PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, question:Spitfire turning performance?



Pages : [1] 2

kalo456
12-01-2004, 01:23 PM
Hello all,

I know this is probably an old topic, but....

Why doesn't the Spitfire seem to have the horizontal turning advantage that it has always been described as having? Last night on Warclouds, myself and a buddy I was flying with were consistantly out turned on the deck by BF-109 flyers. It wasn't once, it was every time. I had to drop flaps and appy some elevator trim just to be able to maintain with the 109's.

How is this right? I know this was a big issue when the MkIX was first released, but it seems worse now to me after the latest patches. I had been spending time in more of the pacific aircraft and coming back to the Spit last night and being gobbled up on the deck was eye opening.

I know anecdotal evidence is not the most credible, but the spitfires excellent horizontal turn radius vs. contemporary european fighters has been highly documented....

Sim pilot in disbelief,

Kalo

faustnik
12-01-2004, 01:34 PM
That's an old question but, certainly a legitimate one. The Spitfire has better wing loading than the Bf109. While the Spit Vb clearly out-turns any LW plane, the Spit IX is about even with some of the contemporary 109s.

Willey
12-01-2004, 02:10 PM
The Corsair (25% fuel) has a wing loading like an I-16 (100% fuel). Does it turn with the Ishak? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sig.Hirsch
12-01-2004, 02:25 PM
Look at IL-2 Compare 3.02bm , you'll see the spitfire VIII and IX outturn any Bf109 G2 (not talking about G10 etc...) except at very low speed (below 290-300 Km/h ) , and Spits are probably the best dogfighters you can find in 1942-43 , its faster at all altitudes than any 42-43 109 and it climbs like a rocket http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
it's the toughest opponent to the 109 IMO in 42-43 , especially over 6000 m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Col.Kurtz
12-01-2004, 02:28 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I think the British Planes have no great lobby in the comunity.
If the Spitfire would be a German or US Plane i think the crying would be somewhat louder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
But if Spit is dicussed here it is claimed overmodeller http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Everyone defending it is an Idiot or œberplane lover :P
While i think its ugly,it is in my option the best Interceptor of WW2

But i think that it also suffers from the Automatic Charger Bug that Hunde has found.

faustnik
12-01-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Look at IL-2 Compare 3.02bm , you'll see the spitfire VIII and IX outturn any Bf109 G2 (not talking about G10 etc...) except at very low speed (below 290-300 Km/h ) , and Spits are probably the best dogfighters you can find in 1942-43 , its faster at all altitudes than any 42-43 109 and it climbs like a rocket http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
it's the toughest opponent to the 109 IMO in 42-43 , especially over 6000 m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would the Bf109G2 have an advantage in turn ability over the Spit IX under 300kph which FB Compare shows?

For climb, the Spit IX with the Merlin 66 had some impressive climb rates IRL. The Spit Vb climb in 3.02 is completely out of control, I don't understand it.

Bf109G2:

weight empty: 2673kg
wing area 16.05m sq.
hp: 1310
wing loading: 166.54 kg/sq m
power loading: 2.04 kg/hp


Spit IX:

weight empty: 2,630kg
wing area: 22.5 m sq
hp: 1565
wing loading: 116.8 kg/sq m
power loading: 1.68 kg/hp

kalo456
12-01-2004, 02:57 PM
Thx for replies.

I just don't understand how this game models certain aircraft. When you try to fly them like every story you've ever read and it doesn't work....
Try to dive away from a Zero in a F6F, it stays right there.
Try to out turn a 109 in a spit and he gains on you...

What is this?
Jeez it's tough to be addicted to this sim some times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kalo

Von_Rat
12-01-2004, 03:11 PM
didn't the 09 have better instant turn than spit, spit had better sustained turn. spits don't seem to have any trouble outturning my 109 on warclouds. dam things look like ufos, lol

Sig.Hirsch
12-01-2004, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Look at IL-2 Compare 3.02bm , you'll see the spitfire VIII and IX outturn any Bf109 G2 (not talking about G10 etc...) except at very low speed (below 290-300 Km/h ) , and Spits are probably the best dogfighters you can find in 1942-43 , its faster at all altitudes than any 42-43 109 and it climbs like a rocket http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
it's the toughest opponent to the 109 IMO in 42-43 , especially over 6000 m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would the Bf109G2 have an advantage in turn ability over the Spit IX under 300kph which FB Compare shows?

For climb, the Spit IX with the Merlin 66 had some impressive climb rates IRL. The Spit Vb climb in 3.02 is completely out of control, I don't understand it.

Bf109G2:

weight empty: 2673kg
wing area 16.05m sq.
hp: 1310
wing loading: 166.54 kg/sq m
power loading: 2.04 kg/hp


Spit IX:

weight empty: 2,630kg
wing area: 22.5 m sq
hp: 1565
wing loading: 116.8 kg/sq m
power loading: 1.68 kg/hp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was just saying it's an excellent plane , i never spoke about overmodelling or any whine , i just said it is a fantastic climber and fast plane , and it turns really well versus his main opponents (109 and 190) , doesn't overheat too quickly like before , and is well modelled IMO in the game .
i never said G2 would have an advantage over Spits , i took the g2 as an example because it is one of the best performer in low speed turns of the German air force at that time with the F4, the original poster said that he was outturned by Bf , i say it's not possible except below 290 km/h in FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
12-01-2004, 03:25 PM
I was refering to the FB Compare turn graph you mentioned:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitIXvG2turn.JPG

I'm not accusing anyone of whining, we are just discussing the subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sig.Hirsch
12-01-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I think the British Planes have no great lobby in the comunity.
If the Spitfire would be a German or US Plane i think the crying would be somewhat louder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
But if Spit is dicussed here it is claimed overmodeller http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Everyone defending it is an Idiot or œberplane lover :P
While i think its ugly,it is in my option the best Interceptor of WW2

But i think that it also suffers from the Automatic Charger Bug that Hunde has found. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif
all i said is truth , i took the G2 as an example cause it's the best plane of Luftwaffe in turn ability in 42 with the F4 . I never talked about ubberplane nor overmodelling .

Secondly , i think you have less people "defending" like you say japanese planes than british planes .
Nobody talked about overmodeller , you did , i was giving objective statements that you can verify with Il-2 Compare or by flying online ,
you gave subjective statements about what i did not say

Col.Kurtz
12-01-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> you gave subjective statements about what i did not say <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
lol yes right i did not even talked to you if you look at time of posting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MrOblongo
12-01-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
didn't the 09 have better instant turn than spit, spit had better sustained turn. spits don't seem to have any trouble outturning my 109 on warclouds. dam things look like ufos, lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, yesterday me and 2 friends were flying G-6/AS and fought 1 spit for like 20 minutes ... myself gets shot down and the other two had to run away :P. Saying the Bf109 outturn the spit is....hmmm, AN ABSOLUTE LIE!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif. The Spit did outturn the 109 in real life and yes it does in the game...no doubt

gates123
12-01-2004, 04:06 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kalo456:
Thx for replies.

I just don't understand how this game models certain aircraft. When you try to fly them like every story you've ever read and it doesn't work....
Try to dive away from a Zero in a F6F, it stays right there.
Try to out turn a 109 in a spit and he gains on you...



Kalo just don't miss on your first pass http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kwiatos
12-01-2004, 04:14 PM
T&B on Spit MK IX even in SPit MK V against G-2 is very risky bisnes. Good pilot in G-2 could hold even sustained turn with Spit MK V for enough time to kill spit.

HayateAce
12-01-2004, 04:26 PM
Kalo, this is happening because this 109 we have now has morphed into something it was NOT. I and many others have the same 109 vs Spitfire experience you have described.

With each patch, the 109s have turned tighter and tighter. Players aren't looking close enough to notice, or they are looking the other way.

The 109 used to have a more honest flight model, but against ALL WRITTEN HISTORY, Forgotten Battles 109s are low-level turn and burners.

Finally, they do not suffer from WELL DOCUMENTED asymmetrical leading edge wing slat deployment, which would cause the aircraft to depart if abused too much in the turn. The fb109 player can yank and yank all he wants.

Oleg, please reduce the 109 turn rate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Flamer 109 fanbois, don't even bother.


http://66.94.69.203/images/FireSuit.jpg

VW-IceFire
12-01-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kalo456:
Hello all,

I know this is probably an old topic, but....

