PDA

View Full Version : Spit is the king of the skies in this game



zugfuhrer
02-12-2006, 03:22 PM
It is better in turning, climbing, breaking and damageprofile is harder. Its is better in horizontal and vertical aspects.

It got better guns than the Me-109 family and perhaps better than the FW too.
It is slower than the Fw (20-50 km/h) but faster than the 109.
It got better view.

The only thing the FW does better is rolling and diving.
Is there a better prop-fighter in this game?

Please back up anything contradicting with figures.

zugfuhrer
02-12-2006, 03:22 PM
It is better in turning, climbing, breaking and damageprofile is harder. Its is better in horizontal and vertical aspects.

It got better guns than the Me-109 family and perhaps better than the FW too.
It is slower than the Fw (20-50 km/h) but faster than the 109.
It got better view.

The only thing the FW does better is rolling and diving.
Is there a better prop-fighter in this game?

Please back up anything contradicting with figures.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
02-12-2006, 03:25 PM
So what's the problem?

SeaFireLIV
02-12-2006, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
So what's the problem? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
02-12-2006, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
It is better in turning, climbing, breaking and damageprofile is harder. Its is better in horizontal and vertical aspects.

It got better guns than the Me-109 family and perhaps better than the FW too.
It is slower than the Fw (20-50 km/h) but faster than the 109.
It got better view.

The only thing the FW does better is rolling and diving.
Is there a better prop-fighter in this game?

Please back up anything contradicting with figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Figures? Here's a figure:

Spitfire = 2 20mm cannons
FW190 = 4 20mm cannons or 2 20mm cannons and 2 30mm cannons

Firepower?

Viper2005_
02-12-2006, 03:33 PM
I'm afraid that reality bites old boy, (although the energy retention thing is perhaps somewhat questionable at times...).

At the end of the day the test reports say that it should be superior to every German piston engined fighter if used correctly, and so we can hardly complain that it is. Ditto the Tempest.

The sad thing is that I will probably never get to fly them online because I'll always be trying to balance the teams in my poor old Fw-190... Oh well. I'll take a few of them with me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

JG52Uther
02-12-2006, 03:46 PM
Pfffft Spitfires! You cant beat a JU88 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
02-12-2006, 03:48 PM
Unless of course you have a very big stick...

AH_Gonzo
02-12-2006, 03:53 PM
The new Spit is a beast as it should be. I only wish the 109's elevator authority had been left as it was in 4.02. Not sure if that would have been accurate though.

danjama
02-12-2006, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AH_Gonzo:
The new Spit is a beast as it should be. I only wish the 109's elevator authority had been left as it was in 4.02. Not sure if that would have been accurate though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought they had it good in 402

tomtheyak
02-12-2006, 04:18 PM
Yes its a great fighter, & it should be.

Doesnt make it unbeatable.

I fly it almost exclusively online and twice over the weekend I was outmanoeuvred at low level and speeds by 109s with resultant cash in on my virtual life insurance policy.

109s and 190s when flown to their strengths are still dangerous opponents - the spit just has more flexible options on how to fight. Its a great Z&B and T&B (for a little while)

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 04:37 PM
The problem is. If you are in a FW for example (and FW is Anton, Dora is another hybric demonic, perverted thing). If a spit decides to get you. There is NOTHING you can do but run away (you must have a distance advantage already, otherwise it will overacelerate you (not historicaly supported), or hope for a mistake. Spit is better ar vertical than FW (also not historicaly supported). The snap roll trick is somehting that everyone that ever tryed it, know it DOES NOT WORK online! It will work 1 in 10 times. But at all other 9 times the spit will be able to follow you (because you cant use other input until roll is finished or FW stall, and that is the thing that makes me most mad). And he will not loose nearly as much speed as you did in the proccess.

Spit does not have to worry with heat, energy (because it can recover and build it fastar than anything but K4), turn, altitude, nothing. Only thing a Spit drivers must worry is not being bounced from behind while focused on another thing.


That is VERY frustrating for pilots of other planes. And that is serius, just look at main servers. Only planes you find online on red side are spitfires (and tempests now, but I am sure they will diminish and become most of them spits again).


There were tatics capable of making a FW or BF form same year a good match for Spit. But there is not such thing in game ( in 43 for example). the tatics you need to use against spit are completely different of what they should be. Imagine. bets chance of a LW is to get down and very slow and get into a TURN FIGHT!! Or keep movig until he makes a mistake.

Stachl
02-12-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AH_Gonzo:
The new Spit is a beast as it should be. I only wish the 109's elevator authority had been left as it was in 4.02. Not sure if that would have been accurate though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought they had it good in 402 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What's the difference, seems the same to me...terrible! Oleg said there'd be an increase in manuverabilty, but I'm afraid I'd need a microscope to detect any improvement. The speed at which the elevator gets heavy is just too low.

I am hoping there's gonna now be a bit more of a loss of energy associated with hard manuvering in the Spit(4.03)!?! That and it's low visibilty (compared to the 109) were not a part of it's advantages in RL.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 05:01 PM
Think what 109 got was little bit more roll. Only that.

HellToupee
02-12-2006, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
The problem is. If you are in a FW for example (and FW is Anton, Dora is another hybric demonic, perverted thing). If a spit decides to get you. There is NOTHING you can do but run away (you must have a distance advantage already, otherwise it will overacelerate you (not historicaly supported) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so a report then of a 190 acc better than spitfire 9, just because a a3 out acc a early spit V dosnt mean a late spit will be, considering the weight of late antons with not a great increase in power, the early antons outclimbed late ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
, or hope for a mistake. Spit is better ar vertical than FW (also not historicaly supported). The snap roll trick is somehting that everyone that ever tryed it, know it DOES NOT WORK online! It will work 1 in 10 times. But at all other 9 times the spit will be able to follow you (because you cant use other input until roll is finished or FW stall, and that is the thing that makes me most mad). And he will not loose nearly as much speed as you did in the proccess.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

spits climb at 25lbs is only beat by a k4, if ur gona go vertical for very long ur gona get beat plain and simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Spit does not have to worry with heat, energy (because it can recover and build it fastar than anything but K4), turn, altitude, nothing. Only thing a Spit drivers must worry is not being bounced from behind while focused on another thing.


That is VERY frustrating for pilots of other planes. And that is serius, just look at main servers. Only planes you find online on red side are spitfires (and tempests now, but I am sure they will diminish and become most of them spits again).


There were tatics capable of making a FW or BF form same year a good match for Spit. But there is not such thing in game ( in 43 for example). the tatics you need to use against spit are completely different of what they should be. Imagine. bets chance of a LW is to get down and very slow and get into a TURN FIGHT!! Or keep movig until he makes a mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best tactics were team tactics hit and run etc

Von_Rat
02-12-2006, 05:11 PM
the only thing about spit that bugs me is its ufo like e retention.

lots of other planes in this sim have very clean lines but they don't have spit like e retention.

p1ngu666
02-12-2006, 05:24 PM
any ideas on howto test e retention?
i know il2's are dire for it just turn and whomp you've lost 200kph+ in a blink of a eye and are stalling

ofcourse il2's arent going fast, so there isnt the imense drag from highspeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
02-12-2006, 05:36 PM
I suggest a dive & zoom; dive a fixed distance at a fixed angle from a fixed entry speed, recover symmetrically and measure the speed when the original altitude is regained.

Do this at full power and deadstick (rads closed, prop pitch 0%) in order to illustrate the effect of power loading etc.

LEXX_Luthor
02-12-2006, 05:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
pingu:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">any ideas on howto test e retention? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow pingu you are the first to ask that question I always suggested it be done with all the bed wetting about FW which has [personal touchy feeling] the same E-bleed as other planes (but then, I do have a unique joystick in this community haha) -- and you are the first to ask how to do this!! Thank You!!

Now how to test it, I dunno, ask TAGERT.

carguy_
02-12-2006, 05:49 PM
Uhuh.Now lets see maybe Oleg should model Me262 or He162.Those would do good against latest Spit I think.

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 OldMan____:
The problem is. If you are in a FW for example (and FW is Anton, Dora is another hybric demonic, perverted thing). If a spit decides to get you. There is NOTHING you can do but run away (you must have a distance advantage already, otherwise it will overacelerate you (not historicaly supported) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so a report then of a 190 acc better than spitfire 9, just because a a3 out acc a early spit V dosnt mean a late spit will be, considering the weight of late antons with not a great increase in power, the early antons outclimbed late ones.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But nothing supports an aceleration advantage os almost 80% That is simple no sense. Spit doesnot have that level of power to weight ratio advantage (and it also IS more draggy).



Most important. I am not complaning directly about spit. But about thephenomenon that we have. For some time online playing became very boring. Only thing you find online are spits. Its long the time i´ve used to find P51, P63, P47, P38 side by side on same server, liek warcluds or Sitvs109 or greatergreen.


I think there is soemthign wrong. It may not e in the spit itself. it is probably many thing together.


For example. I really don´t beleive in RL pilots did so hard maneuvers as we do. Since Spit can go further than most. It takes more advantage. In RL for all planes going into a hard turn was stressfull for a pilot. He algo gets tired etc. On the end, RL fight is a completely different game. And on the game WE play online, SPIT is in such advantage that is boring. Boring for both sides. Because only oposition they find is BnZ from kilometers away. LW planes do not dare to enter in E tatics agaisnt Spit. Because combat evolves so more violently than in real life that both will bleed much more and spit wil recover faster.



Also there are issues with online playig itself. It has been a long time I notice that online you can stall more easily. If you ride near limit, any minor, very minor lag is enough to cause a lag displacement that dead reckonning from code makes you stall. That is specially bad with nevous rides like FW.



The team tatics subject is one that bothers me a lot. Every dary I see less and less cooperation online. I got shot 6 tiems today when I was ebing pursued and put myself (and following spit) in almost perfect position for other LW guys to bang him. But thye do NOTHING. they won´t open fire until they know they are going to kll him. They don´t give any value for saving fellows "life". That is really anoying and contributes for curernt supremacy situation.


So in general I think problems are not focused on spit, only. But we have a set of problems that culminate in to a ridiculous situation.

ImpStarDuece
02-12-2006, 06:10 PM
Some acceleration tests from 4.03

Speed -- SpitIXc -- FW 190A6
300-350 --- 6 sec -- 7 sec
350-400 --- 8 sec -- 8 sec
400-450 --- 11 sec -- 9 sec
450-500 --- 20 sec -- 17 sec

Spit IXc: 45 sec from 300 to 500

FW 190A6: 41 sec from 300 to 500

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Some acceleration tests from 4.03

Speed -- SpitIXc -- FW 190A6
300-350 --- 6 sec -- 7 sec
350-400 --- 8 sec -- 8 sec
400-450 --- 11 sec -- 9 sec
450-500 --- 20 sec -- 17 sec

Spit IXc: 45 sec from 300 to 500

FW 190A6: 41 sec from 300 to 500 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well My tests really don´t match these. From 350 to 500 FW took 40 seconds here. Also , most imporatnt issue is on loe speed acceleration. FW struggles from 250 to 350. While Spit and 109 go like dream. Maybe is more a problem at FW.. but it is there.

HellToupee
02-12-2006, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
But nothing supports an aceleration advantage os almost 80% That is simple no sense. Spit doesnot have that level of power to weight ratio advantage (and it also IS more draggy).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag is less of a factor at low speeds, and its only at low speeds the spit will out accelerate the 190 dunno how well the new spit fairs up in that reguard, but dont expect to pull away from a lighter plane with about the same power from stall speeds.

p1ngu666
02-12-2006, 09:34 PM
spit and 109 are more likely to have props for better climbing, 190 for speed

notsure if 190 is more aerodynmic, its probably the best radial engine for streamlinging, but inlines ironicaly enuff should be smoother and sleaker, but heavier.

radials produce more power, so its a tradeoff..

i think helltoupee is right, plus i bet the AOA of the 190 would be higher at low speed.

gx-warspite
02-12-2006, 09:51 PM
190 is generally more aerodynamic than the Spit. The nose is terrible (in Antons) and bad (in Doras) but the wings are built for speed. Kurt Tank knew what he was doing.

And seriously, guys, we've always run from Spits. The Spitfire is the ultimate fighter of the war. It has the ability to dogfight like a Zero because of its excellent wing loading (weight:wing area ratio), but unlike Zekes and Hurricanes it's also fast because of the thin, elliptical wings.

Dogfighting them is suicide. You either need a lot more power (ie, 109G2 vs Spit5) or you need to count on last-ditch tricks like forcing overshoots. All you can do is hope your plane is faster, and count on bounces. As the war progressed, Spits got much better relative to their competition. Spit1 vs 109E was fairly equal in terms of speed and roll, but the E climbed better and had far superior firepower. Spit5 vs 109F gave the F a bigger speed advantage, but it lost firepower. Spit9 vs 109G everyone knows is a slaughter unless you're packing MW50. And trust me, once the Spitfire XIV came out, it was game over.


Is the new Spit good? Yes. Is it uber? No. MW50 109s and Doras can still outrun it. 190s can outmaneuver it at high speed (with scissors in a shallow dive, for example) and will continue to do so until the Spit gets clipped wings. There's a lot that the Spitfire can't do (ie, catch its prey in a chase). The problem, I think, is that the reds have the Mustang Mk III and Tempest to do that for them - and once you're forced to break, that Spit will be on you in a second.

pourshot
02-12-2006, 09:58 PM
Maybe now the allies have planes that can hang with the axis for speed we will see a move to more early war servers?

