to start to dodge, it is lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SOunds very much like Bf109F4 vs SPitfire V.

I can totally dictate the fight over a SPitfire V 1941, in a BF109F4. His only hope is a desperate head on as I zoom down on him.

The only extra problem I could se with teh 109K4 is the extra compressiblity thanks to the heavier weight and faster speed.

Would make pulling an angle on him to get a deflection shot, while B&Zing, very hard for me.

The Crucial thing is that you can extend and climb, so you can be sure of dictating the fight.

JtD
06-10-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

SOunds very much like Bf109F4 vs SPitfire V.

It is.

To answer the "track please", here is a track (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/k4climbsspit.trk) . I am getting my initial advantage from the fact that the Spit is turning after me. In this moment, it is lost. For size reasons it is just a trk, hope it replays correctly. If it fails first time, give it a second try.

Maybe TT can comment if this scenario somehow reflects his question.

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Are you creating the universe again?
Me?

Hardly!

Now Josf.. What with the way you pride yourself on pretending to be well read and well spoken.. I know this is hard for you to admit you made a mistake.. But I think it is important that you learn how.. Therefore I bring you back to the subject you are trying so hard to avoid.. i.e. I noticed that you had no comment on the following (in black) from a previous reply from me to you


<span class="ev_code_yellow">Example of Josf seeing things that are not there:</span><span class="ev_code_black">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.

Do you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but it is you that does not understand!

Need proof?

Take a look at what I said that got you so upset! i.e.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

In that quote do you see any reference to REAL 'historical/overmodelled/uber' performance?

I hope not in that there is NONE!

It is a comment about two pilots and their relative skills. There is no reference to REAL or GAME performance!

Thus proving once again that you are seeing things that are NOT there.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you have not addressed this let alone admit your mistake means it has really hurt you at your core!

But..

I think if you can get past this you might grow as a person?

So, give it a shot!

Address it and admit your mistake! If your fragle ego will allow you!

Good Luck!

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Look up the dictionary for "implication". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif That guilty feeling kicking in again? Or is this your way of admitting your mistake in that you just 'FELT' that I was implicating you? Even though I clearly did NOT. If so, apology accepted!

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I mean that the K-4 can maintain a position above the Spit in a fight without resorting to high speed maneuvers. Also meaning that if you are a some meters, say two or three hundred, above the Spit you can effectively enlarge that advantage in an all out climb to a degree where it allows an attack. And once the Spit has to start to dodge, it is lost. Bingo!

Which is the classical scenario for any plane that has a significantly better ROC over another.

The in-game 109K-4 can do what you described due to the ROC BUG that gives the in-game 109K-4 a ~30% better ROC than it should have. Where as in RL it would have been the other way around.

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 02:18 PM
I cannot review the track now, but I was having two human pilots in mind, with equal initial altitude. Like Josf suggested in the third post in this thread, it would be fun to set this scenario up and try the duel in the "aerobatic" style: Headon with lights on at the desired altitude and no firing during it. After planes pass each other, lights go off and guns go hot. Woulda been lots of fun IMO.

Purely in my opinion, yes, F4 can dictate the fight as it is faster than Vb at all altitudes, dives and climbs faster. It climbs faster (at low altitudes that is) with a margin that allows him to get a firing solution on spit without allowing spitfire to get one in return - and yes, the moment spitfire has to evade, it's lost. On the other hand, K4 can not get into such a position against well flown IXc (note, not 25lb), but it is indeed close.

In a nutshell: F4 outflies Vb in the vertical more than K4 does IX - IMO.

It is also worth noting that altitude performance of spitIX is more favourable compared to K4 than Vb is to F4. Once spitIX climbs to 7 or 8 km alt, K4 has no more options. And a smart spit pilot will climb high.

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 02:25 PM
Yet JtD said K-4 not F-4

As for online pilot vs. pilot stuff..

Well it really says nothing about relative aircraft performance and everything about relative pilot performance.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 02:40 PM
Nice example JTD.

For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.