Why doesn't the Spitfire seem to have the horizontal turning advantage that it has always been described as having? Last night on Warclouds, myself and a buddy I was flying with were consistantly out turned on the deck by BF-109 flyers. It wasn't once, it was every time. I had to drop flaps and appy some elevator trim just to be able to maintain with the 109's.

How is this right? I know this was a big issue when the MkIX was first released, but it seems worse now to me after the latest patches. I had been spending time in more of the pacific aircraft and coming back to the Spit last night and being gobbled up on the deck was eye opening.

I know anecdotal evidence is not the most credible, but the spitfires excellent horizontal turn radius vs. contemporary european fighters has been highly documented....

Sim pilot in disbelief,

Kalo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spitfire has a very slight advantage over the 109 in the sim. Over most contemporary 109's anyways. There's slight differences between holding a turn in a Mark V and holding a turn in a 109. Be sure to keep your nose low and be firm on the rudder because thats going to help you get that few extra degrees to out turn the 109. Most of the time you're going to be looking to push him to the point where he stalls out and you're still riding that last edge of the stall. THEN you have him.

But a better thing to do is use the Spitfires turn advantage in a high speed pass. Like any other fighter. Get into the fight, be be above him. Use the turn radius to gain superior attack position and dive in. Thats where the Spitfires elevator remains effective and he's either going too fast to evade (because his isn't as effective) or he wastes alot of energy evading and you get another chance the next time.

I fly the Spitfire like a BNZ machine. The turn radius is used to gain favorable position in a close dogfight.

Atomic_Marten
12-01-2004, 04:45 PM
I think about turning, you shouldn't have any problems with any Bf109. Poor Me109 pilot if he goes in turn fight with Spit.

While the F2,F4,G2 models are very agile, you can not afford to have only 25% fuel on it. So..

Of course, I allow others to say I was shot down by Bf109 in turn fight while in Spit, but every situation is different. But my opinion is clear; if 2 pilots doesn't have clear advantage one over other, Spit pilot must win fight, otherwise he makes errors somewhere, or you have bad luck to rush onto LW ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (with this opinion I must say that I'm thinking of MkIX model). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
12-01-2004, 04:52 PM
Some info on this:

The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4

There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household word, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.]

The absence of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.

Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.

Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.

Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.

Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.

Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.

Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds. [This turning info is for an E model. Can we assume the turn rate gets worse in the G models?]


Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

Finally from this same article, and oft-quoted by Luftwaffe players:

Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter.



The verdict, we do not have an accurate representation of the Bf109 in Forgotten Battles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
12-01-2004, 05:20 PM
well i flew IX, and it seemed unstable when i pulled stick, similer to 190 when u pull to much...

i havent flown much, but its got that same unstableness

Jazz-Man
12-01-2004, 05:21 PM
I'm sorry to anyone trying but there is no justification for the Bf-109 being able to even turn WITH the Spitfire MkIX at any speed, let alone better than it. If you compare the two from a physical and aerodynamic standpoint you have:

Wingloading: Advantage, Spitfire by ~50kg/sq meter
Powerloading: Advantage, Spitfire by ~.4kg/hp

Wingloading gives an aircraft better instantaneous turn rate. If two aircraft go into a fight with the same energy, the one with the lower wing loading will turn faster and tighter than the one with the higher wingloading.

Powerloading gives you an idea of sustained rate of turn. This is how many kg of wieght each HP of engine is required to pull the plane around a turn. A difference fo .4 is fairly substantial. If the two planes had the exact same wing, the Spitfire would STILL retain energy better than the Bf-109. However, fact is, they don't. The Spitfire wing is as perfect a wing design as was seen during the second world war. That's not the RAF saying so, that's NACA saying so, and that's the laws of aerodynamics. An elipitacal wing like the Spitfires produces less induced drag, hense the wing actually makes the Spitfire sustain energy better, even if the Bf-109 and Spitfire were identical except fot the wing.

So:

Wing Design: Advantage, Spitfire.

As to the comment about it's climb... Spitfire MkIXs should be climbing at just barely under the rate of the Bf-109G-6. They are. The Spitfire MkVb has tremendously overmodelled climb, however it's top speed is undermodelled by a large margin at middle altitudes. While we're at it, the FW-190 is about 20mph too slow at those altitudes as well.

faustnik
12-01-2004, 05:49 PM
The Spit IX in PF seems to have little turn advantage even over the later, heavier 109s.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitIXvsG14turn.JPG


???

Col.Kurtz
12-01-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As to the comment about it's climb... Spitfire MkIXs should be climbing at just barely under the rate of the Bf-109G-6. They are. The Spitfire MkVb has tremendously overmodelled climb, however it's top speed is undermodelled by a large margin at middle altitudes. While we're at it, the FW-190 is about 20mph too slow at those altitudes as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climbrate of Spitfire IX was much better then that of the 109G6.
In fact it outclimbed or is very close to the G10.
I think you have the famous comparsion with Spit9 with merlin61 in mind,this version was from 42.This plane is not in Game(but needed Oleg!!) and not many where build!

We have SpitIX with Merlin66 from 1943 with 18LB Boost in Game.
See this Data:
Spit IX with merlin 66
20000ft (6100m) in 4:45min http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Source for Spitfire Performance:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

And here for "Kit" Carson Fans: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

OldMan____
12-01-2004, 06:31 PM
I Will explain one more time. Spit IS better turner tha 109 in game, but 109 WILL GAIN ANGLE on an spit during turn.

How? Why?

EXACTLY because 109 is WORSE!! 109 LOOSES a lot of speed during turn, so that its radius become smaller and so it gains angle on SPIT.


Anyone that know how to pilot can learn to counter that and take profit from the speed difference.


Anyone that thinks just pulling stick till you turn to face opponent withou relaxing it during whole fight DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY!


I recomend to try the 190.. it bleeds even fastre than 109.. so you can notice and study this better.

Sig.Hirsch
12-01-2004, 06:54 PM
I agree 100% with you Oldman , a good Spit pilot always turn in a shallow dive , then having a speed advantage in the sustained turn , he can climb a bit in his turn , while the 109 following him is losing more and more speed trying to narrow the gap , and lose the dogfight .
Maybe post historical figures or documents to Oleg if you really think he should turn tighter at low speed , but bear in mind that the 109G2 could turn in real life in 20 sec at low speed at 1000 m and it's correct ion the sim and we do have a SpitV, VIII ,IX outturning the 109 too in IL-2 FB as we can read in the books .
Usually the dogfights were above 3500 m between RAF and LW on the western front , there were rarely slow speed turns

GR142-Pipper
12-01-2004, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kalo456:
Thx for replies.

I just don't understand how this game models certain aircraft. When you try to fly them like every story you've ever read and it doesn't work....
Try to dive away from a Zero in a F6F, it stays right there.
Try to out turn a 109 in a spit and he gains on you...



Kalo just don't miss on your first pass http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree completely.

An important topic that doesn't seem to get talked about much here is aircraft RATE of ACCELERATION. Flat out speed has been discussed a lot but acceleration rates aren't. In a fight in which an aircraft is trying to extend, close or regain energy, rate of acceleration is quite often more critical than maximum achievable speed.

A rate of acceleration chart would definitely be a good addition to the IL-2 Compare software.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-01-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
I Will explain one more time. Spit IS better turner tha 109 in game, but 109 WILL GAIN ANGLE on an spit during turn.

How? Why?

EXACTLY because 109 is WORSE!! 109 LOOSES a lot of speed during turn, so that its radius become smaller and so it gains angle on SPIT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, this is exactly why the 109 should NEVER gain angle on the Spit in a turning fight.

It's not turn radius that's important, it's turn RATE (degrees per second). Aircraft out-turn one another because their turn rates are higher than their opponents. The problem is that many 109s have nearly the same turn rates as the Spits even though the 109 (after the F model) was never regarded as much of a turn fighter....unlike the Spits which were considered excellent turners.

A question to consider to which I don't presently have an answer is, "Is there a difference between the aircraft values as represented in IL-2 Compare with those actually programmed in the game code?".

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
12-01-2004, 10:48 PM
Now howabout testing the stuff yourself with Devicelink instead of coming out with that IL2Compare data. That stuff applies for AI AFAIK it's defenately not correct for human controlled aircraft.

Couple of remarks. Bf hasn't changed to better for patches, even if you look at the turntime numbers there with IL2Compare, it puts up over 20 s for late Bf. Now have a good look at object viewer earlier models went even under 20 s (and that at 1000 m). The problem if it exists is on the spitfire department, which was changed again.