I personly like the early stuff less uber = more fun.

p1ngu666
02-12-2006, 09:59 PM
its the same for blue with 190's and 109s

gx-warspite
02-12-2006, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its the same for blue with 190's and 109s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you're referring to the ability to force an opponent to break and engage, I think that's true but to a more limited extent.

The 25lb Spit is about as fast as a G-6/AS or G-14, roughly speaking. It can stay "close enough" to a Tempest that's dogging a Dora, like a G-14 can stay with a Dora that's chasing a Tempest. The thing is though, that the Spit9 is still an excellent dogfighter. It loses some of its ability compared to the Spit5, but not nearly as much as the 109G loses relative to the 109F.

I think it's a really delicate balance that has shifted into the reds' favor, after being generally favorable to the blues for a while now. That's not bad at all, but unlike the reds, the blues don't have anything to look forward to in order to make matters better for themselves. In fact, things are going to get worse for blue if a CW 25lb Spit or Spit XIV arrives. Much worse :P

p1ngu666
02-12-2006, 10:54 PM
true
in 44 terms, on the western front theyve had the performance advantage due to there late 44/5 planes. now the western allies have some of there late war iron.

raw performance (speed, climb) equality is bad for blue, few pilots (me espcialy) can use slending advantages that the german planes have irrespective of performance, most pilots cant do much with that and they die.

thats why early 44 is really unpopular, but u get lots of late44/5. i dunno why u get so many spits on them either, ppl must presume its the best, or perhaps even worse, know from past experience..

that 25lb boost spit is pretty potent tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CaptAce
02-12-2006, 11:10 PM
Has anyone done any testing of Spitfire energy retention rates? I have a few ideas about how to do this, including Vipers plan, but I'm curious to know what others came up with before I start testing things.

Hristo_
02-12-2006, 11:15 PM
Agred with Carguy.

Prop planes are fine as they are, now Oleg has to model Me 262 and He 162.

Kurfurst__
02-12-2006, 11:27 PM
The problem is that in the sim enviroment, we have a few, uncordinated planes turning against each other and little else, at low altitude. That's just perfect for the current Spits, which are very much like Soviet fighters, they are too slow, suck at altitude, but as long as people stupidly wish to fight say in a 109K vs Spit+25, at 200m altitude turnfights.... well they deserve to get shot down.

If we'd have any scenario ike real life, even at just 3-4000m, Spit drivers would find they are suddenly 50-60 kph slower than the opposition they can almost match at,and ONLY at Sea level, their supercharger is just too weak for +25...

But of course there are some modelling concerns, especially the ridiculus dive and zoom perfomance of the plane, which in no test, not even British test was comparable to US or LW planes, yet here we find the Spit happily diving and zooming with 47s, 51s, 109s or 190s. The historical tactics of diving away simply dont work then.

Vision is good? LOL, compared to what? you have that big nose blocking half the screen on the front, and apprx. ZERO vision to the rear. Sides, you can see a big wing if you want to check below.

All people would have to do is to drag the Spitdweeb to 3-4000, better still, bounce them while cruising at that altitude while those guys doing their typical 2-min missions, turnfighting someone then blown off the sky within the next 30 secs by some other... and if they want to come up, they are welcome, all you'd have to do is keep speed high, and use full throttle and walk away, and let one of the other Blue bounce him while he curses.

Problem is most people on DF servers know little more than the refined tactic of :

a, bank the plane 90 degree
b, turn towards the enemy until one of you dies

This is true for 90% of the Reds and at least 50% of the Blue. And this way of WW1 lonely ace menality favours the Spit, which was built very much around this mentality instead of speed and vertical performance, which were what did killed planes in World War II..

BfHeFwMe
02-13-2006, 12:35 AM
Ya'll Luftwaffe boy's come on up, brother Jug be wait'n for ya.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kurfurst__
02-13-2006, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 OldMan____:
But nothing supports an aceleration advantage os almost 80% That is simple no sense. Spit doesnot have that level of power to weight ratio advantage (and it also IS more draggy).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag is less of a factor at low speeds, and its only at low speeds the spit will out accelerate the 190 dunno how well the new spit fairs up in that reguard, but dont expect to pull away from a lighter plane with about the same power from stall speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the IXc we have here is a Merlin 66 powered one and should have 1690 HP for a 3370kg body. The 190A-5 packs 1800 HP for a 4000kg body, so as you can see the p/w ratio is in favour of the Spit, but the drag of the 190 is also somewhat smaller - the Spit's drag is a poor excuse for a WW2 inline fighter, truth to be told, but HT is right that it's a lesser factor at low speeds.

The-Pizza-Man
02-13-2006, 12:57 AM
I decided I might do my own tests on which planes retained energy better. I think the best way to test it was to enter a power off 45 degree dive at the same speed(400km/h) at 5000m and pull out into a 45 degree climb at 1000m. I tried to make the pull out at the same rate for all aircraft. Then I checked the altitude at which my original dive speed was reached. This tests the zoom climb ability, which essentially what energy retention is.

109K4 - 1985m
190A8 - 2184m
P-47D27- 1947m
Tempest V - 1887m
Spit IX +25 - 1646m

So as you can see it doesn't look like the spit retains energy all that well. In a turn may be a different matter in because the induced drag is obviously going to kill the high wingloaded aircraft like the 109 and 190. Perhaps the feeling that the spit retains energy comes from pulling too many gees in the pull out and continueing to climb once climbing speed has been reached.

Hristo_
02-13-2006, 01:01 AM
Finally - a simple and useful test.

Thanks

Mr_Nakajima
02-13-2006, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
If we'd have any scenario ike real life, even at just 3-4000m, Spit drivers would find they are suddenly 50-60 kph slower than the opposition ...
...
And this way of WW1 lonely ace menality favours the Spit, which was built very much around this mentality instead of speed and vertical performance, which were what did killed planes in World War II.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Golly Kurfurst, you'd think you had a personal grudge against the spitfire or something, wouldn't you?

I am just reading the second volume of the history of the Second Tactical Air Force by Christopher Shores (excellent volumes, well worth reading), and it is noticable how quickly 2nd TF established air superiority over the battlefield. And they did it using predominantly Spitfire IXs. No dogfight server rules there but real pilots, real missions and real life.

Perhaps the Luftwaffe hand't read your posts about how easy it was to defeat Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
02-13-2006, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
I decided I might do my own tests on which planes retained energy better. I think the best way to test it was to enter a power off 45 degree dive at the same speed(400km/h) at 5000m and pull out into a 45 degree climb at 1000m. I tried to make the pull out at the same rate for all aircraft. Then I checked the altitude at which my original dive speed was reached. This tests the zoom climb ability, which essentially what energy retention is.

109K4 - 1985m
190A8 - 2184m
P-47D27- 1947m
Tempest V - 1887m
Spit IX +25 - 1646m

So as you can see it doesn't look like the spit retains energy all that well. In a turn may be a different matter in because the induced drag is obviously going to kill the high wingloaded aircraft like the 109 and 190. Perhaps the feeling that the spit retains energy comes from pulling too many gees in the pull out and continueing to climb once climbing speed has been reached. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dont actually think its more the acceleration of the spit making up for lost energy, at high speeds spit burns off energy pretty dam quick compared to say a 190.

HellToupee
02-13-2006, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
But nothing supports an aceleration advantage os almost 80% That is simple no sense. Spit doesnot have that level of power to weight ratio advantage (and it also IS more draggy).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag is less of a factor at low speeds, and its only at low speeds the spit will out accelerate the 190 dunno how well the new spit fairs up in that reguard, but dont expect to pull away from a lighter plane with about the same power from stall speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the IXc we have here is a Merlin 66 powered one and should have 1690 HP for a 3370kg body. The 190A-5 packs 1800 HP for a 4000kg body, so as you can see the p/w ratio is in favour of the Spit, but the drag of the 190 is also somewhat smaller - the Spit's drag is a poor excuse for a WW2 inline fighter, truth to be told, but HT is right that it's a lesser factor at low speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spits drag poor excuse? one could say 190s climb is a poor excuse for a fighter or its altitude performance, or the 109 is a poor excuse for a plane, trade offs are made. The merlin 66 was around 1720hp.

robban75
02-13-2006, 01:40 AM
Here's a little dive and zoom comparison, with full power + boost, rads closed, full fuel.

Dive and climb angle 20 degrees.

The Spitfire is the +25 boosted version. The A-5 is the 1.42 ata version, the D-9 is the '44 version. In meters and km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Alt --- A-5 -- IX -- D-9'44

3000 - 303 - 303 - 303
2500 - 513 - 529 - 530
2000 - 633 - 642 - 647
1500 - 714 - 717 - 731
level - 714 - 717 - 736
1500 - 678 - 682 - 704
2000 - 572 - 573 - 606
2500 - 467 - 475 - 512
3000 - 371 - 391 - 428
3500 - 299 - 327 - 369

Hristo_
02-13-2006, 01:48 AM
So, taking regular Fw 190A-5 and Fw 190A-6 against new Spit25 is not for the weakhearted.

Makes sense, 1.65 ATA Focke Wulfs had a year of headstart on Spit25.

Only overheating is a problem. 1.65 ATA can probably stay out of Spit25's reach, but for how long ?

Fw 190A-8 is there anyway, so I guess a steady hand and a lot of patience, cunning and downright deviousness can beat the 25. Bring it on, I say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

alert_1
02-13-2006, 01:57 AM
SpitIX 25lbs+Tempest V is deadly cocktail. That's why LW had Me262s and, lately He162s. Last night I met them in my Spit (was on blue side for all evening, just at the end I try the Spit) on AH_Dedicated. Normally I feel pretty safe in Spit but against a few Me262+He162 flown by experienced pilot I felt pretty ouclassed.
Germans simply didnt have such good piston fighters like Alies becasue they focus their effort at jets and I wonder why they are not more present on online full real servers.

WOLFMondo
02-13-2006, 02:34 AM
Bah! No Spitfire in this sim has anything on a Dora. No plane in this sim is as good as the Dora!

The Spitfire doesn't have the best of views (it has the mirror though!) and has a **** roll rate, its guns have some bite but limited ammo.

But what I really don't like about the Spitfires, and I really want to like them, its the aileron trim or complete lack of it. I find I always have to correct my course, I'm concentrating allot more when formation flying. The rudder also needs allot of correction. Compared to the 190's or the fully trimmable US aircraft the Spitfire is not the nicest of planes to fly.

Hristo_
02-13-2006, 02:40 AM
Yes, it seems unfair to limit one side's planeset because Luftwaffe focused on jets rather than prop planes in 1944/45.

Jets are certainly not easy to fly and I don't think they will unbalance things, especially with Tempest, Mustang III, P38L Late and Spit25 around.

Me 262 take off and landings, like in real life, make them vulnerable. If they lose speed in combat, they are as good as dead. One quick throttle movement or rifle caliber hit and engine is burning. Most novices flying the 262 will be nothing but free 200 points for the Red team.

robban75
02-13-2006, 02:48 AM
Post edited, erroneous results.

Hristo_
02-13-2006, 02:59 AM
You sure, Robban ? If those numbers are right, the 1.65 seems a deathtrap compared to 1.42. Have those numbers been brought before Oleg ?

Well, at least it overheats like a 1.65 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
02-13-2006, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
You sure, Robban ? If those numbers are right, the 1.65 seems a deathtrap compared to 1.42. Have those numbers been brought before Oleg ?

Well, at least it overheats like a 1.65 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think I made a misstake. Stand by!

robban75
02-13-2006, 03:18 AM
Here, new results. And better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Alt - 1.65 - 1.42

3000 - 303 - 303
2500 - 313 - 513
2000 - 627 - 633
1500 - 710 - 714
level - 714 - 714
1500 - 677 - 678
2000 - 567 - 572
2500 - 459 - 467
3000 - 367 - 371
3500 - 309 - 299

Viper2005_
02-13-2006, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem is that in the sim enviroment, we have a few, uncordinated planes turning against each other and little else, at low altitude. That's just perfect for the current Spits, which are very much like Soviet fighters, they are too slow, suck at altitude, but as long as people stupidly wish to fight say in a 109K vs Spit+25, at 200m altitude turnfights.... well they deserve to get shot down.

If we'd have any scenario ike real life, even at just 3-4000m, Spit drivers would find they are suddenly 50-60 kph slower than the opposition they can almost match at,and ONLY at Sea level, their supercharger is just too weak for +25. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg

FTH in MS gear @ 3000/+25 is about 4,000 feet if you're flying at speed.

FTH in FS gear @ 3000/+25 is about 14,000 feet if you're flying at speed.

Performance then falls off to the same level as already available from the LF.IX @ 3000/+18 once 20,000 feet is reached (which is the FS gear FTH @ 3000/+18 with 400 mph ram). And in all fairness the LF.IX is hardly short on performance in the 20,000 - 25,000 ft range.

You can hardly accuse the Merlin 66 of having an inadequate supercharger!

20,000 is just over 6 km. Of course we all know that the Fw-190's FTH is around 6 km, and that at that altitude its high wing loading in relation to the Spitfire becomes something of a disadvantage...

Of course if you're static you might knock 2000 feet off all those FTHs, but the fact remains that the Merlin 66 is a pretty awesome piece of kit which allows the Spitfire to perform over a wide range of altitudes. Even at 3000/+25 it isn't purely a low altitude machine, especially when measured against the standards of your typical online dogfight.