I really cant comment too much on the 109K4 because I never fly it, always prefering the FW190 in that time period - Purely because you are fighting at much faster speeds, and I need my elevator to be fully functional at 550KPH+

I just mentioned the 109F4 vs SPit V comment , because its the closest thing I can imagine to the 109K4 vs SPit IX fight. I can imagine the 109K4 fight being a bit harder because the fight is at much faster speeds and so you lose more elevator effectiveness, but essentially the same kind of fight.

Kurfurst__
06-10-2007, 02:48 PM
OMG http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Tagert vs. Josf... 1000 pager be sure ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 02:59 PM
If I could just go OT one last time, as I did bring it up :-

Josf, I will try and record a track of me fighting Spitfires in a FW190 online so we can study it and see why we disagree on the Spit vs FW190 diving thing.

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Nice example JTD.

For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.


Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Nice example JTD.

For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.


Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure you have done this manouvre hundreds of times TT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 03:08 PM
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 tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Nice example JTD.

For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.


Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure you have done this manouvre hundreds of times TT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I surely did, but not against a skilled spit human pilot without initial E advantage.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 03:19 PM
But mate, if you have the faster plane with a better climb, as is the 109K4 over the SPitfire IX, then you can CREATE this E advantage.

Obviously a skilled pilot will see this coming, and not follow you in the steep climb if he knows you have more energy, but the fact his, he has no choice but to dive instead, or at least fly level. That means you are now in a commanding position to dictate the fight.

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But mate, if you have the faster plane with a better climb, as is the 109K4 over the SPitfire IX, then you can CREATE this E advantage.

Obviously a skilled pilot will see this coming, and not follow you in the steep climb if he knows you have more energy, but the fact his, he has no choice but to dive instead, or at least fly level. That means you are now in a commanding position to dictate the fight.

Well, the K4 doesn't have ROC that much better to be able to create sufficient separation before both planes reach high alt. Hell even Tagert agreed on that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

You can do this with F4 against SpitfireMkVb consistently, with K4 vs SpitfireMkIXc you can't.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 03:34 PM
Rgr that mate.

I have no experience in the K4, so I cant comment.

I have lots of 109F4 vs Spit V experience however. My favourite early war matchup.

109F4 is a beaut of a plane, its just so 'smooth', whereas the 1941 SPitfire V's are a bit clunky and underpowered IMO (Feels a bit like the 109E in that its just lacking a bit of power, and a bit too heavy for its engine). But its such a balanced fight (Many people prefer the SPit) that it leads to great battles online.

BF109F4 vs SPitVc2/Vc4 1941 is the classic Spit vs 109 matchup in IL2 IMHO.

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 03:49 PM
When flying blue, I started flying late 109s lately simply because I got tired of 190, it's a challenge to survive versus tempests, mustangs, jugs and Yak3/Us. And it's a relief to fly something you can actually see out of!


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have lots of 109F4 vs Spit V experience however. My favourite early war matchup.


LOL mine too, when I am in a F4! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
109F4 is a beaut of a plane, whereas the 1941 SPitfire V's are underpowered IMO. But its such a balanced fight (Many people prefer the SPit) that it leads to great battles online.

109F4 vs SPitVc2 is the classic Spit vs 109 matchup in IL2 IMHO.

Indeed, to me it seems F4 is the peak of 109 uberness in IL2, and afterwards it only goes down. G2 can still kick some arse, but much less so when La5, Yak9 and spitIX arrive. Later G non-alco series are such a dogs that I even prefer F4 over them for air to air duties! Alco 109s are the last attempt, but late P51s, 47s and Las Yak3/9U quickly hammer the last nail into 109s coffin.

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 03:52 PM
Tagert,


The fact that you have not addressed this let alone admit your mistake means it has really hurt you at your core!

Thanks for an example of (pathetic) pathology. Your created universe (where you have made the unimportant into something important) is only yours (and anyone else who shares in the belief of your creation); your creation has nothing whatsoever to do with me (other than providing a perfect example of pathetic pathology), and, your creation is pro-bono (meaning you do it without monetary compensation from me).

Thanks. You are so generous; another one of your many admirable qualities.

As to the topic:


Like Josf suggested in the third post in this thread, it would be fun to set this scenario up and try the duel in the "aerobatic" style: Headon with lights on at the desired altitude and no firing during it.

I'd like to try to make a few things perfectly clear about the above relative to the following:


For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.