Also note Spitfire has split type flaps with landing setting only which are just as good as brakes as flaps, very effective in steep landing approaches but no real aid for turning (at real life that is) - so if you're popping out those flaps you're doing already a mistake.

I do outturn Bf in a spit. (At least did and as far as I have flown it in 3.02 ~ half an hour Mk Vb vs F-4, I still did).

Ugly_Kid
12-01-2004, 10:53 PM
Oldman is correct. When not talking about sustained turn but talking about bleeding turn, Bf will loose velocity at faster rate, which will tighten its turn faster. If Spit can deal with this (saying the situtation did not start when Bf was already blaing them guns in the six) and land on low speed sustained turn combat, spit will win. You know letting them come at your six is not clever tactics to begin a combat...

WUAF_Badsight
12-01-2004, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Secondly , i think you have less people "defending" like you say japanese planes than british planes . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
because the Spitfires are monsters & perform awesome

if i loved the Spitfire above all other A/C , id be happy larry

WUAF_Badsight
12-01-2004, 11:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
"Is there a difference between the aircraft values as represented in IL-2 Compare with those actually programmed in the game code?". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you are correct

AI put up a harder fight in some A/C over other A/C

(try fighting AI jets)

fight the Yak-3 AI (while you fly a Yak-3) , then fight the Mig-3 (while you fly the Mig-3)

WUAF_Badsight
12-01-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
With each patch, the 109s have turned tighter and tighter. Players aren't looking close enough to notice, or they are looking the other way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
this isnt true

planes are mushing more at the stall limit in slow speed turning

planes in FB turned tighter in Aep 2.0 & PF 3.0

GR142-Pipper
12-02-2004, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Oldman is correct. When not talking about sustained turn but talking about bleeding turn, Bf will loose velocity at faster rate, which will tighten its turn faster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, he's still incorrect. Turn radius has nothing to do with it. Turn radius doesn't generate angles; turn RATE does. What you're describing is instantaneous turn rate...which the Spit (and any other aircraft) can also do....for a little while until the airspeed falls below cornering velocity (the minimum speed at which maximum G can be sustained). In either case, the Spit will out-turn the 109 because it has more power and lower wing loading. Again, it's all turn RATE dependent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If Spit can deal with this (saying the situtation did not start when Bf was already blaing them guns in the six) and land on low speed sustained turn combat, spit will win. You know letting them come at your six is not clever tactics to begin a combat... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's true. The problem seems to be that the 109s turn rate is too close to that of a Spit. It should not be by all accounts.

GR142-Pipper

pain.......
12-02-2004, 12:29 AM
isn't the question you need to be asking " where did the guys that shot me down learn to fly, and why do I suck in tactical flying "

GR142-Pipper
12-02-2004, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
"Is there a difference between the aircraft values as represented in IL-2 Compare with those actually programmed in the game code?". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you are correct

AI put up a harder fight in some A/C over other A/C

(try fighting AI jets)

fight the Yak-3 AI (while you fly a Yak-3) , then fight the Mig-3 (while you fly the Mig-3) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I'm asking a slightly different question to that which you're responding to.

Take another look at the question that I posted. It asks if the figures in IL-2 Compare are the same as those that apply to the aircraft in on-line game play. Essentially, I'm asking if the information presented in IL-2 can be relied upon to be representative of what can be expected to be encountered on-line.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-02-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pain.......:
isn't the question you need to be asking " where did the guys that shot me down learn to fly, and why do I suck in tactical flying " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, no because every player who enjoys this sim gets shot down. Me, you, and everyone else.

That being said, we're having a discussion here...and you're welcome to join in.

GR142-Pipper

Fillmore
12-02-2004, 01:18 AM
"What you're describing is instantaneous turn rate...which the Spit (and any other aircraft) can also do....for a little while until the airspeed falls below cornering velocity (the minimum speed at which maximum G can be sustained). In either case, the Spit will out-turn the 109 because it has more power and lower wing loading. Again, it's all turn RATE dependent."

You are assuming same speed. The whole point he is trying to make is that the 109 is turning inside the Spit because the 109 is (or quickly becomes if it wasn't already) slower. If both planes start above corner velocity then the one that slows down faster will get the angles (until corner velocity is reached). Maximum rate is at corner velocity. If both planes are at same speed and both are well above their corner velocities then they both have identical instant turn rates due to both having identical G limit. As they both slow down and get closer to their respective corner velocities they both gain in instant turn rate, the one that slows down the quickest gets the rate advantage (until corner velocity is reached).

There is a famous (at least on sim discussion boards hehe) quote of a LW pilot from BoB who stated that no Spitfire ever turned inside him. The original poster is one of those Spitfire pilots. It isn't that the 109s turn inside your Spit, it is that you allow their pilots to turn inside you. Stop looking for problems with the FMs to explain your difficulties and start looking for problems with the way you fly. No FM can ever be perfect, no pilot can ever be perfect, but while there are limits to how much the FMs can be improved, there are no limits to improving one's flying skills.

You guys who are using Il-2 compare can please stop OK, it is a super utility for comparing top speeds, is useless for turn and climb performance.

WUAF_Toad
12-02-2004, 01:53 AM
If you want to turn inside a spit with a 109, use flaps, manual prop pitch, and bring the fight low. If you want to turn inside a 109 with a spit, use flaps, and bring the fight high. If you stare at IL2 Compare too long, you will go blind and you will still get shot down.

GR142-Pipper
12-02-2004, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fillmore:
You are assuming same speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one has either stated that or assumed that. The reason that this hasn't been done is that the respective aircraft being discussed (G-model and later 109s and Spits) are quite different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The whole point he is trying to make is that the 109 is turning inside the Spit because the 109 is (or quickly becomes if it wasn't already) slower. If both planes start above corner velocity then the one that slows down faster will get the angles (until corner velocity is reached). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you're the one making the assumptions. In the context of this discussion, you are assuming that the flight characteristics of the Spit and the 109s are very similar.

Given that they're not, the situation you described *can* be crafted. However, it is extremely fleeting given the (supposed) differences between the aircraft. If the Spit is at or near it's corner speed, there should be NO cirucmstance where the 109 should out-turn the Spit. ONLY if the Spit is far removed from it's corner speed and the 109 isn't, then the condition that you described can exist and then only for a very brief period of time. Now, reverse the situation with the Spit being on the 109, the 109 should be in deep trouble. "Should" be, that is.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maximum rate is at corner velocity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, corner velocity is the SLOWEST speed at which maximum G can be SUSTAINED. This will also produce the smallest radius at which maximum G can be sustained.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If both planes are at same speed and both are well above their corner velocities then they both have identical instant turn rates due to both having identical G limit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, this is only true if the aircraft have very similar turn performance capabilities (which the 109 and Spit should not). In addition, you're assuming that each aircraft actually CAN reach their maximum G limit while above corner speed. A general rule is that the faster planes go above corner speed, the less likely that this can occur (pressure shifts aft on the wing...and all that).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As they both slow down and get closer to their respective corner velocities they both gain in instant turn rate, the one that slows down the quickest gets the rate advantage (until corner velocity is reached). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again (and not to sound like a broken record) to achieve an advantage, this is true ONLY if the two aircraft have similar performance characteristics (which the Spit and 109 should not).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is a famous (at least on sim discussion boards hehe) quote of a LW pilot from BoB who stated that no Spitfire ever turned inside him. The original poster is one of those Spitfire pilots. It isn't that the 109s turn inside your Spit, it is that you allow their pilots to turn inside you. Stop looking for problems with the FMs to explain your difficulties and start looking for problems with the way you fly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Many involved in this discussion are not new to the game Fillmore. As a matter of fact, most have been around for quite a while.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No FM can ever be perfect, no pilot can ever be perfect, but while there are limits to how much the FMs can be improved, there are no limits to improving one's flying skills. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
12-02-2004, 03:17 AM
radius IS the imposrtant issue.. draw some charts and some simmulation if you do not beleive.. I dis.. and I am right. The TURN rate is irrelevant ALONE since it is relative to your course... when you diminish the radius you change the course between you and enemy.. so you do not gain angle by turning harder.. but by making your desired path an easier one. This way the opponent will come to a position whenre you just need to relief your turn to aim on him.