Hristo_
02-13-2006, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Here, new results. And better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Alt - 1.65 - 1.42

3000 - 303 - 303
2500 - 313 - 513
2000 - 627 - 633
1500 - 710 - 714
level - 714 - 714
1500 - 677 - 678
2000 - 567 - 572
2500 - 459 - 467
3000 - 367 - 371
3500 - 309 - 299 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.

I guess it is back to Fw 190A-6 then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Here's a little dive and zoom comparison, with full power + boost, rads closed, full fuel.

Dive and climb angle 20 degrees.

The Spitfire is the +25 boosted version. The A-5 is the 1.42 ata version, the D-9 is the '44 version. In meters and km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Alt --- A-5 -- IX -- D-9'44

3000 - 303 - 303 - 303
2500 - 513 - 529 - 530
2000 - 633 - 642 - 647
1500 - 714 - 717 - 731
level - 714 - 717 - 736
1500 - 678 - 682 - 704
2000 - 572 - 573 - 606
2500 - 467 - 475 - 512
3000 - 371 - 391 - 428
3500 - 299 - 327 - 369 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tha is what I am talking about. In this maneuver Spit never got behind FW (again, when i write FW i think ANTON, Dora is Dora). In fact Spit is FAR ahead. Also look at difference between Dora and Anton. Dora is NOT tha more aerodynamic! Dora has ebtter Cod but bigger wet are for just better overal drag. But this difference is.. weird and unexpected. The D9 can fight anything in game. But the Antons should be able to fight also, not as well and certainly not dominate Spits.



Also again, my main complain about Antons is the inability to use roll properly. test this.. go into a moderate (really not strong) bank right or left. Then still holdign a little bit of pitch make the plane roll 360. It will stall at the moment it reaches "normal flight position".

So using roll does not help. If you do it as it shoudl you stall. If you just use it to change direction etc also does not help. Spit will take some more time to get to same direction but will loose MUCH less speed. So instead of getting you out of trouble.. it will only make it worse.

If at least I could use THESE FW tatics as they should be.. I would be happy (i think)

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 04:34 AM
Just made a similar test. From 3k to level than back to 3k at 15 degrees. This is shallow dive and climb, where FW shoudl have advantage. I tested agsints NORMAL Spit 9e.

when reaching 3k on zoom FW was at 330 IAS (exactly same For A8) while Spit was at 350 IAS. Dora 44 can reach 3k at 370 IAS. I don´t even want to try with 25lb one.

It seems I shoudl concentrate in why Antons are so much slower than Dora (even when A8 and Dora have not so different power). Dora is sleaker. But come on... 40 km/h more e retention?

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 05:09 AM
Just to be able to sleep well this night I made same test with Me262... sweet. reached 3k at 550IAS o.O

Ratsack
02-13-2006, 05:15 AM
A better test of energy retention is to have all planes reach a particular speed at a given altitude (e.g., 480 km/h IAS at 2,000 m), and then pull up at a given angle (e.g., 45 degrees). You then measure:

1. the IAS at given altitudes;
2. the time to reach given altitudes; and
3. the altitude at which the plane stalls.

The first two together should give you an idea of energy retention from similar starting conditions. I say 'similar' rather than 'identical' because at the same speed an altitude the heavier aircraft have more kinetic energy.

The third gives you an idea of what to expect frm a given match up in a hammerhead, rope-a-dope or Immelman.

If I have time tonight, I might try a couple of these and post the results.

Ratsack

robban75
02-13-2006, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just made a similar test. From 3k to level than back to 3k at 15 degrees. This is shallow dive and climb, where FW shoudl have advantage. I tested agsints NORMAL Spit 9e.

when reaching 3k on zoom FW was at 330 IAS (exactly same For A8) while Spit was at 350 IAS. Dora 44 can reach 3k at 370 IAS. I don´t even want to try with 25lb one.

It seems I shoudl concentrate in why Antons are so much slower than Dora (even when A8 and Dora have not so different power). Dora is sleaker. But come on... 40 km/h more e retention? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's something wrong with the 1.65 ata A-5, as its performance is actually worse than the 1.42 version.

The Dora had lower drag yes, but it also had almost 400 more hp.

If we run the D-9 without Erh¶ten Notleistung, the power would be comparable to that of the 1.42 ata A-5.

The results in-game looks like this.

Alt -- A-5 - D-9'44

3000 - 303 - 303
2500 - 513 - 520
2000 - 633 - 636
1500 - 714 - 719
level - 714 - 718
1500 - 678 - 689
2000 - 572 - 583
2500 - 467 - 485
3000 - 371 - 395
3500 - 299 - 329

I do believe the Fw 190(all versions) would get even better results if the bug between 1000 and 2000m was fixed. The 190 simply run out breath at these altitudes. The D-9 for example should manage an average climb rate of 21.7m/sec between these alts, but in-game it can only muster 18.7m/sec. It also lack 22km/h in top speed at 2000m.

The-Pizza-Man
02-13-2006, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
A better test of energy retention is to have all planes reach a particular speed at a given altitude (e.g., 480 km/h IAS at 2,000 m), and then pull up at a given angle (e.g., 45 degrees). You then measure:

1. the IAS at given altitudes;
2. the time to reach given altitudes; and
3. the altitude at which the plane stalls.

The first two together should give you an idea of energy retention from similar starting conditions. I say 'similar' rather than 'identical' because at the same speed an altitude the heavier aircraft have more kinetic energy.

The third gives you an idea of what to expect frm a given match up in a hammerhead, rope-a-dope or Immelman.

If I have time tonight, I might try a couple of these and post the results.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought about that after I did my dive and pull out tests. It would probably work equally as well. But I think the important thing is that the climb has to be done throttle cut. I feel that it gives you a better impression of the zoom climb capability rather than introducing the elements of sustained climb that opening the throttle brings. Real zoom climb tests, IIRC, did not have the pilot open the throttle.

If I were to do the tests again I would dive from maybe 3000 meters, pull out and level off at 1000m wait until the TAS dropped to say 650 kph then pull up into a 45 degree climb. I'd do it with throttle closed, at 75% and fully open. I would measure TAS until best sustained climbing speed(IAS) is reached for each aircraft.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
It is better in turning, climbing, breaking and damageprofile is harder. Its is better in horizontal and vertical aspects.

It got better guns than the Me-109 family and perhaps better than the FW too.
It is slower than the Fw (20-50 km/h) but faster than the 109.
It got better view.

The only thing the FW does better is rolling and diving.
Is there a better prop-fighter in this game?

Please back up anything contradicting with figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Figures? Here's a figure:

Spitfire = 2 20mm cannons
FW190 = 4 20mm cannons or 2 20mm cannons and 2 30mm cannons

Firepower? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its clearly seen that: number of guns isnt same as firepower, always leaned on other side on one side.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The problem is that in the sim enviroment, we have a few, uncordinated planes turning against each other and little else, at low altitude. That's just perfect for the current Spits, which are very much like Soviet fighters, they are too slow, suck at altitude, but as long as people stupidly wish to fight say in a 109K vs Spit+25, at 200m altitude turnfights.... well they deserve to get shot down.

If we'd have any scenario ike real life, even at just 3-4000m, Spit drivers would find they are suddenly 50-60 kph slower than the opposition they can almost match at,and ONLY at Sea level, their supercharger is just too weak for +25...

But of course there are some modelling concerns, especially the ridiculus dive and zoom perfomance of the plane, which in no test, not even British test was comparable to US or LW planes, yet here we find the Spit happily diving and zooming with 47s, 51s, 109s or 190s. The historical tactics of diving away simply dont work then.

Vision is good? LOL, compared to what? you have that big nose blocking half the screen on the front, and apprx. ZERO vision to the rear. Sides, you can see a big wing if you want to check below.

All people would have to do is to drag the Spitdweeb to 3-4000, better still, bounce them while cruising at that altitude while those guys doing their typical 2-min missions, turnfighting someone then blown off the sky within the next 30 secs by some other... and if they want to come up, they are welcome, all you'd have to do is keep speed high, and use full throttle and walk away, and let one of the other Blue bounce him while he curses.

Problem is most people on DF servers know little more than the refined tactic of :

a, bank the plane 90 degree
b, turn towards the enemy until one of you dies

This is true for 90% of the Reds and at least 50% of the Blue. And this way of WW1 lonely ace menality favours the Spit, which was built very much around this mentality instead of speed and vertical performance, which were what did killed planes in World War II.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


hmm, cant say anything what bugs my eye. so, WELL SAID.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
If we'd have any scenario ike real life, even at just 3-4000m, Spit drivers would find they are suddenly 50-60 kph slower than the opposition ...
...
And this way of WW1 lonely ace menality favours the Spit, which was built very much around this mentality instead of speed and vertical performance, which were what did killed planes in World War II.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Golly Kurfurst, you'd think you had a personal grudge against the spitfire or something, wouldn't you?

I am just reading the second volume of the history of the Second Tactical Air Force by Christopher Shores (excellent volumes, well worth reading), and it is noticable how quickly 2nd TF established air superiority over the battlefield. And they did it using predominantly Spitfire IXs. No dogfight server rules there but real pilots, real missions and real life.

Perhaps the Luftwaffe hand't read your posts about how easy it was to defeat Spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea, and real unexperienced pilots, more than most of us are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just made a similar test. From 3k to level than back to 3k at 15 degrees. This is shallow dive and climb, where FW shoudl have advantage. I tested agsints NORMAL Spit 9e.

when reaching 3k on zoom FW was at 330 IAS (exactly same For A8) while Spit was at 350 IAS. Dora 44 can reach 3k at 370 IAS. I don´t even want to try with 25lb one.

It seems I shoudl concentrate in why Antons are so much slower than Dora (even when A8 and Dora have not so different power). Dora is sleaker. But come on... 40 km/h more e retention? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's something wrong with the 1.65 ata A-5, as its performance is actually worse than the 1.42 version.

The Dora had lower drag yes, but it also had almost 400 more hp.

If we run the D-9 without Erh¶ten Notleistung, the power would be comparable to that of the 1.42 ata A-5.

The results in-game looks like this.

Alt -- A-5 - D-9'44

3000 - 303 - 303
2500 - 513 - 520
2000 - 633 - 636
1500 - 714 - 719
level - 714 - 718
1500 - 678 - 689
2000 - 572 - 583
2500 - 467 - 485
3000 - 371 - 395
3500 - 299 - 329

I do believe the Fw 190(all versions) would get even better results if the bug between 1000 and 2000m was fixed. The 190 simply run out breath at these altitudes. The D-9 for example should manage an average climb rate of 21.7m/sec between these alts, but in-game it can only muster 18.7m/sec. It also lack 22km/h in top speed at 2000m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think You are probably right. Since a large amount of verfical maneuvers pass on this level of 1k to 2k, FW loose important power in the range it is very needed.

This may be some of the major causes of FW problems.

But about the extra HP on Dora. It had about same power as A9, and it is still FAR better. Speacially at slower speeds( where its reduced drag should not be that relevant)

me410jr
02-13-2006, 06:14 AM
it does have the hispano cannons that are better than the mg ff and mg 151 that the germans use but the me109g10-k is faster than the spit and with combat flaps turns with it and it has the 30mm mk108 the spits are not unbeatable

JG4_Helofly
02-13-2006, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
The problem is. If you are in a FW for example (and FW is Anton, Dora is another hybric demonic, perverted thing). If a spit decides to get you. There is NOTHING you can do but run away (you must have a distance advantage already, otherwise it will overacelerate you (not historicaly supported), or hope for a mistake. Spit is better ar vertical than FW (also not historicaly supported). The snap roll trick is somehting that everyone that ever tryed it, know it DOES NOT WORK online! It will work 1 in 10 times. But at all other 9 times the spit will be able to follow you (because you cant use other input until roll is finished or FW stall, and that is the thing that makes me most mad). And he will not loose nearly as much speed as you did in the proccess.

Spit does not have to worry with heat, energy (because it can recover and build it fastar than anything but K4), turn, altitude, nothing. Only thing a Spit drivers must worry is not being bounced from behind while focused on another thing.


That is VERY frustrating for pilots of other planes. And that is serius, just look at main servers. Only planes you find online on red side are spitfires (and tempests now, but I am sure they will diminish and become most of them spits again).


There were tatics capable of making a FW or BF form same year a good match for Spit. But there is not such thing in game ( in 43 for example). the tatics you need to use against spit are completely different of what they should be. Imagine. bets chance of a LW is to get down and very slow and get into a TURN FIGHT!! Or keep movig until he makes a mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% agree with this!

From the physical view point, should a lighter plane not be able to drop more energy than a havier plane? In game it's reversed. The havy plane loose much more energy than the lighter plane.

Hier the best link about energy in the game : http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...opic&t=7876&start=30 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7876&start=30)

When you have time, read all the discussion if not, read page 3. Than you will certanly understand the problem a bit better.

The-Pizza-Man
02-13-2006, 06:53 AM
Ok I did a few more tests, this time just the 190A8 and the Spit IX +25 and +18 for the power dives.

First is 45 degree zoom climbs from 1000m at 650km. It is the altitude reached when the aircraft is at 170 mph/270kph IAS(I chose this because it was the best climbing speed of the spit, after which the spit should most definately gain on the 190).

It goes power off, 75%, full power+boost

Spit IX +25 - 1640 - 2190 - 2490
190A8 - 1930 - 2290 - 2530

I then did a couple of power on dives to test dive acceleration under power. I dived from 3000m and recorded speeds at 2000 and 1000 meters.