After the first cold merge from the same altitude and the same speed (co-altitude and co-speed) there remains to be an identification of relative energy levels. In other words: the fact that both planes are at the same altitude and the same speed is insufficient information to accurately measure energy because the factor of thrust and drag are missing.

Co-altitude measures up as equal potential energy.

Co-speed measures up as equal kinetic energy.

Even the above assumes that both objects measure up with the same mass (weight) in order to arrive at equal (excess) energy states (minus drag force and trust force).

In simple terms: A cold merge minimizes variables associated with one plane starting the fight from a higher altitude and or a higher speed. A cold merge does not automatically equate to equal energy states.

Therefore: One of the plane's could be capable of turning around while the other plane goes straight and level after the cold merge and the turning plane could (if it does have more excess energy at the cold merge) catch the running plane.

An example in the game might be a fully loaded 190F-8 versus an LA-7 with a light fuel load.

In other words: A cold merge merely minimizes the factors of altitude and speed when trying to figure out which plane does, in fact, have more excess energy to utilize in fighter combat.

The reason I try to point this out can be known when looking at the above quotes from two ends (one after the other).

Example:

One end first:

For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.

The other end second:

For those who cannot view the track, it can be a clinical takedown of the 109K4 using the Spitfire's better excess energy.

1. After the head-on merge, don't turn, 109K4 turns to chase, losing energy.

2. Climb until you are sufficiently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.

If the above does not communicate accurately, then, I can try from a different angle (after dealing with the trolls as usual).

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,
Josf,


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 fact that you have not addressed this let alone admit your mistake means it has really hurt you at your core!

Thanks for an example of (pathetic) pathology. Your created universe (where you have made the unimportant into something important) is only yours (and anyone else who shares in the belief of your creation); your creation has nothing whatsoever to do with me (other than providing a perfect example of pathetic pathology), and, your creation is pro-bono (meaning you do it without monetary compensation from me).

Thanks. You are so generous; another one of your many admirable qualities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Josf.. I know this is painful for you.. Therefore your natural reaction is to do what ever it takes to try and wiggle your way out of this..

But..

Know that this is not a question of degree with regards to importance!

This is an example of how you see things that are not there and your inability to admit you made a mistake.

The proof being you have to comment on the following (in black) from a previous reply from me to you


<span class="ev_code_yellow">Example of Josf seeing things that are not there:</span><span class="ev_code_black">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.

Do you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but it is you that does not understand!

Need proof?

Take a look at what I said that got you so upset! i.e.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

In that quote do you see any reference to REAL 'historical/overmodelled/uber' performance?

I hope not in that there is NONE!

It is a comment about two pilots and their relative skills. There is no reference to REAL or GAME performance!

Thus proving once again that you are seeing things that are NOT there.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang in there bud!

I know you can do it!

Ill give you all the time you need!!

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Nice example JTD.

For those who cannot view the track, its a clinical takedown of the SPitfire using hte 109K4's better climb.

1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.

2. CLimb until you are sufficently above and then go steep.

3. He stalled first and you have the shot.


Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That thing you said could not be done?

So it is effectivly now?

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
That thing you said could not be done?

So it is effectivly now?

My initial post:


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Can anyone show me a track, where a 109K4 pilot with no initial alt advantage in a sterile enviroment did effectively outclimb and attack a skilled <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(human)</span> spitfire pilot (who did not make any big mistakes) and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Thank you.

Your statement on the matter:


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
My claim still stands: in IL2 1946 v4.08 109K4 is unable to effectively outclimb SpitfireMkIX.

True..

Starting from the same altitude and E state..

The 109K-4 ROC advantage over the SpitIX's ROC is NOT large enough to allow the 109K-4 to climb above the SpitIX, turn around, and face it's guns back at the SpitIX below to shoot him.. But it is close! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
My initial post:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Can anyone show me a track, where a 109K4 pilot with no initial alt advantage in a sterile enviroment did effectively outclimb and attack a skilled <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(human)</span> spitfire pilot (who did not make any big mistakes) and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So.. Help me out here because your sending mixxed signals..

<LI>You DON'T admit you were wrong!