If you know what you are doing.. just notice when the separation is increasing due to his radius depletion. and make the turn LESS pronounced. He will have to reopen the turn and will not have the speed he lost... easy.. you have won the match.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 03:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It asks if the figures in IL-2 Compare are the same as those that apply to the aircraft in on-line game play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no

fuel & ammo are not involved with IL2 compares figures

its what AI has managed to do with the A/C in simplified conditions

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 04:01 AM
it is a _F_A_C_T_ that online fighting is in no way a accurate way to guage A/C performance

you cannot know the exact E state of one A/C to another , or how it is changing outside of the plane your flying

their exact momentum & speed enable them to be caught , or get away from you

anarchy52
12-02-2004, 04:35 AM
Nice read:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/

Note: might be disturbing for those that know history and aerodynamics only from PC games



I strongly believe if you get killed in a turnfight with 109 in a spit, you must really suck.

OldMan____
12-02-2004, 05:06 AM
I would like to add that although I disagree frm original poster.. I agree that the fact that G2 maneuvers better than F4 is a little bit odd.

BBB_Hyperion
12-02-2004, 07:56 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/oleg.jpg

Repost Warning:
Hopefully the Author of this Picture doesnt mind using it again .)

JG5_UnKle
12-02-2004, 09:35 AM
LOL Hyperion good one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

This was from a little while ago same topic discussing this with help from ALLIED pilots Spit Turn Comparison (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/spit_turn.htm)

The conclusion should be obvious...

Monty_Thrud
12-02-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think the British Planes have no great lobby in the comunity.
If the Spitfire would be a German or US Plane i think the crying would be somewhat louder.
But if Spit is dicussed here it is claimed overmodeller
Everyone defending it is an Idiot or œberplane lover :P
While i think its ugly,it is in my option the best Interceptor of WW2
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldnt agree more...apart from the ugly bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
12-02-2004, 10:28 AM
The fact is the the Spit IX does not have the turn advantage over the late 109 in PF that it had in real life. The energy bleed argument does not hold true because the 109s are able to stay with the Spit IXs through repeated turn maneuvers at the same speed.

I am no "Spit Fan", the only thing I like about them in PF is watching them burn, but, they should have their historic advantages.

****************************

AND, what is with accusing the "pro-Spit" posters in the thread of whining and posting "cute" little cartoons poking fun at them? Is it some attempt at getting even for all the "Luftwhiner" BS name calling? That garbage makes it really difficult to discuss a relavent topic.

Monty_Thrud
12-02-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kalo, this is happening because this 109 we have now has morphed into something it was NOT. I and many others have the same 109 vs Spitfire experience you have described.

With each patch, the 109s have turned tighter and tighter. Players aren't looking close enough to notice, or they are looking the other way.

The 109 used to have a more honest flight model, but against ALL WRITTEN HISTORY, Forgotten Battles 109s are low-level turn and burners.

Finally, they do not suffer from WELL DOCUMENTED asymmetrical leading edge wing slat deployment, which would cause the aircraft to depart if abused too much in the turn. The fb109 player can yank and yank all he wants.

Oleg, please reduce the 109 turn rate.


Flamer 109 fanbois, don't even bother.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also couldn't agree more...this is discussed quite often on HL

And just for the record...IMO...i believe the Spitfires should out turn the Bf109's

Also in the book "Wing Leader" by Johnnie Johnson, that i'm reading atm he states the Spitfires could outurn the Fw190 and the Fw190 could outturn the Bf109's...interesting, i think you'll agree

Btw..i'm not stating the planes need changing...just a good topic for discussion...!?

HayateAce
12-02-2004, 11:12 AM
Agree Monty and Faust.

Hopefully folks will stop trying to derail the topic with silly bandwidth-hogging cartoons.

The Bf109 and FW190 are the only 2 Luftwaffe fighters and it seems a shame for them to be wrong, even if it is being done for the sake of GAMEPLAY.

BigganD
12-02-2004, 11:17 AM
Spit lovers its time for you to learn how to fly, no more turning left or right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
12-02-2004, 11:17 AM
hm, most of the 109's have similer turn times, oddly. try out f2/4 and g10/14 etc...

theres a possibility we barking up the wrong tree abit, 109 could be wrong, and spit wrong also.

oldman, i agree, u going for tightest turn radius or shortest turn.

btw, i think 109 is a good fighter, but good performance in some areas, but obsolete in others, like trim, view, cockpit etc. lets not get into whiner agurments please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WUAF_Toad
12-02-2004, 11:28 AM
The problem is I don't think airplane's weight has much effect in IL2's FM. That's why there's no real advantage in dive acceleration between heavy and lighter aircrafts. Wing loading doesn't matter much either because turnrate is mapped on a slider and Oleg slides it up and down as he chooses.

OldMan____
12-02-2004, 11:44 AM
Be sure that is not made this way. I already developed a physics simmulation for FM, and is HARDER to do a DUMBED thing like that than useing the weight. Weight is probably the easiest thing to compute in rigid body simmulations.


And wing loading DOES NOT determinate anything!! The important issue is LIFT FORCE.. you can have more lift forec with a smaller wing but of different shape. And each shape of wing produces different efficiency at different sppeeds and flight conditions.


The slats in 109 are an example, they make the turbulent layer above the wing separate from it later at slow speeds and high AOA.. that increases lift a lot.

I can build a wing for you, with 200 square meters and with less lift than half a 109 wing.


Just stating.. I never got shot down by a 109 when I was in a SPIT 9, unless when he managed to attack me without I noticed him.

Just try to force a 320kph constant turn in shallow climb..

Hoarmurath
12-02-2004, 11:46 AM
i think that some people here are using the wrong terms, so they have the wrong picture of what was the relative capabilities of ww2 planes...

The spit was more maneuverable than the 109, this is said in a lot of books.

Maneuverability isn't only turning. You can't resume maneuverability advantage to turning ability. And you can still have a maneuverability advantage over a plane that outturn you in a flat turn.

GR142-Pipper
12-02-2004, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
radius IS the imposrtant issue.. draw some charts and some simmulation if you do not beleive.. I dis.. and I am right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, you're not right. Angles are generated by differences in turn rates...period. They are NOT generated by turn radius. Turn radius is merely a fallout value based on an aircraft's turn rate ability at a given airspeed.

As an aside, that 109s now turn with Spits (neither of which I fly often) is laughable. The Spits should eat the 109s alive in a turning fight.

GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Toad
12-02-2004, 12:04 PM
Perhaps you're right, but with the way FM changes after every new patch, Oleg has something on a slider. Maybe it's weight, lift force, or some x value.

JG5_UnKle
12-02-2004, 12:47 PM
109's only out turn spits at low speeds.

109's have combat flaps that can be deployed at any speed.

The G-2 can turn in 20 seconds.

Maybe turn rates are overmodelled for 109's but consider the above points, I think they have a lot more to do with the argument. Spit pilots getting into low (300 Kph or less) speed fights with 109's are going to get into trouble. 109's have slats and are pretty stable at these speeds, plus they can roll quickly to stay with spits in a reversal.

Sig.Hirsch
12-02-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
radius IS the imposrtant issue.. draw some charts and some simmulation if you do not beleive.. I dis.. and I am right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, you're not right. Angles are generated by differences in turn rates...period. They are NOT generated by turn radius. Turn radius is merely a fallout value based on an aircraft's turn rate ability at a given airspeed.

As an aside, that 109s now turn with Spits (neither of which I fly often) is laughable. The Spits should eat the 109s alive in a turning fight.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of you need to learn how to fly , Spit V, VIII , IX is Already outturning the Bf109 G2 except at very low speeds for the Spit VIII and IX.
Bf109 was turning in 20 sec at 1000 m at best : It is CORRECT in IL-2 FB
Spits are faster , climb better , outturn any 109 in IL-2 FB if you know how to fly it : it is CORRECT .
If you take IL-2 Compare and take a look at the P-51 D20 NA with combat flaps , it outturns the Bf109 G2 at all speed even at very low speed , though P-51 has laminar flow wings ... Il-2 compare isn't perfect .
The Bf 109 is modelled correctly in IL-2 FB so let's all teenagers who can't accept to be shot down and talking about "defending red planes " or "fixing the Bf" , to bring figures to OLeg or real historical documents to pf@1c.ru

The Spit Do outturns the 109 , and if you think it should be by a larger margin at low speeds (which is possible after all ) , then post data to Oleg ,if it's true it will be fixed , but in any case , it is a SPITFIRE ISSUE and not a Bf109 issue , as our sources are confirming the datas of the game.
The problem in this forum is the unhonest people posting to castrate some planes because they fly in the opposite side , i remember you Hayatekid , or Hayateace ,it's not your first attempt sadly

Kwiatos
12-02-2004, 01:39 PM
So if its only Spitfire issue i wonder what you said about F-4 and G-2 turn rate and manouverbility comparison?
I guess you will say F-4 turn too bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sig.Hirsch
12-02-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
So if its only Spitfire issue i wonder what you said about F-4 and G-2 turn rate and manouverbility comparison?
I guess you will say F-4 turn too bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because , as you surely knew before posting , the bf 109 f4 and G2 are the most agile of the 109 and thus have the better turning ability of german planes , and were the main opponent of the Spitfire with the Focke wulf 190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
i took this comparison , because comparing it to a Yak 1B or whatever plane is meaningless , also after someone (always from the same club with Copperhead , hayatekid or ace whatver ) was saying 109 needs fixing , i think this is not honest , so i posted .
I never said F4 turns too bad , daemn , where did you see that ?