Spit 18 -620 - 760
Spit 25 -620 - 770
190A8 -620 - 772

You should note though that in a power off dive the 190 accelerates very much faster.

From this I'd say that the best tactic 190 drivers could employ is to dive on the enemy hit him zoom up 1000 meters, assess the situation and figure out whether to make another pass or extend. Even a +25 spit can't touch you if you do that.

In defence you could wait until the spit is fairly late in his dive then start a barrel rolling dive, which either forces him to overshoot, break off or slow down. If he over shoots your on his tail with enough speed to catch him. If he breaks off, it gives you room to extend and if he slows down you can zoom up over him.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 07:11 AM
^
Conclusion - fight with power off but try to persuade the enemy to fly on power off too.

Hristo_
02-13-2006, 07:20 AM
Interesting stuff, keep it coming.

Puts a lot of things into perspective too.

robban75
02-13-2006, 07:55 AM
I did these full power zoom climb comparisons, between the Fw 190A-8 and +25 boost Spitfire.

I started at 1000m, and 650km/h TAS.

I pulled up to a 45 degree climb. The pull up took ~7 seconds.

First set, altitude reacehd at certain speed.

Fw 190A-8 -- Spitfire Mk IX

650 - 1000 - 650 - 1000
600 - 1181 - 600 - 1185
550 - 1390 - 550 - 1407
500 - 1606 - 500 - 1637
450 - 1808 - 450 - 1863
400 - 2005 - 400 - 2080
350 - 2191 - 350 - 2289
300 - 2366 - 300 - 2494
250 - 2529 - 250 - 2695
200 - 2689 - 200 - 2904

Second set, speed at certain altitude.

Fw 190A-8 -- Spitfire Mk IX

1000 - 650 - 1000 - 650
1500 - 524 - 1500 - 530
2000 - 401 - 2000 - 419
2500 - 259 - 2500 - 297
3000 - N/A - 3000 - 179

If you're in an A-8, zoom climbing = bad! You better hope that you are traveling at a higher speed than the Spit that is lining up on your 6. And that there is already at least 500m horizontal distance between you and him, and hope that your plane is faster at the altitude you fly at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

gx-warspite
02-13-2006, 09:13 AM
Look, everyone complaining that you have "no options except to run" from a 25lb Spit when you're in a Dora or whatever:

How is this any different from flying a 190A vs a regular Spit9? Regular Spit9s outclimb and out-turn Antons. If one gets on you, the only thing the 190 can do is turn tail and run.

Like I said in another post, the key aircraft of this patch isn't the Spit, but the Tempest. The Tempest finally gives the reds an aircraft that can force Doras to break. The speed difference between a Tempest and Dora is so minimal, that if the Tempest comes in with just 500m or so more altitude, it will hunt the Dora down and vice-versa. P-51s could do this too, but people convinced themselves they sucked so they never flew them and thus never made this happen.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Look, everyone complaining that you have "no options except to run" from a 25lb Spit when you're in a Dora or whatever: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That "whatever" makes some difference.Dora is everything people want Antons to be.And Focke Wulf 190 did have options against Spitfire in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How is this any different from flying a 190A vs a regular Spit9? Regular Spit9s outclimb and out-turn Antons. If one gets on you, the only thing the 190 can do is turn tail and run. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody experienced will challenge Spitfire in those.The thing we`re so warped about(along with P51/P47 drivers) is that even if you Boom it you don`t have enough energy to Zoom.

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 11:11 AM
Afetr a zillion tests I found a sweet combo where an A6 or A5 can win a Spit 9 (not uber one).


You need to eb at least 2000m. Start a dive at 15 degrees (use your crtl-f1 view to watch artificial horizon to practice). Do it on Auto prop. You may start with Open radiators. When you dove 1000m close radiators. Continue daving until about 300 meters and start a very smooth leveling. Engange 70% prop pitch. Stay a few second this way (so that follower also gets to bottom of dive). Than smoothly go to a 10% climb at 80% pitch. Stay that way until you reach 400 kph (at about 1650-1720 meters). Then go level and escape. The following Spit 9 will be 280-320 meters under you when he hits 400 kph. He will continue to climb utnil same height as you. You just accelerate. You will be near 450 when he achieves that and he will be at 380 kph (all IAS here).

If you start this maneuver just outside his firing range you can pretty much encourage him to give up on you.


That is better than flat running because you don´t end it at zero height. This worked with all starting speeds between 300 and 400 (that I have tried). The faster you are, the less you need dive.

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Look, everyone complaining that you have "no options except to run" from a 25lb Spit when you're in a Dora or whatever:

How is this any different from flying a 190A vs a regular Spit9? Regular Spit9s outclimb and out-turn Antons. If one gets on you, the only thing the 190 can do is turn tail and run.

Like I said in another post, the key aircraft of this patch isn't the Spit, but the Tempest. The Tempest finally gives the reds an aircraft that can force Doras to break. The speed difference between a Tempest and Dora is so minimal, that if the Tempest comes in with just 500m or so more altitude, it will hunt the Dora down and vice-versa. P-51s could do this too, but people convinced themselves they sucked so they never flew them and thus never made this happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agin, I am NOT talking about Dora, neither about Spit 25 lbs. I am talking about Antons and normal spitfires.

The tempests are no where near to be a key plane in this patch. They have been very easy to handle with. Any dora will EASILY tangle with him. He does not need to escape from it! I have been sot by tempest only when they got me by surprise, with only one exception where I faced a reallgy stuborn Tempest pilot that made me crash to avoid his shots.

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 11:17 AM
yeah, thatll stop the chasing aircraft cutting your vertical turn

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 11:51 AM
high angle dive only makes you lose your E against enemy faster, you can cut enemys dive with more gentle dive, even if your plane top max dive speed isnt anyway close that the escaping enemy.

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
high angle dive only makes you lose your E against enemy faster, you can cut enemys dive with more gentle dive, even if your plane top max dive speed isnt anyway close that the escaping enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeap but the gap here is very narrow. If you dive at &gt;20-25 degrees and climb more than 15 or 20 spit will catch you. At this level I managed to achieve vest results. Also it doe snot help dive from higer than that, you only expoils E.

Airmail109
02-13-2006, 11:59 AM
Finally the luftwhiners had it handed to them, they can shove this patch up their ****s for all I care. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Capt._Tenneal
02-13-2006, 12:18 PM
No the true kings of the skies are, still, those sniper tail gunners. No matter what I use, yes even the Spitfire, they turn my plane into a smoking useless hulk, lol.

fordfan25
02-13-2006, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
So what's the problem? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>real life messing up the fantasy world? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Unknown-Pilot
02-13-2006, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
So what's the problem? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>real life messing up the fantasy world? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean where turn fighters and light planes have unrealistic advantages and E-fighters and heavy planes have unrealistic E-bleed? That fantasy world, known as Oleg-world?

Status quo here.

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 12:30 PM
I will say in what this will result. Will result in less and less players wanting to fly blue online to the point where it will become an enourmous prejudice to 1C capability of selling BOB. Since everyone will be expecting a totally RAF driven game like it is currently now. Than no one of use Blues or reds wil ahve a game to have fun.

zugfuhrer
02-13-2006, 01:04 PM
No problem a salute to a very good looking plane.
But for anyone who wants something more challenging, fly a FW.

Its up to the server-owners to match the teams. If it is to unbalanced no one will play it.
It wouldnt be so much fun to have only Stukas on one side and P-47:s on the other side.

My conclusions are from some tests I have done. Check them out, test them at home, and write about it.
Firepower is hard to evaluate, look at my damagemodel-test instead.
Is retention the same thing as the possibility to "brake" so have I done a test with it.
I started at 500 km/h put the throttle to idle and clocked the time it took to get to 200 km/h in straight flight.

ImpStarDuece I am waiting for the tracks that proof you figures mine are shown in this forum, and I can send them to anyone who whices so.
Dont mix how it was in bad old days with this game.
The spit IX is superior at 7k in this game.

ploughman
02-13-2006, 01:19 PM
What's challenging about a D-9 or the Ta-152? They're dream machines. I haven't really tried the early types but anything including and after the A-6 are seem to me to be just fabulous. The Fw-190 series of aircraft are potent and rewarding aircraft to fly and don't really seem to present any more difficulty than a Spit except the Spit IX's easier to get out of a spin. If this was 2.0x I'd be disagreeing with myself, back then every time I tried to turn one the freakin' thing would flip on its back and I'd be toast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

lowfighter
02-13-2006, 01:29 PM
Somehow to me handling of the FW (I fly usually A4 and A8) is much <span class="ev_code_RED">smoother and stable</span> than almost all Spit variants. P47 and P51's are again pretty easy to handle to me. Besides the Spits, the other ones which gives me some trouble (but less than the Spit) are the corsairs. I don't understand what I am doing wrong?

tigertalon
02-13-2006, 01:31 PM
My new Mc205 pwns them all! Spits that is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

carguy_
02-13-2006, 01:32 PM
I must be doing something wrong too.When I fly any Spitfire the plane turns normally with much smoothness.However,in any Anton when I try to perform harder horizontal/vertical maneuver all I get is furious shake and energy loss http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

lowfighter
02-13-2006, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I must be doing something wrong too.When I fly any Spitfire the plane turns normally with much smoothness.However,in any Anton when I try to perform harder horizontal/vertical maneuver all I get is furious shake and energy loss http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Carguy this is incredible! Me confused too!

jimDG
02-13-2006, 01:41 PM
you have to say if you are talking about pit-off ot pit-on dogfights.
Turners are disadvantaged with pit-on - the target is always beneath the nose- cant lead properly.
And whats wrong with BnZ? It works, gets the job done, spit cant do it due to weak armament and low ammo (one pass not enough), and if it goes high up to fight fw190s they can get away easily in a dive.
Besides, the instantaneous turn of bf109 is better - pull the stick hard and nose goes up (slats etc.). Pull too hard in a Spit and off you go spinning.
For the first passes of an engagement bf109 is at an advantage,and more maneuvarable. Then it can accelerate away, and if beyond 400m 2wing cannons at some convergeance cant reach it. And the bf109 can shoot at 400 and beyond very well.

Manuel29
02-13-2006, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I must be doing something wrong too.When I fly any Spitfire the plane turns normally with much smoothness.However,in any Anton when I try to perform harder horizontal/vertical maneuver all I get is furious shake and energy loss http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ploughman
02-13-2006, 01:48 PM
Your Anton can't turn with a Spitfire and all of a sudden you're challenged by this? Weren't you challenged by this in 4.02, 4.01, 3.04, 3.03, etc., as well or did you only just notice?

gx-warspite
02-13-2006, 01:56 PM
Look, you guys complaining about not having options in a 190 against a Spitfire are almost exclusively talking about 1v1 scenarios. Sorry, but that's not how the real war was fought.

There is no better aircraft in this game, now or before, than the FW-190 when flown with 1-3 wingmen. It is the ultimate team plane. You say you can't zoom after booming? I say BS - either you didn't have enough of an E advantage on the boom, or you're missing the wingman to hit the target that tries to follow you in the zoom.

If you expect to dogfight a Spitfire and live, never mind win, you're absolutely insane. The Spitfire is the best fighter of the war, period. It turns and retains E like a Zero, it's usually almost as fast and climbs almost as well as contemporary 109s, and in the clipped wing variant it rolls almost like a 190. If God himself was asked to design the ultimate fighter plane using early 1940s technology, I'm pretty sure it would look a lot like a Spitfire.

190s have advantages like speed, dive, roll and firepower. These aren't the kinds of things you can take maximum advantage of individually. You will rarely if ever be able to win in a dogfight - on the Spitfire's terms. You need to fly with wingmen, fly smart, patient, be willing to let Spits go if they're smart and baiting you to get low and slow.

Boom and zoom isn't about fighting. It's about murder. Spitfires are the knights in shining armor, made for the straight-on fight. You're the thief in the night with poison and a knife ready to sink into someone's back. Take them unawares, when they're preoccupied, or when they're at a disadvantage.

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 01:56 PM
its not really RAF driven oldman
theres the spit IX and VIII which are decent, a scary 25lb ix, and a tempest thats decent.

the mossie is perhaps 50% of the plane it should be, or less, and the beufighter had less than half its ammo load for along time. and no rear view at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

plus weve got no flyable bombers (native) and our AI ones are amoung the very lightest load carries.

the lw has a far better selection of aircraft. and argueabley more potent

lowfighter
02-13-2006, 01:57 PM
Thought a little and reduced the paradox http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
In spitfire: if I hard turn, climb etc it goes smoothly. But when I try to do minor flight corrections (as with aiming etc,) then I have big instability.
In FW: if I hard turn (as hard as the FW will allow(yeah I love those warnings of the plane)) it goes smoothly. Now if I try to do minor flight corrections as with spit it will also go smoothly.
I don't get it, it happens to me only with this two type of planes spit and corsair???

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 02:08 PM
been several replies while i was writin mine (i was doing other things)

i agree with warspite

incidently sometimes i find spits really nice to fly, other times not

190's are fine for me, tho ive heard of some suddenly haveing wobbles with 403 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

in cockpit off servers 190s do very well, tnby types dont do that well. ud expect the zero tobe kill in no cockpit, but others just pull huge lead and blame, no more zero.