Falling back on the disclaimer of it being AI and not <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(human)</span> and that there was some 'BIG MISTAKE' made.

Assuming that is the case..

Than how can you say


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about

Because that tells me you agree with JtD's test.

Unless you were being sarcastic?


Originally posted by tigertalon:
Your statement on the matter:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
My claim still stands: in IL2 1946 v4.08 109K4 is unable to effectively outclimb SpitfireMkIX.

True..

Starting from the same altitude and E state..

The 109K-4 ROC advantage over the SpitIX's ROC is NOT large enough to allow the 109K-4 to climb above the SpitIX, turn around, and face it's guns back at the SpitIX below to shoot him.. But it is close! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess my joke was too suttle.. In that in your initial post you said plane B climbs above plane A so plane B can get a firing solution on plane A.

At which point I asked you if plane B has guns facing to the rear to point at plane A

Which was the set up for what followed, my suttle and sarcastic joke (yes I was too suttle for once) about the ROC difference has to be large enough to allow Plane A to climb above and TURN AROUND AND FACE plane B who is still in the process of climbing up to plane A.

To highlight your definition of effectly!

You clearly missed that.. In that later in the thread you said we agreed on that point.. After which I cleared up that misconception by poiting out that I don't agree with you! Yet even after that you still seem to be confused?

Xiolablu3
06-10-2007, 04:12 PM
Never mind, I misunderstood.

tigertalon
06-10-2007, 04:34 PM
A Joker! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 04:49 PM
Josf.. I know this is painful for you..

<Snip>

Tagert,

You are ignorant. I don't mean to sound condescending; rather - I'm simply stating a fact. What you claim to know is false; therefore – ignorant.

What part of this do you not understand?

Note: The last question is rhetorical in nature. It is unreasonable to expect an accurate answer from someone who does not have the capacity to answer the question. I have often been proven wrong.

I can try from another angle:

Tagert,

You do not know what you think you know here:


Josf.. I know this is painful for you..

Perhaps you have a desire for whatever it was that you wrote to affect me in a painful manner. If so, then, I could try reading what you wrote to find out. My guess is that reading your words will be a waste of my time. In that manner it could be misconstrued as pain; however – I can be perfectly happy with wasting time. I rather like to waste time. Sometimes my best times are during time wasting time.

Example:

Sometimes I read your words (I know before hand that it will be a waste of time) and I smile uncontrollably. How happy can one person get?

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf.. I know this is painful for you..

<Snip>

Tagert,

You are ignorant. I don't mean to sound condescending; rather - I'm simply stating a fact. What you claim to know is false; therefore – ignorant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
False?

Hardly!

In that you have yet to comment on the following (in black) from a previous reply from me to you


<span class="ev_code_yellow">Example of Josf seeing things that are not there:</span><span class="ev_code_black">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.

Do you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but it is you that does not understand!

Need proof?

Take a look at what I said that got you so upset! i.e.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

In that quote do you see any reference to REAL 'historical/overmodelled/uber' performance?

I hope not in that there is NONE!

It is a comment about two pilots and their relative skills. There is no reference to REAL or GAME performance!

Thus proving once again that you are seeing things that are NOT there.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know if I give you enough time you can do it! So hang in there! This could be a turning point for you and your life!

Good Luck

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
A Joker! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So you did do another 180? Seriously dude! Help me out here because it appears that you are having your cake and eat it too.

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 04:55 PM
Good Luck

Thanks! You too.

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Thanks! You too. No problem at all! My pleasure!

But don't forget to comment on the following (in black) from a previous reply from me to you


<span class="ev_code_yellow">Example of Josf seeing things that are not there:</span><span class="ev_code_black">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, I am trying to discuss in game performance only, not what is historical/overmodelled/uber etc etc.

Do you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but it is you that does not understand!

Need proof?

Take a look at what I said that got you so upset! i.e.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Looks like the skills of those two pilots are really miss matched.

Too bad we don't have the track file from each plane during this test.. Than I could prove just how miss mathced they are.

In that quote do you see any reference to REAL 'historical/overmodelled/uber' performance?

I hope not in that there is NONE!

It is a comment about two pilots and their relative skills. There is no reference to REAL or GAME performance!