Enofinu
12-02-2004, 02:56 PM
i remember even one report from test pilot who flown many types of aircrafts, he was british if i correctly remember, and he said 109 outturns Spitfire in low speed turn fight. was it Brown or someone else. Dig that document up so Spit whiners can STFU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif its not well known that Spit did not match for 109 in low speed fighting, it bigger speeds Spit just ruled over 109. i myself dont have any problems while flying spit against 109:s in online, you just gotta know what to do there.

"Its the pilot not the machine."

and learn to Fly Spit luvers.

faustnik
12-02-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
learn to Fly Spit luvers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That helps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, the next time we ask a question about relative strength of a LW plane we can expect "learn to fly Luftwhiner". That's real good.

muffinstomp
12-02-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:

Flamer 109 fanbois, don't even bother.


http://66.94.69.203/images/FireSuit.jpg



Sh*t! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

p1ngu666
12-02-2004, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
learn to Fly Spit luvers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That helps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, the next time we ask a question about relative strength of a LW plane we can expect "learn to fly Luftwhiner". That's real good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know howto fly, i just cant flap hard enuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

OldMan____
12-02-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
radius IS the imposrtant issue.. draw some charts and some simmulation if you do not beleive.. I dis.. and I am right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, you're not right. Angles are generated by differences in turn rates...period. They are NOT generated by turn radius. Turn radius is merely a fallout value based on an aircraft's turn rate ability at a given airspeed.

As an aside, that 109s now turn with Spits (neither of which I fly often) is laughable. The Spits should eat the 109s alive in a turning fight.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no no period here. Just put in pencil and paper and drawing charts and you will see that a fast drop in speed can give you a better position to shoot (as long as the opponent is already at your front quadrant). Very simple.. is the EXACT same thing that a Yo Yo does.. but you do not regain your energy.

Fillmore
12-02-2004, 05:35 PM
I take issue with the statement that there is some radical difference in turn performance between these aircraft. There simply isn't, nor should there be to the extent that some people seem to expect. In general I find that with all things, climb, turn, dive, people expect to see some kind of giant huge differences that simply aren't there. These are all mid war WWII prop fighters, there is a limit to how different they can be. And the difference is well within pilot ability, so FM isn't an issue unless you show up with tracks broken down through devicelink. When some test pilot says there is a big difference you need to understand the context within which he is saying that.

The original poster could just as easily be complaining about FW190A-5 outturning La5FN. I have done so online in a prolonged on the deck encounter, he did not (note that I don't say "could not") outturn me and I stayed right with him and shot him down. Just because someone has been playing the sim a long time doesn't mean they are any good.

"As an aside, that 109s now turn with Spits (neither of which I fly often) is laughable. The Spits should eat the 109s alive in a turning fight."

Replace 109 with 190 and Spit with La5FN. You will agree that it is laughable that anyone in an La5FN would allow a 190 to turn with him, but I have turned with La5FNs online. But not when you are the pilot I don't, within two moves I can see you know what you are doing and I disengage, while against others I can see they don't know what to do and I stay with them easily. I have outturned Yak3s in a Dora (quite handily in fact) too. Does that mean there is something not right with the FM, or something not right with the Yak3 pilot?

I know when I fly La5, Yak3, and Spitfires I can't outturn much of anything, and in La5 and Spits I stall alot, but is that a problem with the FMs, or a problem with the way I fly?

biggs222
12-02-2004, 05:44 PM
ive been flying Spits since the begining. they are basically all i fly. and i DO notice a different with the 3.02 version, they have become more unstable then before, the turn rate has been reduced, also i find that they become unstable fast then they used to, im seeing streamers on teh wing tips WAY sooner then i used to when pulling over the top and even high speed turns. i feel like im flying a P51 or P47 even at times.... i dont know why 1C has made these changed the Spit is become less and Less of a spit with these patches.

this should not be an issue! the spitIX was porked when it first cam out then they got it right with 2.04, now they messed with it AGAIN....WHY!!!??

Ugly_Kid
12-02-2004, 06:22 PM
If you read some real life accounts, for example, johnnie johnsson you might noice that it wasn't all that clear to RAF pilots that they could outturn 109 at all! It was through experimenting that they found out a small advantage in the battle. I find it also so. It is not instantly obvious I outturn them on a dime when they're already in a position to blow my **** off but if I survive to exploit the advantage there's something to it.

I am really sorry if an earlier poster did not understand that with lower speed you ALWAYS gain a tighter radius. Try to park your ferrari in a tight slot doing 200 km/h on a parking place of a mall where a family mother driving a toyota SUV does it with 10 km/h quite comfortably, try and turn as tight as that going way faster. Then come back to Uncle Enzo and tell him your car cuts the corners worth ****e, just got outturned by Toyota on a parking place of a mall by a family mother with 6 children - sure Ferrari people are tearing their shirts apart...

p1ngu666
12-02-2004, 07:04 PM
im sure mr enzo would come up with something good in reply http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i THINK its more unstable, so im with biggs on that.
spit should be pretty stable tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HayateAce
12-02-2004, 07:16 PM
Are we really going to begin using toyota and ferrari automobiles as some sort of comparison. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

C'mon guys, enough with the agression. The Spitfire pilots and the rest of us have some legitimate points & questions here.

"Learn to fly" statements aren't going to make this go under the rug. I recognize some of these Spit fliers and they are very accomplished sticks. Be sure.

Bull_dog_
12-02-2004, 08:49 PM
Interesting... I personally don't think the 109 or Spit are right.

On line, when flying a 109 G2 or 6 against Spits, I B&Z when possible but when I get to mixing it up, a slow sustained turn kills Spitfires regularly. The trick is to keep your speed low and most spit pilots accomodate me. When I fly the Spit, I use energy tactics and sustained turns/ spiral climbs and kill 109's regularly. Those are the tactics that work on line for me at least prior to PF. I haven't fought messer vs spit since then much.

Historically, based on what I've read, the 109 G series was not a good turning aircraft, had poor visibility, short range. Its assets were climb, speed and pressurized cockpit allowing for comfortable high altitude flight.

To me, the Fw and 109 FM's seem almost reversed. The Fw was the more feared plane in 43 onwards and was easy to fly, fast at med to low altitude, had a vicious roll rate and was slightly tougher and had an awesome weapons package. Not a turner, but in Europe, turning fights were getting to be the exception.

All this is based on stuff I've read and I have long thought the FM of the 109 was not right...like several aircraft. The spit is real close, but I believe it should handily out turn 109 and 190 at slow speeds and doesn't based on my on my success and failures on line.

As far as speed decreasing causing the turning circle to get smaller....I don't think it is that simple or we'd see alot of Jugs out turning everything and 190's of old that bled speed terribly.

I don't worry about it too much because I know if I fly either spit or 109 to its strenghts, I can win the battle. Really poor planes like the Lightning or really great planes like the La-7 or 109K frustrate me much more because you can fly your plane real well and still get waxed in a lightning or really poorly in a La-7 and kill indiscriminantly.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Also in the book "Wing Leader" by Johnnie Johnson, that i'm reading atm he states the Spitfires could outurn the Fw190 and the Fw190 could outturn the Bf109's...interesting, i think you'll agree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i do agree

& guess what , they do in FB too

these planes were not low speed turners

at high speed in FB the Me109 looses out to the Fw-190 in a turn

as soon as speed drops tho . . . .