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 02:09 PM
yeah low, id agree with that...
the spit should be good at the gentle corrections, it often seems abit "steppy" to me

JG4_Helofly
02-13-2006, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Look, you guys complaining about not having options in a 190 against a Spitfire are almost exclusively talking about 1v1 scenarios. Sorry, but that's not how the real war was fought.

There is no better aircraft in this game, now or before, than the FW-190 when flown with 1-3 wingmen. It is the ultimate team plane. You say you can't zoom after booming? I say BS - either you didn't have enough of an E advantage on the boom, or you're missing the wingman to hit the target that tries to follow you in the zoom.

If you expect to dogfight a Spitfire and live, never mind win, you're absolutely insane. The Spitfire is the best fighter of the war, period. It turns and retains E like a Zero, it's usually almost as fast and climbs almost as well as contemporary 109s, and in the clipped wing variant it rolls almost like a 190. If God himself was asked to design the ultimate fighter plane using early 1940s technology, I'm pretty sure it would look a lot like a Spitfire.

190s have advantages like speed, dive, roll and firepower. These aren't the kinds of things you can take maximum advantage of individually. You will rarely if ever be able to win in a dogfight - on the Spitfire's terms. You need to fly with wingmen, fly smart, patient, be willing to let Spits go if they're smart and baiting you to get low and slow.

Boom and zoom isn't about fighting. It's about murder. Spitfires are the knights in shining armor, made for the straight-on fight. You're the thief in the night with poison and a knife ready to sink into someone's back. Take them unawares, when they're preoccupied, or when they're at a disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many people seem to belive that the fw 190 can only hit and run in rl like in the game but this is wrong! The Fw had a better manoeuvrability exept in turning circles, so it can switch faster from one manoeuver to an other than the spit can. Also in the acceleration and in vertical it was better. It can fight much better in vertical than the spit ( not like in the game )

You should also read the book of Eric Brown. There was a story about a single spit vs a single fw and the fw shoot down the spit in a few minutes.
I don't belive that the fw 190 can only win when it fight with wingmans.

lowfighter
02-13-2006, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah low, id agree with that...
the spit should be good at the gentle corrections, it often seems abit "steppy" to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I thought I was the only one on the planet having this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gx-warspite
02-13-2006, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
You should also read the book of Eric Brown. There was a story about a single spit vs a single fw and the fw shoot down the spit in a few minutes.
I don't belive that the fw 190 can only win when it fight with wingmans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, what kind of Spit? Spit5? Spit1? Spit9? Spit14? How well trained was the Spit pilot? How experienced was the Focke pilot? Was one of them fatigued?

carguy_
02-13-2006, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
There is no better aircraft in this game, now or before, than the FW-190 when flown with 1-3 wingmen. It is the ultimate team plane. You say you can't zoom after booming? I say BS - either you didn't have enough of an E advantage on the boom, or you're missing the wingman to hit the target that tries to follow you in the zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree completely about the team thing.The FW190 dominates when in numbers.Only when flown by veterans though.

My point is that the advatages you listed in fact can and were used in real life.The roll alone is a good example.Even in a big furball there are often duels because often few planes are separated.
FW190 indeed could use those to get a favorable position.Gaining separation through diving or zooming up is a part of it.

The plane was clearly stated as safer,easier and more deadly fighter than the Me109.Untrained pilots loved it.That alone tells about Focke Wulf.Here we have the opposite situation.

DmdSeeker
02-13-2006, 02:31 PM
I imagine every flight sim has it's own mechanism of moddeling planes; be it a simple look up table or blade element theory.

But one thing has stayed constant since the beginning of the IBM compatable PC....

What ever your method of making the model; plug in the Spit's numbers; and pretty soon you're defending your method against claims of Uberspitness.

Maybe it really was that good; and that's how it beat the "new best".

Or maybe; just maybe, it sucked; and it was the total uberness of RAF pilots that won the day.

Nevertheless; you'll hear time and time again that the LW had totaly the world's most uber pilot's (and stats back up the claim!); and you'll also hear that the LW had totaly the best plane (and stats back up the claim!); and yet; every attempt to model WWII aircraft has the Spit as uber....

Oh well; I wonder how we beat the best, flying the best....

HuninMunin
02-13-2006, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
You should also read the book of Eric Brown. There was a story about a single spit vs a single fw and the fw shoot down the spit in a few minutes.
I don't belive that the fw 190 can only win when it fight with wingmans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, what kind of Spit? Spit5? Spit1? Spit9? Spit14? How well trained was the Spit pilot? How experienced was the Focke pilot? Was one of them fatigued? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I find your lack of faith disturbing.
The fact that a superior fighter, namly the Focke Wulf 190, could outrun, outgun and outturn(in the vertical) any Spit is more then often stated by many recources. I wont look em up for you.
First do your homework, than try to post a real statement about the 190s combat abilitys.

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 02:56 PM
BTW, the outdive one is pretty contestable. In my zoom tests the 25 lb spit reaches far greater dive speed than a FW A8. But I will remake them specificaly to show that before posting exact data.


Also FW lacks one of its greatest weapons ROll. In this sim if you roll and pull stick you stall!! You need to roll, wait, pull. You will never evade anything like that.

You can´t even make a good high Yo-Yo anymore , because if you make it strong with combined move you stall! You must be extremely gentle on changing directions.

Also FW has incredbly low trust in low speed. Just put a FW A8 side by side in runway with a Spit 5... This lack of trust at lower speeds makes it loose the nose at vertical maneuvers.

I really want to discover if the Anton is being treated as it shoudl. All sources I have state it was MORE maneuverable than DORA.. but is FAR opposite in game.


I will also make some calculations about true G forces needed for all planes turn like they do in game. I suspect we are subject to G forces much higher than were normal in RL(all planes).


Pingu: I am talking about the current online scenarrio when I talk about RAF oriented. I really thing Spit vs 10 got best server name possible, because Spits is only thing I see online (once in a while a tempest). It is not RAF players fault that their planes were far superior to US stuff. But they must understand that this may destroy the whole online gaming experience.


At end i think this game become a cold war between Spitfire and 109 and most planes (and their piltos) suffer from that.

Unknown-Pilot
02-13-2006, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Oh well; I wonder how we beat the best, flying the best.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given you're nationalistic nature, I don't suppose you would believe that fighting a war on 3 fronts, against as many nations, each of whom could match, if not exceed the industrial capacity, coupled with stupidity in the upper OKL and above, had anything at all to do with it, would you? Somehow, I doubt it (it's not as easy to pound ones chest with that idea).

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 03:30 PM
I am not specailist oh physiology. But did pilots without special preparation ,like in WW2, in seats not designed to help them withstang G forces. Hold 5.3 G forever?

I am making some calculations on G forces and it seems pilot can hold that G forever in game (at little bit above that is starts to blackout).


I really think our combats are much more violent than in RL. In real life no pilots would e able to hold this level of stress for 10 minutes in a burning hot cockpit, using quite heavy stick etc...

Maybe the point is all our virtual piltos are uber pilots.

Charos
02-13-2006, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
I am not specailist oh physiology. But did pilots without special preparation ,like in WW2, in seats not designed to help them withstang G forces. Hold 5.3 G forever?

I am making some calculations on G forces and it seems pilot can hold that G forever in game (at little bit above that is starts to blackout).


I really think our combats are much more violent than in RL. In real life no pilots would e able to hold this level of stress for 10 minutes in a burning hot cockpit, using quite heavy stick etc...

Maybe the point is all our virtual piltos are uber pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Its the man not the machine.

zugfuhrer
02-13-2006, 03:47 PM
Can u show us the calculations?

If the blackout was correct implemented, a pilot should black out earlier and then wouldnt a zero or a I-153 be able to curve so hard because of the blackout.
Isnt there a fatique after a blackout?

Charos
02-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Here is a good article and graph of G-loc

G-Loc (http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html)

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
Can u show us the calculations?

If the blackout was correct implemented, a pilot should black out earlier and then wouldnt a zero or a I-153 be able to curve so hard because of the blackout.
Isnt there a fatique after a blackout? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Used a Spit (nothing to prove aginst it here, just using it because it is far easie to make this tes on it than in FW for example) to collect data.

Just start turning until you reach a spot where you can ride very near the blackout . Measure the time you take to make, lets say, 90 degrees course change. And take note on average TAS.

The force used in turn is equal to : (always in internatinal system)

Mass*(speed^2)/radius.

By using speed and time you know how far your plan traveled. If you made 10 degrees turn for example, the perimeter of the theoretical circunference you were riding is twice that. The radius equals distance/2*Pi. So you know speed, radius, and weight.

So you know the force holding plane on turn. Divide that by the weight (weight not mass, weight is mass*9.8) and you have the amount of G your turn was.

MB_Avro_UK
02-13-2006, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
I imagine every flight sim has it's own mechanism of moddeling planes; be it a simple look up table or blade element theory.

But one thing has stayed constant since the beginning of the IBM compatable PC....

What ever your method of making the model; plug in the Spit's numbers; and pretty soon you're defending your method against claims of Uberspitness.

Maybe it really was that good; and that's how it beat the "new best".

Or maybe; just maybe, it sucked; and it was the total uberness of RAF pilots that won the day.

Nevertheless; you'll hear time and time again that the LW had totaly the world's most uber pilot's (and stats back up the claim!); and you'll also hear that the LW had totaly the best plane (and stats back up the claim!); and yet; every attempt to model WWII aircraft has the Spit as uber....

Oh well; I wonder how we beat the best, flying the best.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a load of biased rubbish
!!.
A very small number of LW pilots had high kills because of their situation. If British or American pilots had been in the same situation they also would have had equally high kills.

Do not try to imply that the LW pilots were a superior race http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Your post implies some sort of racial ideology which of course was the basis of Nazi ideology.The free world fought against this attitude and it cost the lives of millions to defeat Nazi ideology.

German people today are suffering politically because of the warped views of the Nazis and your post does not help.

Go and read history in depth and find facts.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

badatflyski
02-13-2006, 04:07 PM
oldman: "I really think our combats are much more violent than in RL. In real life no pilots would e able to hold this level of stress for 10 minutes in a burning hot cockpit, using quite heavy stick etc..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif bingo!...and also don't forget that the cabapility for a pilot to sustain G's is also due to his position in the cockpit.....is it me alone or in any book i read about the 190 it's written than the 190's pilots could sustain more G's than the same pilot in any other plane???... due the "forward" position of the pilot...
Anyway i still can't follow a Ufo-La in a heavy turn with the same speed without being blacked-out...and my squad-hommy in his Ufo-La doesn't get one... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif....also hoping for a "visual fatigue" in BoB....so the 10 minutes-4G's turners will have to slow down a bit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

zugfuhrer
02-13-2006, 04:11 PM
I find no stinking ubermench here. Lets not mix any ideology with physics here.
I think that such a special environment as a war makes special character to bloom.

Of course would any pilot of the right brand shoot down as many planes as the LW-aces did under the same circumstances, but not if they where equipped with aircrafts that fly like the LW-ac does in this game.

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatflyski:
oldman: "I really think our combats are much more violent than in RL. In real life no pilots would e able to hold this level of stress for 10 minutes in a burning hot cockpit, using quite heavy stick etc..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif bingo!...and also don't forget that the cabapility for a pilot to sustain G's is also due to his position in the cockpit.....is it me alone or in any book i read about the 190 it's written than the 190's pilots could sustain more G's than the same pilot in any other plane???... due the "forward" position of the pilot...
Anyway i still can't follow a Ufo-La in a heavy turn with the same speed without being blacked-out...and my squad-hommy in his Ufo-La doesn't get one... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif....also hoping for a "visual fatigue" in BoB....so the 10 minutes-4G's turners will have to slow down a bit! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If we can propose a good idea of fatigue system. Maybe Oleg may think on implement something like that for BOB. But lets put our brains to work on it.

FI.RULES
02-13-2006, 05:00 PM
Can all luftis just drop the statement that the
109 & run-90 is so much harder to fly and that they themselfs are so much better for flying them...some of you lot fly the 109 and the run-90, and rarely nothing else. So what would you know about how hard is is to down a enemy with .303´s and .50´s? Get down from your pidestal, and admit that enything with that amount of fire-power that the named plane´s have makes them the ultimate noob plane...Just spray and pray with your one-hit wonder´s and stop comlaining...

Just take a close look in the online-war statistics and you will find that apart from some of the top blue fliers that are realy good, no doubt about that. The rest of the top 50 blue fliers in most online-wars have realy bad hit %.
Ergo any plane with a MK-108 is a noob plane.

Suck it in and stop going on about how great you all are.

bolillo_loco
02-13-2006, 05:02 PM
I will say it again and again, Spitfires are for "Nancy boys."

OldMan____
02-13-2006, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI.RULES:
Can all luftis just drop the statement that the
109 & run-90 is so much harder to fly and that they themselfs are so much better for flying them...some of you lot fly the 109 and the run-90, and rarely nothing else. So what would you know about how hard is is to down a enemy with .303´s and .50´s? Get down from your pidestal, and admit that enything with that amount of fire-power that the named plane´s have makes them the ultimate noob plane...Just spray and pray with your one-hit wonder´s and stop comlaining...

Just take a close look in the online-war statistics and you will find that apart from some of the top blue fliers that are realy good, no doubt about that. The rest of the top 50 blue fliers in most online-wars have realy bad hit %.
Ergo any plane with a MK-108 is a noob plane.

Suck it in and stop going on about how great you all are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>]

You just forget that 9 in 10 FW don´t use MK108. And Mg151 although slightly stronger than Hispanos, they have MUCH worse trajectory. So don´t start with this subject. Thas is a completely different holy war.