Thus proving once again that you are seeing things that are NOT there.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it is painful for you! But you should really make the effort!

JG14_Josf
06-10-2007, 06:13 PM
I know it is painful for you! But you should really make the effort!

Tagert,

Why do you imagine these things? I am curious. Can I guess?

You intend to accomplish something specific by lying.

Example:

By lying that you know something that you cannot know (a false claim is a lie) your intention is to inspire me to read your off-topic Straw-Man argument (par for the course).

You lie thusly:


I know it is painful for you!

That lie intends, I suppose, to inspire me to find out what it is that makes you imagine my pain. I missed that particular Straw-Man the first time you wrote it and now that you have cut and pasted it multiple times (now in black?) it is no more or less attractive. Perhaps you can try making it red next time.

More clues:


But you should really make the effort!

Perhaps you are delving into the reverse psychology tactic? No matter. My curiosity remains as it is. If you are interested in satisfying my curiosity then you will answer my next question honestly.

Why do you lie about me in public?

Example:


I know it is painful for you!

If you can see my smile, then, you would know that your lie continues to be a lie. I am curious. I have my guesses.

If no one cares to comment on my observation where ˜what is good for the goose is good for the gander' and any proof of one plane's tactical performance advantage can be further reinforced as proof by something called ˜science'.

If plane A is said to have a particular performance advantage, then, the scientific method suggests a control on the experiment whereby plane A, in the test, is swapped with plane B, in the same test, to eliminate as many variables as possible.
When plane A turns in one test, then, plane B turns in the control test.

The pilots are swapped for the same reason. The computers are swapped for the same reason. If the test results do not repeat, then, a variable is identified where, had there been no control to the experimentation, no such variable would be identified.

Does that make sense or should the focus of this thread continue to be upon my imaginary friend who appears to be in some sort of pain?

AKA_TAGERT
06-10-2007, 11:30 PM
Oh well..

I gave you every chance in the book..

Can't say I didn't try!

I guess your just not ready yet?

Maybe someday?

Some people just take longer than others..

No worries..

You have to move at your own pace!

So until that day..

Good luck!

Your going to need it in every aspect of your life!

M_Gunz
06-10-2007, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Start out at co-alt co-E with him..

Out climb him and extend beyond him..

Than TURN AROUND and bring your guns to bare on him.

I can do that to a 109K4 in a plain SpitIXe after 2 or 3 climbing turns, speaking about REASONABLE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B1tching and moaning about not being able to do something you can't show you should have....
ahhh now THAT is REASONABLE! You wouldn't be a whiner if you did not!

M_Gunz
06-11-2007, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But mate, if you have the faster plane with a better climb, as is the 109K4 over the SPitfire IX, then you can CREATE this E advantage.

Obviously a skilled pilot will see this coming, and not follow you in the steep climb if he knows you have more energy, but the fact his, he has no choice but to dive instead, or at least fly level. That means you are now in a commanding position to dictate the fight.

Well, the K4 doesn't have ROC that much better to be able to create sufficient separation before both planes reach high alt. Hell even Tagert agreed on that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

You can do this with F4 against SpitfireMkVb consistently, with K4 vs SpitfireMkIXc you can't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you start with separation then can you get high ground through wide spiral climb turning
just enough to avoid getting shot?

Xiolablu3
06-11-2007, 12:21 AM
DO you guys remember HART-Dreyer's tracks in the 109K4?

They were absolutely astounding.

For those who never saw them, he used to continually get 10 kill sorties in the BF109K and post the tracks up on his website. This was on full realish servers like Warclouds, Greatergreen and Spits Vs 109's too.

His site is down now, a real shame.

He used essentially the same energy technique and climb as JTD (obviously much more varied) has shown to enjoy complete dominance in the 109K4.

WHatever you thought of his 'Hartmann vs Dreyer' game (I know a lot of people thought that was lame, I didnt have a problem), you have to admit, he was one seriously good pilot, who knew exactly how to use the 109K4 to its strengths. (It was his favourite plane)

If anyone has any of his 10 kill sortie 109K4 tracks, then please post them for us to take a look at here. Or even beter, if you are reading htis Dreyer, can you post some of your tracks in the 109K4?