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
[Spits are faster , climb better , outturn any 109 in IL-2 FB if you know how to fly it : it is CORRECT . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
while this is true , dedicated Spitfire fans want it even better

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
As an aside, that 109s now turn with Spits (neither of which I fly often) is laughable. The Spits should eat the 109s alive in a turning fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
whys it laughable

from the Emil up , Bf109s had turn times close to Spitfires

good pilots reversed on Spitfires & shot then down

its far from laughable , what was laughable was P-51's with their laminar wings being able to stick with Bf109s at slow speed

now that was laughable

how the feck did that happen

Cyrano
12-02-2004, 09:55 PM
A few post have mentioned the program "Devicelink" , can someone please direct me to a link.

Thx.

Hoarmurath
12-02-2004, 09:57 PM
devicelink is a feature included in the game, you can find information about it in a readme included in the game folder.

GR142-Pipper
12-02-2004, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
As an aside, that 109s now turn with Spits (neither of which I fly often) is laughable. The Spits should eat the 109s alive in a turning fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
whys it laughable

from the Emil up , Bf109s had turn times close to Spitfires <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe from the 109F-4 and prior. From the 109-G series and subsequent, the turn times clearly favored the Spitfire. The nature of the 109G (and later) fight changed from a horizontal fight to more of a vertically-focused engagement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>good pilots reversed on Spitfires & shot then down <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good pilots can always reverse on not-so-good pilots. However, with equal-ability pilots in turning engagements where the Spit maintained maximum turn rates a 109 victory was rare to be sure. If this occurred at all, it was because the Spit driver made a mistake and pooched it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>its far from laughable , what was laughable was P-51's with their laminar wings being able to stick with Bf109s at slow speed

not _that_ was laughable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. That too is laughable.

GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Maybe from the 109F-4 and prior. From the 109-G series and subsequent, the turn times clearly favored the Spitfire. The nature of the 109G (and later) fight changed from a horizontal fight to more of a vertically-focused engagement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes especially after the G2 , the messerscmitts (spelling ?) gained a lot of weight

but that doesnt mean they were incapable of turning

what is surprising is the the Bf109's seem to be given a power-loading advantage at slow speed , which is what IMO , makes Bf109s so good at low low speed

biggs222
12-02-2004, 10:15 PM
my problem is the Spit vs 109 argument, its the fact that the spitfire has been made WORSE with this new patch, it has become more unstable. to the point of absurdity. now when turning ur almost always flying on the edge of a stall... mind you im talking about the mkIX and VIII versions.

i would really like to know why Oleg and company feel they need to keep tweaking (porking) the spitfire.

HayateAce
12-02-2004, 11:03 PM
biggs222, it's probably no coincidence that the P51 was trimmed pretty harshly as well. Both of these aircraft were capable of going 1 v 1 against a 109, and winning IF the Spit/Stang pilot was up on his game.

I have strong suspicions this is being done for the sake of balanced gameplay. It certainy does not go along with historical accounts.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 11:09 PM
while that is true , it doesnt magically make the laminar , thin chord wings of the Mustang suddenly create lift at low speed , high AoA

does it now Hayate_Hater ?

HayateAce
12-03-2004, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
while that is true , it doesnt magically make the laminar , thin chord wings of the Mustang suddenly create lift at low speed , high AoA

does it now Hayate_Hater ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, you kind of lurk around these forums and then square off against people who don't exactly share your views. No offense, but you seem to know just enough airplane words to get us all into trouble. Let's leave the aero physics to the experts. I'm not one of those either, but I do know how to read a **** book.

Perhaps if you have nothing further to add, you may want to go to another thread where you will be happier.

And please, don't alter my forum name. Show just a bit of civility.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 01:06 AM
so says the USAAF fan

in other words , you cant refute critisim to your US plane whining ?

HayateAce
12-03-2004, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:


Maybe turn rates are overmodelled for 109's but consider the above points, I think they have a lot more to do with the argument. Spit pilots getting into low (300 Kph or less) speed fights with 109's are going to get into trouble. 109's have slats and are pretty stable at these speeds, plus they can roll quickly to stay with spits in a reversal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at least here we see a Luftwaffe finally own up to the 109 turning too well. If you guys don't think this is an important issue, think again. Do we want to go through years of playing BoB with more turn-fighter 109s?

Nobody wants that.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Nobody wants that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WELL YOU SURE DONT !

if you bother to read , the difference between the Emil & The early Spits was too close to call

advantage to the Spitfires , just !

whats the deal with the bias

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Well, at least here we see a Luftwaffe finally own up to the 109 turning too well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oh its is without doubt

but all Fighters turn faster than RL tests in FB

the Ponys & Jugs & BF's & LA's & Spits

whats the deal here Hayate_Hater ?

JG5_UnKle
12-03-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
but all Fighters turn faster than RL tests in FB

the Ponys & Jugs & BF's & LA's & Spits

whats the deal here Hayate_Hater ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it in one Badsight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was trying to be subtle, looks like it went over some posters heads a little. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

The G-2 turn rates are pretty much spot on 20 secs. I will say it one more time.....

The Spit out turns the 109 in every situation except a low speed (or high energy bleeding instantaneous turn - lower radius) turn with flaps and slats.

The spit does not have slats and cannot deploy combat flaps like the 109.

Take the spit up high or push it beyond 450Kph and the 109 is no match. The Spit has great elevator authority and unrivalled turn peformance at speeds - the 109's elevator starts to lock-up at 450kph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Kwiatos
12-03-2004, 03:27 AM
From 3.02 no more P-51 turn equal with BF 109 at slow speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifThx Oleg M. for these fix http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-03-2004, 06:15 AM
Lets do some serious testing 18/19 s to beat yet for Spit vb lf etc for full 360 degrees 1000 m sustained turn. And 19/20 s for Spit lf IXe. 109 G2 20/21 s (the g2 is the best turning 109). All Planes 100 % Full !. All Tests without combat flaps cause then planes turn slower(but radius is smaller) and fly below cornerspeed and lose much E !

Can you confirm these figures Unkle ?

Seems some dont understand that turning doesnt win dfs and that planes that bleed E faster actually have an advantage for a short time.

Its all about flying not just pull the stick back and pull the trigger.

I think the spit is spot on (later models turned slower btw) in turning but e bleed is too low that brings the disadvantage in this case. Spit seems a little stally since last patch but so do other planes too.

OldMan____
12-03-2004, 08:14 AM
The poitn is pretty obvious. Just learn to fight! Choose how tyo fight.. do not let enemy choose it.

Leting a 109 drag you to a 230kph fight is stupid! Keep at 350 and you are better than him. Go to 500 and the 190 is the best turner along with corsair.

Just learn to fight how your plane was intended to fight.

HayateAce
12-03-2004, 08:42 AM
Very curious.

More attempts to sweep overdone Bf109 turn performance with the chant, "Learn to fly."

Hmmm.

Anyway, Oleg Maddox please reduce Bf109 turn rate to historical reality.

Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

k5054
12-03-2004, 08:46 AM
I'm still not seeing how a plane with a worse wing loading and higher 1g stall speed is going to have a low speed turn advantage. Or indeed how it would be an advantage in a 109 to be flying in the slats-out regime for long.
The all-up 1g stall speeds of these aircraft are all available, and should give a first--order indication of turn ability, instantaneous if not sustained.
Those 20sec turn times you see are not useful in combat, except for when the fight has deteriorated to sea level stall fight, because they are sustained turns. No turn fighter will keep up a sustained turn at constant alt in an unfavourable position when he can get more turn rate by diving, or separation or energy advantage by climbing.

But really, what is the source of this story that a 109 can turn well at low speeds? It flies in the face of physics, unless there's some reason of which I'm blissfully ignorant.

Fehler
12-03-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
ive been flying Spits since the begining. they are basically all i fly. and i DO notice a different with the 3.02 version, they have become more unstable then before, the turn rate has been reduced, also i find that they become unstable fast then they used to, im seeing streamers on teh wing tips WAY sooner then i used to when pulling over the top and even high speed turns. i feel like im flying a P51 or P47 even at times.... i dont know why 1C has made these changed the Spit is become less and Less of a spit with these patches.

this should not be an issue! the spitIX was porked when it first cam out then they got it right with 2.04, now they messed with it AGAIN....WHY!!!?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This actually has nothing to do with the Spit. There was a global change tot he FM, and that can easily be felt and seen. The problem here is that most people dont recognize the global effects, and point at the FM of a particular plane.

With every patch the first thing I do it take my favorite ride out and zoom climb to see when (What speed) I begin to feel a stall while trying to hang on the prop. This will immediately tell me what zone I can hammerhead and yo-yo at safely.