Brain32
02-13-2006, 05:17 PM
FI.Rules, some people play both sides here, so they have a pretty good insight about the whole picture. And all I can say is that the new Spit25 is pretty stinky, I was one of the guys that really wanted a Spit with a bit extra HP, just for the sake of a bit easier disengagement, but we got an E monster. While your "average Joe" turning and burning(and stalling) on the deck probably will not notice all the stuff new Spit has to offer try applying a different aproach, try to beat German fighters in their own fight, energy fighting, you will notice very soon that something is fishy here...

HellToupee
02-13-2006, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Oh well; I wonder how we beat the best, flying the best.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given you're nationalistic nature, I don't suppose you would believe that fighting a war on 3 fronts, against as many nations, each of whom could match, if not exceed the industrial capacity, coupled with stupidity in the upper OKL and above, had anything at all to do with it, would you? Somehow, I doubt it (it's not as easy to pound ones chest with that idea). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u mean that whole 3 front war in 1940 with 3 -1 odds over the raf :P

DmdSeeker
02-13-2006, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

What a load of biased rubbish
!!.
A very small number of LW pilots had high kills because of their situation. If British or American pilots had been in the same situation they also would have had equally high kills.

Do not try to imply that the LW pilots were a superior race http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Your post implies some sort of racial ideology which of course was the basis of Nazi ideology.The free world fought against this attitude and it cost the lives of millions to defeat Nazi ideology.

German people today are suffering politically because of the warped views of the Nazis and your post does not help.

Go and read history in depth and find facts.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it's biased rubbish; you cod fish!

But if we agree the human genome accross Northern Europe is an homogenous mess; then to what do you assign the RAF's victory over the LW; any where it met it?

Could it possibly the G-resistant forces of a really good cup of Earl Grey; or could it possibly be that the Spitfire is a dominating force which ever method one cares to use to model it?

I can see why generations later lots of internet would-be Germans (and thier Eastern European aasociates) complain about Spitfire over moddeling; who'd want to admit to having weak tea and no biscuit?

Grey_Mouser67
02-13-2006, 05:35 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html

I think this is the data used to model the current Spit...from the site, the best numbers I could find..

Rate of climb:
Sea Level: 5740 FPM
5000 ft: 5080 fpm
10000ft: 5080 fpm
15,000ft: 4470 fpm
20,000ft: 3720 fpm

Speed:
S/L: 354mph
10,000 ft: 377 mph
20,000 ft: 397 mph

In game test I did, I was able to acheive 358 mph at Sea Level... 4 mph too fast, but no worry against its contemporary enemies because it is waaayyy slower than any of them.

Now if Oleg modelled the aircraft to its most optimistic, recorded performance numbers then I'd say it aught to climb like a monkey with its tail on fire! In fact, based on the numbers I am reading above, it should be the best plane in the game..not a 109K expert, but I don't remember seeing climb rates over 5000 fps...one of the experts can ring in there.

So I'd say the Spit is probably pretty well modelled over all and for a person used to outclimbing a Spit in a Dora or G10...better be careful and check your six often!

carguy_
02-13-2006, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI.RULES:
Can all luftis just drop the statement that the
109 & run-90 is so much harder to fly and that they themselfs are so much better for flying them...some of you lot fly the 109 and the run-90, and rarely nothing else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m getting an impression that you see only half of the picture.Some of us just want planes modelled correctly.About pilot skills there were few real LW aces there.The whole rest of LW pilots were either n00bs or experienced n00bs.But they had very good aircraft they flew.An entire LW could never have won a big battle with aces only.Your average pilot would still be skilled to get kills.In here if you put a n00b in a supposed n00bfriendly FW190 you see nothin but carnage.Those guys can`t even perform a loop.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So what would you know about how hard is is to down a enemy with .303´s and .50´s? Get down from your pidestal, and admit that enything with that amount of fire-power that the named plane´s have makes them the ultimate noob plane...Just spray and pray with your one-hit wonder´s and stop comlaining... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does this have to do with Focke Wulf190 performance?Maybe you oughta explain this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just take a close look in the online-war statistics and you will find that apart from some of the top blue fliers that are realy good, no doubt about that. The rest of the top 50 blue fliers in most online-wars have realy bad hit %.
Ergo any plane with a MK-108 is a noob plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That`s your opinion.My is that MK108 is a joke of a weapon.Silly ROF potato cannon lol

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Suck it in and stop going on about how great you all are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW190 aces are great.Me109 aces are mostly average.

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 06:27 PM
seems u think n00b friendly = tnb

n00b friendly atributes of 190
wide track landing gear
good cockpit, space, arrangement of instruments etc
simple systems
dont haveto worry about overspeeding airframe, getting heavy/stiff controls
can leave the fight at will
great all round view
auto engine controls

now lets take a n00b friendly yak3
firstly, limited ammo and light guns
weak engine
need to setup, prop pitch controls, supercharger stages, fuel mix, and ull be using them ALOT.
slow.

well geeze, poor lil 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

which n00b pilots faired better irl?
190 pilots, or zero/ki43 pilots?

geeze all a n00b pilot will need tobe told is dont tnb with spits and vvs aircraft, and dont try and slowspeed outclimb spitfires.

Davinci..
02-13-2006, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Just take a close look in the online-war statistics and you will find that apart from some of the top blue fliers that are realy good, no doubt about that. The rest of the top 50 blue fliers in most online-wars have realy bad hit %.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i have no interest in debating the whole who thinks they are better nonsense. But about the hit percentage comment.

i would like to point out it is a lot easier to hit something when you are parked on its tail, then it is to take quick snap shots and angled deflection shots...

you should spend the time you take for making broad sweeping statements, on making the connection between flying styles and hit percentage.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
seems u think n00b friendly = tnb </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes,it seems though it`s not.I`m comparing it with 109.Let`s see your list

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">n00b friendly atributes of 190
wide track landing gear </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1:0 for FW190

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">good cockpit, space, arrangement of instruments etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2:0 for FW190

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">simple systems </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

both = 3:1

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">dont haveto worry about overspeeding airframe, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

both = 4:2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">getting heavy/stiff controls </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

5:2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">can leave the fight at will </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct in eastern front,incorrect in the west

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">great all round view </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in the game.

5:3


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
auto engine controls </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

both= 6:4


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well geeze, poor lil 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes,poor FW190,or rather poor n00b who gets to fly FW190.I`d think that or shooting squad = good motivation.IL2v.4.03 experience is 8 on 10 n00bs die.OTOH n00bs love the 109.Maybe we should just downgrade it to 190 level?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">now lets take a n00b friendly yak3
firstly, limited ammo and light guns </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ShVak and UBB are more than enough for anyone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">weak engine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant since this thing flies better than Zero anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
need to setup, prop pitch controls, supercharger stages, fuel mix, and ull be using them ALOT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you kidding?You change mix 3 times in mission,supercharger hardly has influence on the performance,pp all the way 100.You can leave it all on default too.Anything the Yak n00b will notice is bad performance higher with 100mix.However Yaks don`t fly high nor n00bs do.

Slow enough to outclimb,outturn and outaccelerate LW fighters.



Uh what am I talking bout anyway?!Just put two equal n00bs in FW190 and Yak3 and setup a DF.Who dies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The-Pizza-Man
02-13-2006, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
I did these full power zoom climb comparisons, between the Fw 190A-8 and +25 boost Spitfire.

I started at 1000m, and 650km/h TAS.

I pulled up to a 45 degree climb. The pull up took ~7 seconds.

First set, altitude reacehd at certain speed.

Fw 190A-8 -- Spitfire Mk IX

650 - 1000 - 650 - 1000
600 - 1181 - 600 - 1185
550 - 1390 - 550 - 1407
500 - 1606 - 500 - 1637
450 - 1808 - 450 - 1863
400 - 2005 - 400 - 2080
350 - 2191 - 350 - 2289
300 - 2366 - 300 - 2494
250 - 2529 - 250 - 2695
200 - 2689 - 200 - 2904

Second set, speed at certain altitude.

Fw 190A-8 -- Spitfire Mk IX

1000 - 650 - 1000 - 650
1500 - 524 - 1500 - 530
2000 - 401 - 2000 - 419
2500 - 259 - 2500 - 297
3000 - N/A - 3000 - 179

If you're in an A-8, zoom climbing = bad! You better hope that you are traveling at a higher speed than the Spit that is lining up on your 6. And that there is already at least 500m horizontal distance between you and him, and hope that your plane is faster at the altitude you fly at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've re done my tests to check the results I also included the standard +18 boost spit as well. The speeds are all TAS.

It goes spit 18,25 then A8

1000 - 650 - 650 - 650
1250 - 579 - 582 - 589
1500 - 522 - 527 - 533
1750 - 466 - 475 - 475
2000 - 408 - 421 - 413
2250 - 354 - 367 - 349
2500 - 304 - 316 - 285

These are the alitudes at which 170mph(270kph)IAS was reached.

Spit IX +18 - 2410
Spit IX +25 - 2473
190 A8 - 2356

I think it is pretty obvious from these tests that the FW-190 does zoom climb better than the spit. It converts speed into altitude faster and more efficiently. If you can't out zoom a spit, even a +25 boosted one you are holding your climb too long and moving into the spits performance envelope. If you have a 1000m advantage you can make a full power 45 degree dive starting at 500kph TAS, hit a max speed of 690 true, pullout zoom back to 2000 meters and only loose 70 kph.

Xiolablu3
02-13-2006, 08:08 PM
FW190A should be able to nose over and dive away better than any Spitfire.

'The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB'

I have been told this is not the case in the game. (not tested myself). The Spit gains on the FW190 in the initial stages but then the FW190 gets away. Thi could do with changing as the FW190 needs every advantage it an get now, especially versus the 25+ boost Spit.

p1ngu666
02-13-2006, 08:47 PM
wonder what speed they where when they started the dive?
i suspect 250mph+, in which case....

Xiolablu3
02-13-2006, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I must be doing something wrong too.When I fly any Spitfire the plane turns normally with much smoothness.However,in any Anton when I try to perform harder horizontal/vertical maneuver all I get is furious shake and energy loss http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats because you are trying to turn too tight for the plane. It cannot handle the turn you are trying to pull. Spitfire turns a lot better especially at slow speed, so you can get away with tight turns a lot more.

The result of trying to turn too tight for a plane equals buffeting and much energy loss, and if pushed even more it equals a spin.

On the other hand the FW190 turns great at very fast speeds as long as you dont over-do it. As long as you are travelling fast enuff, you should be able to turn with a Spit, 400kph+ ,its as the fight slows down that the turning gets poor and the SPitfires gets better.

BaldieJr
02-13-2006, 11:35 PM
spit is king?

AKA_TAGERT
02-13-2006, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
It is better in turning, climbing, breaking and damageprofile is harder. Its is better in horizontal and vertical aspects.

It got better guns than the Me-109 family and perhaps better than the FW too.
It is slower than the Fw (20-50 km/h) but faster than the 109.
It got better view.

The only thing the FW does better is rolling and diving.
Is there a better prop-fighter in this game?

Please back up anything contradicting with figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So let it be writen..
So let it be done.

Von_Rat
02-14-2006, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
seems u think n00b friendly = tnb

n00b friendly atributes of 190
wide track landing gear
good cockpit, space, arrangement of instruments etc
simple systems
dont haveto worry about overspeeding airframe, getting heavy/stiff controls
can leave the fight at will
great all round view
auto engine controls

now lets take a n00b friendly yak3
firstly, limited ammo and light guns
weak engine
need to setup, prop pitch controls, supercharger stages, fuel mix, and ull be using them ALOT.
slow.

well geeze, poor lil 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

which n00b pilots faired better irl?
190 pilots, or zero/ki43 pilots?

geeze all a n00b pilot will need tobe told is dont tnb with spits and vvs aircraft, and dont try and slowspeed outclimb spitfires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fw was noob friendly in rl, noobs preferred them, experts preferred 09.

serveral factors mitigate against the fw being noob friendly in this game.

you just have to read these forums to know what those factors are.

robban75
02-14-2006, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and dont try and slowspeed outclimb spitfires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say don't try and out climb a Spit at any speed(in a 190A).

lowfighter
02-14-2006, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

If we can propose a good idea of fatigue system. Maybe Oleg may think on implement something like that for BOB. But lets put our brains to work on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully agree, also with the idea that we are using our AC much closer to the edge than RL WWII pilots.
Im wondering for example, if a RL pilot knew that his AC will break appart around 800 Km/h, when would he pull up from a dive, at 750 perhaps? Or perhaps at 700?

Would be nice to have also kind of a fear system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-14-2006, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
I did these full power zoom climb comparisons, between the Fw 190A-8 and +25 boost Spitfire.

I started at 1000m, and 650km/h TAS.

I pulled up to a 45 degree climb. The pull up took ~7 seconds.

First set, altitude reacehd at certain speed.

Fw 190A-8 -- Spitfire Mk IX

650 - 1000 - 650 - 1000
600 - 1181 - 600 - 1185
550 - 1390 - 550 - 1407
500 - 1606 - 500 - 1637
450 - 1808 - 450 - 1863
400 - 2005 - 400 - 2080
350 - 2191 - 350 - 2289
300 - 2366 - 300 - 2494
250 - 2529 - 250 - 2695
200 - 2689 - 200 - 2904

Second set, speed at certain altitude.