M_Gunz
06-11-2007, 12:35 AM
I read the title "Can K4 "effectively" outclimb SpitIX (not 25lb) series? Track please..."

Spit vs 109 --- no matter the reasons or the data, there will be flames, smoke and mirrors.

Manu-6S
06-11-2007, 12:58 AM
1. After the headon merge, dont turn, SPit turns to chase, losing energy.


What if the spit doesn't turn but does a Immelman turn? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ESCAPE!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Some day ago I had 2000m of advantage in a FW190A9 on 2 Spit25 who were flat turning at low-medium speed.

I missed my attack and zoomed only to see the spit catching me in vertical... I dove in direction of my base and the guy still was behind me at 500m...

And yesterday I was downed by a SpitV flying a F4 for the first time in months: a lucky shot (spray) hitted my damaging my cannon and I cannot no more manouvre and I lost 70km/h of max speed...

It was so frustrating that I seriously thought to leave this game until SoW.

Xiolablu3
06-11-2007, 01:06 AM
If the Spit does an immelmann turn then he will lose even more energy than a flat turn.

No matter how much energy he loses doesnt really matter, you can always make up more energy than him in the shallow climb and extension while he is chasing.

The 109K4s better climb allows you to extend and climb, thereby creating height and energy faster than him.

Manu, a Spitfire is going to down you eventually. You cannot hope to always have dominance, because the Spitfire is a dangerous plane. You are going to meet a pilot who is better than you sometimes, or be caught by a SPitfire with more energy. However the 109F4 IS far better in energy manouvres than the SPitfire V. You must have made a mistake.

MOH_MADMAN
06-11-2007, 01:09 AM
Yes it does outclimb that spit, but not to the extent that it gives it any advantage unless you climb low angle for 20-40 k or better, you see it handles just slightly better than the p47, unless at high alt then it loses.
this plane needs a wingman for consistent success because it simply does not perform to excess anywhere to make it very dangerous.

MAD

Manu-6S
06-11-2007, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If the Spit does an immelmann turn then he will lose even more energy than a flat turn.


Ehm.. like Tag says, disagree 100%.

With vertical manouvre is switching speed for altitude = almost same energy.

With flat turn is only losing speed without gaining altitude = losing energy.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
No matter how much energy he loses doesnt really matter, you can always make up more energy than him in the shallow climb and extension while he is chasing.


Yes I know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Manu, a Spitfire is going to down you eventually. You cannot hope to always have dominance, because the Spitfire is a dangerous plane. You are going to meet a pilot who is better than you sometimes, or be caught by a SPitfire with more energy. However the 109F4 IS far better in energy manouvres than the SPitfire V. You must have made a mistake.

Yes, I made the mistake to fight too long with one until another (slower and lower) spraied hitting me one single time: I cannot no more extend from damage.

My fault.. I was only to pointing out that a single lucky hit can make useless all the tactics (like been hitted in a FW190 = great lose of speed)

WTE_Ibis
06-11-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Oh well..

I gave you every chance in the book..

Can't say I didn't try!

I guess your just not ready-

Maybe someday?

Some people just take longer than others..

No worries..

You have to move at your own pace!

So until that day..

Good luck!

Your going to need it in every aspect of your life!
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

I see you're still a pain in the behind TAGERT
Somethings never change. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
It somehow rolls off the tongue:
taggert, braggart. It just has a nice rhyme to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

no offence meant of course. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

.

AKA_TAGERT
06-11-2007, 06:38 AM
Poor Nancy

M_Gunz
06-11-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
With vertical manouvre is switching speed for altitude = almost same energy.

He only regains the speed with loss of alt though. Will the 109K be able to climb out with
less loss is issue and from very high speed he may not.


With flat turn is only losing speed without gaining altitude = losing energy.

Not always. In fact when you leave poor flying out then there is a speed at or below where
any plane will be able to make the turn with no loss of speed and may even gain speed if they
are increasing power from low. But poor flying (like turning too hard or turn with slip) must
be left out so you can find examples working out both ways.

How are you handling prop in your dive and really a 2 km dive may be excessive.

If you can attack with side deflection then your exit will be harder to follow. Even if they
do not lose speed turning onto your course it still takes time which gives you distance.