Then I take a good turner (Spit, Yak, etc) and do the same thing to identify their strengths in the same zone.

With each patch, I can immediately tell within 3 minutes if the FM is more or less forgiving than the last. This one appears to be a little less forgiving.

THAT is why you get the impression you stated:
1.i DO notice a different with the 3.02 version, they have become more unstable then before

and make this statement:
2. the turn rate has been reduced

Because you cant turn when you are stalling - well a controlled turn at least. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In earlier patches, the stalls were almost unnoticable unless you went to full deflection at very slow speeds.

Now you are on the edge, and stalling at slow speeds and the 109 is still there because of the modelling of his slats. In previous versions, the stall was not present to such a degree and his slats had no meaning.

Still though, I will contend this, if anyone is being out-sustained-turned by a spit they are not flying it correctly.

Also, I have outturned spits in a 190!!! How? By proper energy management. It's hard to do, but if the Spit driver is not totally used to his plane (Which I am TOTALLY used to mine) then I can gain an momentary angle here or there and puts some rounds on target. Once that is done, I assure you that I will eventaully lock in on the kill shot.

The problem is that most people that fly the Spit like a religion do NOT make the same mistakes as casual Spit flyers that think all they need to do is roll 90 degrees and yank.

All this sounds very familiar to me. The same thing that was said about My 190A4 cant outclimb a SpitV. When Oleg came here to explain how to do it, I didnt rebel, I went and tried what he said, and have neve been caught by a Spit in a zoom climb since.

Sometimes humility is a virtue. Some should learn it.

Fehler
12-03-2004, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Very curious.

More attempts to sweep overdone Bf109 turn performance with the chant, "Learn to fly."

Hmmm.

Anyway, Oleg Maddox please reduce Bf109 turn rate to historical reality.

Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hayate.. You are fond of quoting "Historical figures" but I never see the numbers from you. Quote your source where the 109 does not match historical numbers in the game.

You cannot do that because your are totally incorrect.

The 109 in the game is correct. If you believe the Spit is wrong, then do some testing and submit it. Otherwise please bring something a bit more constructive tot he discussion.

Otherwise, by TRUE sense of the word, you are doing nothing more than "Luft" whining.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
But really, what is the source of this story that a 109 can turn well at low speeds? It flies in the face of physics, unless there's some reason of which I'm blissfully ignorant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are blissfully ignorant Mister.

Mark Hanna on the 109 G... not even the F!

"Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."


"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."


BTW, let me just note that currently the 109s are 50% undermodelled in high speed turning ability... turn time was 24 secs for the 109K at 6000m, but in the game it tooks 34-36secs !

p1ngu666
12-03-2004, 11:03 AM
109 prolly better at low speed cos of wingslats and flaps, i guess it should be a small advantage...

spits got bigger wings, so should be able to "float" abit, like a il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and yeah, k4 is either undermodeled, or test was conducted with a gorrila http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

kurfy, u got any 190, and in particular dora info (graphs, test, that sorta stuff) u could send me? thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
12-03-2004, 11:15 AM
Without wishing to take sides...(and get flamed)
We try to fit to some extent what we hear of RL combat to the Sim (ie Spit always out-turned Bf). As far as I've read, pretty much the only exponent of low speed, low alt stall fighting (not a healthy RL occupation) was H-J Marseille, who was, as I'm sure you'll all agree, a very special talent. His abilities mystified even the pilots who flew with him. I'm given to understand that the majority of Bf pilots had no confidence that they could out-turn Spits, and so just put the nose down(or up) and run like f, erm, the clappers. They were encouraged in this belief by the 'audible bang' and snatch as the slats deployed. Additionally, in 1940, there was a suspicion that the 109 wings were a little weak and liable to come off at high G (which they weren't).
On the other side, the Spitfire pilots just KNEW(because that was the whole ethos and training of a Spit driver) they could outturn the Bf (eventually), so that was what they did, and if they were jumped, it was the main evasive tactic. The ones who did get nailed aren't here to tell us about how they were outturned by a 109.
It's a confidence thing on both sides.

In Il2/AEP/PF, you can stall a 109/190 into the ground as many times as you like learning how to low speed turn/B.Roll. (and you all did, once upon a time). Difficult thing to learn in RL, where speed IS life (an old cliche I know).
Additionally, don't forget the physical effort/mental strain of prolonged stall fighting close to the ground.

Those who quote Mark Hanna's (GRHS) views on the 109 should note - with the experience of 50 years he knew all about the leading edge slat deployment. And he was killed in one.

HayateAce
12-03-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Some stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just coming here and saying the 109 is right, is not going to cut it this time.

Sorry, but this issue will not go away until the 109 is given its proper turning performance. I suggest all you guys who are tired of watching the 109s do unrealistic moves keep after this issue with full focus.

Please, let's have a realistic 109.

GR142-Pipper
12-03-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
This actually has nothing to do with the Spit. There was a global change tot he FM, and that can easily be felt and seen. The problem here is that most people dont recognize the global effects, and point at the FM of a particular plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh it's understood alright and its explanation is quite clear: with every patch the performance of the allied planes (particularly the U.S./U.K. aircraft) continues to decline relative to their axis counterparts. That's pretty obvious and easily understood by those who have played this game for any period of time. If the developers want to craft the game in this manner, that's certainly their right. But it also may be time to drop the charade that it's about historics. That dog just doesn't hunt anymore. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-03-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Still though, I will contend this, if anyone is being out-sustained-turned by a spit they are not flying it correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Spit was an excellent turner and SHOULD out sustain-turn most of the aircraft in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, I have outturned spits in a 190!!! How? By proper energy management. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, you've out-turned Spits in a 190, eh? If true, the Spit driver was either: 1) a complete to-the-bone ****** or 2) he was using a special Braille version of IL-2.

Respectfully Fehler, there's just NO way a 190 is going to out-turn a Spit that has a reasonably able pilot flying it.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
12-03-2004, 12:50 PM
That your statement just shows that you only think on a specific situation. Try to follow a 190 at its hardest turn at 530 kph.. NO WAY a spitfire can follow it until its speed drops below 410 kph.

I fly 190 almost all the time.. and I frequently outturn spitfires this way to get them out of my tail or to surprise them with a slash attack

OldMan____
12-03-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109 prolly better at low speed cos of wingslats and flaps, i guess it should be a small advantage...

spits got bigger wings, so should be able to "float" abit, like a il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and yeah, k4 is either undermodeled, or test was conducted with a gorrila http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

kurfy, u got any 190, and in particular dora info (graphs, test, that sorta stuff) u could send me? thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

slats are much bigger advanatge than simple bigger wings. Slats change how tha air flow behaves at low speed and HIGH AOA keeping the laminar flow sticked to the wing. A big wing helps almost nothing on that.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2004, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
I'm given to understand that the majority of Bf pilots had no confidence that they could out-turn Spits, and so just put the nose down(or up) and run like f, erm, the clappers. They were encouraged in this belief by the 'audible bang' and snatch as the slats deployed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I just read a German 109 ace, Konig or something like that, who said that after meeting the Spits over Dunkirk the first time, he was confident that no Spitfire can turn inside his plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
Additionally, in 1940, there was a suspicion that the 109 wings were a little weak and liable to come off at high G (which they weren't).
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really I don`t know where you got that thing. It was certainly told and kept repeated to Allied pilots by their commanders, but I don`t see how it would effect the confidence of LW pilots. Personally I never seen or heard this 'week wings' stuff coming from a LW or other nation`s 109 pilot, just the contrary. Franz Stiegler said ie. he never heard of that. It appears the urban myth comes from the allied side, and was propaganda stuff to boost their pilot`s morale with the good old 'your enemy is inferior to you' stuff. Same for turning. I have no idea where you got LW pilots did not have confidence in their planes turning ability.


Pingu666, please email me at executor@index.hu, and I will see what I can do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
12-03-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Still though, I will contend this, if anyone is being out-sustained-turned by a spit they are not flying it correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Spit was an excellent turner and SHOULD out sustain-turn most of the aircraft in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, I have outturned spits in a 190!!! How? By proper energy management. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, you've out-turned Spits in a 190, eh? If true, the Spit driver was either: 1) a complete to-the-bone ****** or 2) he was using a special Braille version of IL-2.