Fw 190A-8 -- Spitfire Mk IX

1000 - 650 - 1000 - 650
1500 - 524 - 1500 - 530
2000 - 401 - 2000 - 419
2500 - 259 - 2500 - 297
3000 - N/A - 3000 - 179

If you're in an A-8, zoom climbing = bad! You better hope that you are traveling at a higher speed than the Spit that is lining up on your 6. And that there is already at least 500m horizontal distance between you and him, and hope that your plane is faster at the altitude you fly at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've re done my tests to check the results I also included the standard +18 boost spit as well. The speeds are all TAS.

It goes spit 18,25 then A8

1000 - 650 - 650 - 650
1250 - 579 - 582 - 589
1500 - 522 - 527 - 533
1750 - 466 - 475 - 475
2000 - 408 - 421 - 413
2250 - 354 - 367 - 349
2500 - 304 - 316 - 285

These are the alitudes at which 170mph(270kph)IAS was reached.

Spit IX +18 - 2410
Spit IX +25 - 2473
190 A8 - 2356

I think it is pretty obvious from these tests that the FW-190 does zoom climb better than the spit. It converts speed into altitude faster and more efficiently. If you can't out zoom a spit, even a +25 boosted one you are holding your climb too long and moving into the spits performance envelope. If you have a 1000m advantage you can make a full power 45 degree dive starting at 500kph TAS, hit a max speed of 690 true, pullout zoom back to 2000 meters and only loose 70 kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data you posted don´t support exactly waht you are saying. The 44 FW dived and zoomed worse than the 44 Spit.

Again.. for the ones missiong points that are bad in FW. We do not ask for Spt turning radius. We ask (at least me): Not loosing 90
% of engine power at lowers peeds, speacially in top of vertical amneuvers. Not to be tha plane that need MOST engine attention (EXACTLY oposite to reaol life, since the only way FW is slighty competitive is in manual prop and handling a lot of radiator flaps. Not stall when performing rolls in middle of turns (since that was MAIN maneuver of FW, we want to be able to execute it).


And in the long run (BOB) a combat more oriented how it was in real life (less violent and energetic, where roll capabilities of FW really mean something).

Also complex engien management should be THAT! Comlex! You should have to worry with over heat and underheat, managing propeller pitch on extreme situations etc.. And not having to do so should be the FW advantage.


Just pay attention. In real life main advantages of FW: extremely easier engien control, light contorls that do not war the pilot during combat, good seat made to help sustain G forces, capability of cutting of turns with rolls and revesing to other direction quickly

Wich ones os these are modelled in game? NONE

JG4_Helofly
02-14-2006, 04:11 AM
100% agree with you OldMan.

We absolutly need complex engine management. I read a story about a pilot who underheat the engine when he went down and suddenly the engine stoped. An other story is about a french pilot who can't use the throtel at 9000m because it was frozen. In IL2 you overheat in 12000 m with radiator open!!! There is a serious problem there.

The idea of the pilot fatigue system is also great. There would be much more realism in our dogfights. Then it's finish with dogfighting 2 hours at 6 g http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
This would be a great adventage for those fighters which are built for high g ( seat in fw 190 ) and light controles.
I think when all these things are included in bob no noob will fly bf 109 anymore. To hard controles, black out in high g ( like spit ), hard to land and start, ... The only advantage left is the engine management from 109F to K and higher. I read they also had a kommandoger¤t.

Oh Oleg, please make a sim which can be called sim and not arcade shooter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
02-14-2006, 05:08 AM
Don't you think that the pilot would also suffer considerably from rolling at 120' per sec, then rapidly reversing the roll direction, and back etc.

G-forces which move the head sideways are also quite difficult to sustain. Not to mention disorientating.

Manuel29
02-14-2006, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

If we can propose a good idea of fatigue system. Maybe Oleg may think on implement something like that for BOB. But lets put our brains to work on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Would be nice to have also kind of a fear system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real player actually can feel fear, don't need any virtual one...

The-Pizza-Man
02-14-2006, 05:11 AM
I agree, more complex engine management would be great as would shock cooling, thats why you close the cowl flaps and make sure carb heat is on when you decend in a light plane. But the point has been raised before, are you going to spend 5-10 minutes on the ground warming up the engine before you even take off? They could just give you a pre warmed engine though.

Moving on. The data does support what I'm saying. The FW out climbed both spits in the initial stages, when speed was kept high, above 300 mph. Your not zoom climbing once you reach speeds below 250-300 mph, that is entering the envelope of sustained climb. An area which the spit, particularly the +25 boosted are decidely superior. The facts are that the FW will loose energy faster whenever it pulls high angles of attack. You can't be suprised that an aircraft with a lower wing loading and over 2000 hp can climb better than a FW.

lowfighter
02-14-2006, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:

If we can propose a good idea of fatigue system. Maybe Oleg may think on implement something like that for BOB. But lets put our brains to work on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Would be nice to have also kind of a fear system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real player actually can feel fear, don't need any virtual one... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was joking, we love this game precisely because of the strong feelings/emotions it conveys. However (perhaps I lack imagination) I don't think my feelings come very close in intensity to the real life ones. And no game device can bring me closer, because I don't fear REAL DEATH. WWII pilot DEATH would come not only through enemy fire but also by airplane failure.

Manuel29
02-14-2006, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
I was joking, we love this game precisely because of the strong feelings/emotions it conveys. However (perhaps I lack imagination) I don't think my feelings come very close in intensity to the real life ones. And no game device can bring me closer, because I don't fear REAL DEATH. WWII pilot DEATH would come not only through enemy fire but also by airplane failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are right... this is because I prefer Coop mission than Dogfight server... just like playing a virtual war with career systems: your life is the most important thing...

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

JG4_Helofly
02-14-2006, 06:02 AM
I see here very good ideas for tbob. Would it be possible to send an e-mail to Oleg with these propositions or is it already done?

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 07:45 AM
those tests are stupid to make, Oleg and his party can make the planes work as they want, its just us teasing ourself while oleg is trying to keep us hooked, as we make his food.

I am ready to turn my **** towards this direction wishin Oleg only one last patch, which makes Axis planes no worth to go over 250kmh, turn no better than lousiest allied plane and climbrate the same,. guns to have no effect if every ammo hits the one plane. and Boost up every aspect of allied planes too. 2 times faster, 2 times better acceleration, one shot wonder guns without care of the caliber or ammo type. etc etc.

How intresting that would be, at least that would MAYBE show those one sided whiners what they really ask in here.
i bet the stupidiest would still whine in here, and we already see those who they are.

carguy_
02-14-2006, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The result of trying to turn too tight for a plane equals buffeting and much energy loss, and if pushed even more it equals a spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Correct.However,buffeting starts at the easiest turn(horizontal/vertical).Seems the only thing the Anton is able to do is course changing.Go fly some in Dora and see what I mean.Dora takes pitch deflections pretty smoothly though it ain`t a good turner either.Compare with P51 too.Antons act like they have very weak engine which cannot take anything else but straight flying.The LaGG3 had extra 300kg added.The FM reaction was instant - the plane feels much heavier than before not allowing harder maneuvers - the buffeting occurs much earlier now.

I think the FW190 is too heavy or has too weak engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand the FW190 turns great at very fast speeds as long as you dont over-do it. As long as you are travelling fast enuff, you should be able to turn with a Spit, 400kph+ ,its as the fight slows down that the turning gets poor and the SPitfires gets better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That can hardly be described as turning.The Anton lets you know that you`re overdoing it at the very start of a given maneuver.The above applies for Dora in 100% but is untrue for Antons.You can`t develop any pitch based maneuvers without buffeting and excessive energy loss.The powerplant appears to literally stop producing power when you enter a maneuver.

OldMan____
02-14-2006, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I see here very good ideas for tbob. Would it be possible to send an e-mail to Oleg with these propositions or is it already done? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We should better discuss them , write them more clearly and make a draft of proposition. We need to give an idea of how fatigue system could work.

Xiolablu3
02-14-2006, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The result of trying to turn too tight for a plane equals buffeting and much energy loss, and if pushed even more it equals a spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Correct.However,buffeting starts at the easiest turn(horizontal/vertical).Seems the only thing the Anton is able to do is course changing.Go fly some in Dora and see what I mean.Dora takes pitch deflections pretty smoothly though it ain`t a good turner either.Compare with P51 too.Antons act like they have very weak engine which cannot take anything else but straight flying.The LaGG3 had extra 300kg added.The FM reaction was instant - the plane feels much heavier than before not allowing harder maneuvers - the buffeting occurs much earlier now.

I think the FW190 is too heavy or has too weak engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand the FW190 turns great at very fast speeds as long as you dont over-do it. As long as you are travelling fast enuff, you should be able to turn with a Spit, 400kph+ ,its as the fight slows down that the turning gets poor and the SPitfires gets better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That can hardly be described as turning.The Anton lets you know that you`re overdoing it at the very start of a given maneuver.The above applies for Dora in 100% but is untrue for Antons.You can`t develop any pitch based maneuvers without buffeting and excessive energy loss.The powerplant appears to literally stop producing power when you enter a maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it must be hard for someone who flies 109's a lot to think about staying this fast all the time (assuming a bit here, sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but the 190 aces on the server I often fly on (UKdedicated 2) keep the plane fast at all times, over 400kph and can own Spitfires. Some wont fly it anymore because they say its just too easy, you can stay alive indefinitely once you know the FW190A 'formula' and they rack up kill after kill. (not me I suck with the FW) COme and watch Levola or Boemher on Ukdedicated one night. (You may be an ace too, sorry if I am lecturing you)

I agree the FW190 seems to have no engine power sometimes and there are faults with its model however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-14-2006, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The result of trying to turn too tight for a plane equals buffeting and much energy loss, and if pushed even more it equals a spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Correct.However,buffeting starts at the easiest turn(horizontal/vertical).Seems the only thing the Anton is able to do is course changing.Go fly some in Dora and see what I mean.Dora takes pitch deflections pretty smoothly though it ain`t a good turner either.Compare with P51 too.Antons act like they have very weak engine which cannot take anything else but straight flying.The LaGG3 had extra 300kg added.The FM reaction was instant - the plane feels much heavier than before not allowing harder maneuvers - the buffeting occurs much earlier now.

I think the FW190 is too heavy or has too weak engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand the FW190 turns great at very fast speeds as long as you dont over-do it. As long as you are travelling fast enuff, you should be able to turn with a Spit, 400kph+ ,its as the fight slows down that the turning gets poor and the SPitfires gets better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That can hardly be described as turning.The Anton lets you know that you`re overdoing it at the very start of a given maneuver.The above applies for Dora in 100% but is untrue for Antons.You can`t develop any pitch based maneuvers without buffeting and excessive energy loss.The powerplant appears to literally stop producing power when you enter a maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it must be hard for someone who flies 109's a lot to think about staying this fast all the time (assuming a bit here, sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but the 190 aces on the server I often fly on (UKdedicated 2) keep the plane fast at all times, over 400kph and can own Spitfires. Some wont fly it anymore because they say its just too easy, you can stay alive indefinitely once you know the FW190A 'formula' and they rack up kill after kill. (not me I suck with the FW) COme and watch Levola or Boemher on Ukdedicated one night. (You may be an ace too, sorry if I am lecturing you)

I agree the FW190 seems to have no engine power sometimes and there are faults with its model however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was 100% true back at 3.xxx series. Since 4.01 Spit can follow you very well at 400+ kph. You need to keep above 500 now, or 400 with all spits around under 300

p1ngu666
02-14-2006, 10:30 AM
id say the opposite oldman, unless its 25lb one, thats got alot of poke

Scen
02-14-2006, 11:11 AM
Disagree...

The Spit can out climb you out turn you and stay with you in a dive. The only thing the spit can't do is stay in a low level flat out run. The Anton will out run the older spits as for the +25 pounders they tend not to follow for that long.

Scendore

stathem
02-14-2006, 11:40 AM
It's a 2000hp,1945, Spitfire.

The Antons are obsolete. Get with the programme and fly Doras like everyone else (and the real LW).

And be thankful the XIVe model was never finished.

Brain32
02-14-2006, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And be thankful the XIVe model was never finished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well this is nice info for Oleg, when BOB get's released all he has to do is make a MkXIV and the IL2 series is dead, so we all may go to BOB ASAP...

Xiolablu3
02-14-2006, 12:16 PM
I think the Spitfire 25+ is actually a better fighter for this game than the mk14.

It has all the manouvrability of the Mk9 but with more speed and power.

The mk14 would lose some of that manouvrability thanks to its heavy griffon. Sure it would be faster, but not the uber turnfighter that the Mk9 25+ is

Scen
02-14-2006, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
It's a 2000hp,1945, Spitfire.

The Antons are obsolete. Get with the programme and fly Doras like everyone else (and the real LW).

And be thankful the XIVe model was never finished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

completely not the point of the statement... It whether or not it's realistic is the point.

I agree Antons are obsolete and anyone flying Blue should fly only the 45 planes.

E retention is my biggest problem... When I guy can sustain a good level 4-6 G turn for 3 consecutive turns and pull into the vertical and climb some 1000 Meters I start to question the modeling. Maybe it's the wrong "programme" all together.

Scendore
AKA Capt.Stubing

JG4_Helofly
02-14-2006, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the Spitfire 25+ is actually a better fighter for this game than the mk14.

It has all the manouvrability of the Mk9 but with more speed and power.

The mk14 would lose some of that manouvrability thanks to its heavy griffon. Sure it would be faster, but not the uber turnfighter that the Mk9 25+ is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right. The spit XIV was quite havy compared with the early spits. I read a story about a pilot who saied that the spit XIV was not a "real" spitfire compared with the nice to fly light early spits.
The same for bf 109. Pilotes prefered the early versions for their light weight and of course the better flight feeling of a light plane.

p1ngu666
02-14-2006, 12:49 PM
25lb boost spit is for teh onwhine dogfighter crowd (aka warclouds and 334th dedicated)

XIV would be for coops, but alot of coops are low level tatical operations

carguy_
02-14-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
It's a 2000hp,1945, Spitfire.

The Antons are obsolete. Get with the programme and fly Doras like everyone else (and the real LW).

And be thankful the XIVe model was never finished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


K,the Dora certainly has options vs +25Spit given it`s on steroids.

In 1943 and 1942 maps Antons don`t have a historical tactics usage chance against Spitfire V and IX enemies though.

stathem
02-14-2006, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the Spitfire 25+ is actually a better fighter for this game than the mk14.

It has all the manouvrability of the Mk9 but with more speed and power.

The mk14 would lose some of that manouvrability thanks to its heavy griffon. Sure it would be faster, but not the uber turnfighter that the Mk9 25+ is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we were talking about combat vs Focke-wulfs.

The XIV is much faster at alt. than the superIX, dives a little better, in the clipped wing form rolls much better, and with the 'e' wing armament, is more deadly.

It will of course, still out-turn (and be out-rolled by) Wurgers.

Xiolablu3
02-14-2006, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the Spitfire 25+ is actually a better fighter for this game than the mk14.

It has all the manouvrability of the Mk9 but with more speed and power.

The mk14 would lose some of that manouvrability thanks to its heavy griffon. Sure it would be faster, but not the uber turnfighter that the Mk9 25+ is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we were talking about combat vs Focke-wulfs.

The XIV is much faster at alt. than the superIX, dives a little better, in the clipped wing form rolls much better, and with the 'e' wing armament, is more deadly.

It will of course, still out-turn (and be out-rolled by) Wurgers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All good points mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but do you think a Mk14 would still outturn a 109?

stathem
02-14-2006, 02:12 PM
Well, those it couldn't out-turn it could just take the wee out of in climb and speed.

gkll
02-14-2006, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:


E retention is my biggest problem... When I guy can sustain a good level 4-6 G turn for 3 consecutive turns and pull into the vertical and climb some 1000 Meters I start to question the modeling. Maybe it's the wrong "programme" all together.

Scendore
AKA Capt.Stubing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted this in another thread..... just modded to compare to 190 instead of pony. (yeah lazy I know...)

I am not sure that people should expect too much from the 190 in terms of 'e-retention' while turning... The 190 has fairly low straightline drag... however, this does not necessarily translate to good 'turning drag'.

The 190 has a small plan and cross section area, with high wing loading, so overall straightline drag is low. However the wingloading means you will need a lot of AOA to pull g's at low to moderate speeds. This AOA will put the drag up very rapidly. So a few hard turns and you burn a lot of e....

Spit by comparison has those big fat draggy rads.... straightline they hurt. Big wing area and conventional (non-'laminar flow')profile also adds straightline high speed drag. And indeed the dora is significantly faster in a straightline. However in a turn the big planform, low wing loading, lighter total mass, and conventional wing profile seem to create (for the spit that is) a 'best in class' lift over drag relationship, at least at speeds over 300 or so. Elliptical wings also help (a bit) in this arena (hard turning with significant AOA.... spit wings seen head on look like nice pointy little diamonds...). So the spit can pull g's with little AOA, so induced drag is low.

Maybe don't expect too much out of the 190 in terms of its e retention in low to moderate turn speeds. It is best in class for roll and has fairly low straightline drag, but will have enormous 'turning drag'. These same factors will tell against 190 in climb rates, they are typically achieved at low speeds, below the 190's optimum lift over drag speed range. So at 400+ the tables are turned in climbing... spit may lose. But ultimate climb speed? Physics suggests the spit is going to be better.

I don't know about the other factors being discussed, but have been mulling over the spit and comparing it to some other birds, as a spit fanboy I would like to believe (have come to believe...) that the lift over drag relationship of spit is best in class for a significant 'dog fighting' speed range, hence the oft complained about 'spit e retention'. 190 was designed with other priorities, and shows it.

The-Pizza-Man
02-14-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the Spitfire 25+ is actually a better fighter for this game than the mk14.

It has all the manouvrability of the Mk9 but with more speed and power.

The mk14 would lose some of that manouvrability thanks to its heavy griffon. Sure it would be faster, but not the uber turnfighter that the Mk9 25+ is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we were talking about combat vs Focke-wulfs.

The XIV is much faster at alt. than the superIX, dives a little better, in the clipped wing form rolls much better, and with the 'e' wing armament, is more deadly.

It will of course, still out-turn (and be out-rolled by) Wurgers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All good points mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but do you think a Mk14 would still outturn a 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The XIV could turn just as well(I've actually read better somewhere) as the IX. In the verticle is required a bit more care, but the extra HP of the Griffon allowed it to pull it self around the turn. It could also out dive 109s and 190s.

Scen
02-14-2006, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:


E retention is my biggest problem... When I guy can sustain a good level 4-6 G turn for 3 consecutive turns and pull into the vertical and climb some 1000 Meters I start to question the modeling. Maybe it's the wrong "programme" all together.

Scendore
AKA Capt.Stubing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted this in another thread..... just modded to compare to 190 instead of pony. (yeah lazy I know...)

I am not sure that people should expect too much from the 190 in terms of 'e-retention' while turning... The 190 has fairly low straightline drag... however, this does not necessarily translate to good 'turning drag'.

The 190 has a small plan and cross section area, with high wing loading, so overall straightline drag is low. However the wingloading means you will need a lot of AOA to pull g's at low to moderate speeds. This AOA will put the drag up very rapidly. So a few hard turns and you burn a lot of e....

Spit by comparison has those big fat draggy rads.... straightline they hurt. Big wing area and conventional (non-'laminar flow')profile also adds straightline high speed drag. And indeed the dora is significantly faster in a straightline. However in a turn the big planform, low wing loading, lighter total mass, and conventional wing profile seem to create (for the spit that is) a 'best in class' lift over drag relationship, at least at speeds over 300 or so. Elliptical wings also help (a bit) in this arena (hard turning with significant AOA.... spit wings seen head on look like nice pointy little diamonds...). So the spit can pull g's with little AOA, so induced drag is low.

Maybe don't expect too much out of the 190 in terms of its e retention in low to moderate turn speeds. It is best in class for roll and has fairly low straightline drag, but will have enormous 'turning drag'. These same factors will tell against 190 in climb rates, they are typically achieved at low speeds, below the 190's optimum lift over drag speed range. So at 400+ the tables are turned in climbing... spit may lose. But ultimate climb speed? Physics suggests the spit is going to be better.

I don't know about the other factors being discussed, but have been mulling over the spit and comparing it to some other birds, as a spit fanboy I would like to believe (have come to believe...) that the lift over drag relationship of spit is best in class for a significant 'dog fighting' speed range, hence the oft complained about 'spit e retention'. 190 was designed with other priorities, and shows it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your argument is spot on but I think you made the assumption I was turning with him when it fact I wasn't. I would be a fool to even think about staying in turn with a FW190A9. My general rule of thumb is to allow for an intial turn and make a shot if not come out of plane back to close to my original heading and either climb or extend.

The the example above my Spit was busy chasing around a 109 for several circle while I was attempting to come back into his turn circle for a shot. What I found strange is he was starting to lose his E when he realized someone was coming in behind him he pulled off target into a verticle manuever that no other plane in the game could even think of...

Now to clearify. I don't claim to be anything more than a real pilot. I don't have the facts and figures to go off of other than a solid 4-6 g turn to the left 3 360s with a 3000 foot climb aftwards without falling out the sky tells me something is a bit off.

I know the Spit was a great plane given all the historical stories and pilot accounts however, in game is even more incredible.

Scendore

OldMan____
02-14-2006, 05:36 PM
Please stop with this bull**** of laminar and non laminar flow wings. EVERY thing going trough air has laminar flow!!! Even a BRICK.. and everything has turbulent flow (non laminar). Laminar flow drag increases linearly with speed, turbulent increases quadractly. As things go faster they tend to shift to more turbulent flow and less laminar flow.

The "laminar flow" wings were only wings with a SLIGHTY higher percentage of laminar flow at higher speeds. ONLY THAT. Not a wign tha works different!! No miracle!



AI reapeat. I want to be able to use roll advantage as in real life!! Not to stall in middle of it!!

Von_Rat
02-14-2006, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
It's a 2000hp,1945, Spitfire.

The Antons are obsolete. Get with the programme and fly Doras like everyone else (and the real LW).

And be thankful the XIVe model was never finished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

completely not the point of the statement... It whether or not it's realistic is the point.

I agree Antons are obsolete and anyone flying Blue should fly only the 45 planes.

E retention is my biggest problem... When I guy can sustain a good level 4-6 G turn for 3 consecutive turns and pull into the vertical and climb some 1000 Meters I start to question the modeling. Maybe it's the wrong "programme" all together.

Scendore
AKA Capt.Stubing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ive seen this very same thing, many times. no i don't have track.

the g2 can do the same move to, many hard 360s on deck then zoom up hundreds of meters.

i think it might be related to light plane ,heavy plane issues as discussed in another thread.

gkll
02-14-2006, 11:26 PM
Oldman___ said:

"Please stop with this bull**** of laminar and non laminar flow wings. EVERY thing going trough air has laminar flow!!! Even a BRICK.. and everything has turbulent flow (non laminar). Laminar flow drag increases linearly with speed, turbulent increases quadractly. As things go faster they tend to shift to more turbulent flow and less laminar flow.

The "laminar flow" wings were only wings with a SLIGHTY higher percentage of laminar flow at higher speeds. ONLY THAT. Not a wign tha works different!! No miracle!"

Look at my post, when someone puts a word in quotes, what does it usually mean to you..? as in 'laminar flow' wing... ?

Anyway no need to get hysterical... I know perfectly well what the term means as well as what was unique about the pony wing, and anyways the reference in the post is just because i lifted it from another post made to pony drivers complaining about (guess what,,,) the spit 'e-retention'....

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 11:45 PM
what is the point of fighting all these things, if anyone isnt writing the final truths up in somewhere which were coded in game.??
there will be always experts with same old "information" which they think no else have read from same old book, and then they come here to "discuss" about how things should do?

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 11:46 PM
istn it time to quit beating already dead horse, and i think its "calf" isnt any better than dead.

robban75
02-15-2006, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The XIV could turn just as well(I've actually read better somewhere) as the IX. In the verticle is required a bit more care, but the extra HP of the Griffon allowed it to pull it self around the turn. It could also out dive 109s and 190s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the XIV would come close to the turn rate of the +25 boost Spit. If you add half a ton of weight on a fighter, its turning abililty will suffer. No matter what anyone said. It's the same with later versions of the Bf 109, they too sacrificed manouverabilty for speed.

The-Pizza-Man
02-15-2006, 02:56 AM
I wouldn't believe it either if I hadn't read to the contrary.
versus the Spit IX
"The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."

Versus the 109G
"The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction."

That's from spitfireperformance.com

robban75
02-15-2006, 03:12 AM
Yes, I have read that too. And it would only be true if the Spitfire could defy the laws of physics.

OldMan____
02-15-2006, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Oldman___ said:

"Please stop with this bull**** of laminar and non laminar flow wings. EVERY thing going trough air has laminar flow!!! Even a BRICK.. and everything has turbulent flow (non laminar). Laminar flow drag increases linearly with speed, turbulent increases quadractly. As things go faster they tend to shift to more turbulent flow and less laminar flow.

The "laminar flow" wings were only wings with a SLIGHTY higher percentage of laminar flow at higher speeds. ONLY THAT. Not a wign tha works different!! No miracle!"

Look at my post, when someone puts a word in quotes, what does it usually mean to you..? as in 'laminar flow' wing... ?

Anyway no need to get hysterical... I know perfectly well what the term means as well as what was unique about the pony wing, and anyways the reference in the post is just because i lifted it from another post made to pony drivers complaining about (guess what,,,) the spit 'e-retention'.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not saying YOU specifically does not know it. Didn´t intend to attack you. But if you look back this statements apear more than once in this tread. And everytime people start to discuss performance it arises. Usually presented as a magical solution .

Just pointing that there is not simple 2 model wings (laminar and non-laminar)

OldMan____
02-15-2006, 03:50 AM
A little bit late in answer. But Antons are NOT obsolete by end of 44. What about A9? It has even more HP than Dora (depends on source), but it still suffer from same pathetic low speed acceleration (even when comapred to Dora). Why?


I still beleive, from the 2 options one must be true:

- Dora handles too well
- Antons handle too badly.

HellToupee
02-15-2006, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Yes, I have read that too. And it would only be true if the Spitfire could defy the laws of physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or perhaps ur understanding of physics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-15-2006, 04:11 AM
As far as I know, and read about. The Spit 14 could sustain a similar sustained level turn than a SPIT 9. But this does not represent the tighest turn possible! Remember that. Spit 14 manages that by sheer engine power.

But being so much heavier it was probably worse at lower speed, and probably had less instranatenous control responses (greater inertia tensors)