Respectfully Fehler, there's just NO way a 190 is going to out-turn a Spit that has a reasonably able pilot flying it.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I just want to say that I have outturned all kind of planes in sustained turn with Spit MkIXc (in sustained turns I185, KI84.. about LA7 unsure because I have outturned them also but with some alt avantage).

Just I take 25% fuel.

And if someone says that he can outturn me with Fw190, well.. uh. Maybe if I just take a little brake and go for a cup of cofee on few minutes while airborne and in that particular dogfight. No offense.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriously Spit is monster in every respect, too bad it doesn't have so large fan-club.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OldMan____
12-03-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I'm still not seeing how a plane with a worse wing loading and higher 1g stall speed is going to have a low speed turn advantage. Or indeed how it would be an advantage in a 109 to be flying in the slats-out regime for long.
The all-up 1g stall speeds of these aircraft are all available, and should give a first--order indication of turn ability, instantaneous if not sustained.
Those 20sec turn times you see are not useful in combat, except for when the fight has deteriorated to sea level stall fight, because they are sustained turns. No turn fighter will keep up a sustained turn at constant alt in an unfavourable position when he can get more turn rate by diving, or separation or energy advantage by climbing.

But really, what is the source of this story that a 109 can turn well at low speeds? It flies in the face of physics, unless there's some reason of which I'm blissfully ignorant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


please.. read some aerodynamics books. Theory of wing sections is a good one. Then you will see that 109 does not defy laws of physics.. it flies like that due to them.

You will learn that wing loading is IRRELEVANT when compared to wing section importance. Different wing section will have different results at different speeds and different AOA.

Spitfire used a eliptical wing to achieve a specific effect at a specific flight condition. They were not MAGICAL...

At speeds close to stall the important is to keep the air flow just in the surface of wing (not forming a turbulence node) and slats help a LOT in that. Simple bigger wings will not save you... better wing will. Slats cuttet the air flow in order to keep air glued to wing surface.

I just get impressed with these complains.. since I can turn with any 109 in game while in a Spitfire when at combat speed.


So if you do not want to learn to fly... learn physics.

k5054
12-03-2004, 02:08 PM
Old man , if you've read any of my previous posts you'll be able to form a judgement on what I know about aero physics. Wing loading alone is not the issue, its a combination of wing loading and Cl. This is exactly what the stall speed measures. If you have a lower stall speed for 1g, then you have a combination wing area x CL /weight which is more than that for a machine which stalls faster. That's not the whole picture though, an aircraft which employs high lift devices of whatever kind to achieve its lift will inevitably have a harder working wing in any condition and therefore will have more induced drag in the turn. In a high-g turn in thinner air this extra induced drag will begin to be dominant in the thrust/drag equation, and will suck the speed out of the bird far faster than a more lightly loaded wing.
I don't care what you can do with your 109 in the game, if it isn't correctly modelled. A measure of how it is modelled would be the stall speed, compared to RL. What is the 1g power-off stall speed for a real 109? Any model, or all you have.
I'll start the ball rolling, 105mph for the captured G6/U2(?), probably with gondolas. you won't even find a german test or comparison which says the 109 out-turned the spitfire in a level turn. Just some dodgy anecdotes, which don't make it certain the spit was pulling as tight as possible, because in combat you never know what is happening in the other cockpit.

GR142-Pipper
12-03-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
That your statement just shows that you only think on a specific situation. Try to follow a 190 at its hardest turn at 530 kph.. NO WAY a spitfire can follow it until its speed drops below 410 kph.

I fly 190 almost all the time.. and I frequently outturn spitfires this way to get them out of my tail or to surprise them with a slash attack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, what you're describing isn't a sustained turn situation...which is what this discussion is all about.

GR142-Pipper

BBB_Hyperion
12-03-2004, 02:38 PM
k5054 there are 2 problems.

1.
no 109 outturns a spit in sustained levelturn

2.
no one flys sustained level turns in combat

Col.Kurtz
12-03-2004, 02:48 PM
Ok did some ingame tests about turn and climb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

First some real data of the planes in question.

Spit Vb 41
2960kg (6525LB)
1000hp 9lb @SL
1200hp 12LB @SL
2,96kg/HP 9lb
2,46kg/HP 12lb
22,98qm
Wingload:
128kg/qm
Source of engine power not 100%save http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Stallspeed in Clean condition:
73mph 117Km/h (Pilots Notes)

Spit9c
3393kg(7480lb)
~1570HP@SL 18lb (5min)
2,16kg/HP
22,98qm
Wingload:
151kg/qm
Stallspeed in Clean condition:
93mph 150km/h (Pilots Notes)

Bf109F2
2728kg
1175PS @SL (3min)
1030PS @SL (30min)
2,32kg/PS ( 3min)
Wingload:
169kg/qm

Bf109 G2
3030kg
1310PS@SL (30min)
2,31kg/PS
16,1qm
Wingload:
188 kg/qm

Bf109 G6
3196kg
1475PS@SL (3min)
1310PS@SL (30min)
2,17kg/PS
Wingload:
198kg/qm
Stallspeed in Clean condition:
168km/h (Eric Brown)

Bf109G10
3360kg (MK108)
1800PS (10min)@SL
1,86kg/PS
Wingload:
209kg/qm



Comparsion of capured 109F2 vs SpitVB

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/5703/38-BF109F2vsSpitVB.jpg

RAF evalution of new Spit9with Merlin61 vs Spit VC :

Manoeuvrability
20......... The Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC for turning circles and dog-fighting at heights between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding. The pilot of the Spitfire VC found it difficult to maintain a steep turn without losing height, whereas the pilot of the Spitfire IX found that he had a large reserve of power which enabled him to maintain height without trouble. The all-round performance of the Spitfire IX at 30,000 feet is most impressive.
---------------

While early BF109 and Spits where not far away in Turn(Plane in test of F2 above was not in good condition) i dont believe that the Late 109 could hold their own in a substained turn fight with a Spitfire IX.


Here now Ingame tests of Climb and Turn i did today:

Start from ground
100% Fuel timecount at liftoff with 220km/h IAS,substained climb with 260-250km/h IAS
Time to alt in Game/ (Real Data)/ too fast or slow

109K4
3050m--1:54min
5000m--3:05min (real data unknow)
6100m--3:52min

109G10
3050m--2:04
5000m--3:26min (real data unknow)
6100m--4:17min

109G2
3050m--2:20min (2:20min) Perfect
5000m--3:48min (4:06min) 18sec too fast
6100m--4:40min (5:10min) 30sec too fast
1.3ata(30min rating) data for G2 as 1.42 was first in late43 avaible

La7
3050m--2:19min (~2:20min)Perfect
5000m--4:03min (4:18min) 15sec too fast
6100m--5:04min (~5:27min) ~30sec too fast
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html

Spit9c
3050m--2:22min (2:09min) 13sec too slow
6100m--5:08min (4:45min) 23sec too slow

SpitVb 41
3050m--3:07min (3:05min) Perfect (too slow because 12LB WEP avaible)
5000m--4:56min (5:06min)
6100m--6:18min (6:23min) Perfect
9lb data used(60min rating) while real had 12LB Boost(5min) so low alt climb is little undermodelled
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

The Spit is not overmodelled in Climb in IL2 what can´t be said about most planes where clear Data is avaible,note that Spit9 is undermodelled(and special if you count the time other AC are to fast!) this maybe caused because of Automatic Charger bug found by Hunde.


Turn Performance:

I dont want to say my test here is 100%accurate but it should show relativ performance.

The test was substained turn about 5-7 full 360 degree circles at constant speed.
-+50 alt and +-20km/h speedrange

Krim/Crimea 1000m 50% Fuel

A6M5
15,6 sec
Yak9
17,1 sec
yak3
17,3
La7
17,4 sec
Spit VB 41
17,8 sec
Spit IXc
18,7 sec
109G2
19,1 sec
G10
19,3 sec
K4
19,8 sec
109F4
20,3 sec
109G6
20,5 sec

Sig.Hirsch
12-03-2004, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://img98.exs.cx/img98/5703/38-BF109F2vsSpitVB.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's exactly what we have in IL-2 FB , a SpitVb outturn any bf at any speed

If you want to prove that a Spit VIII could outturn a Bf109 F4 or G2 with slats (which is know to improve the turn ability by 20 % minimum) at slow speed (cause any spit in the game outturn any 109 easily except at slow speed below 290-300 Km/h) then post the test about the right planes , it 'll be more helpful , Oleg uses the datas of the English RAF so ....

Secondly when you say any spit could outturn any bf at any speed , it is wrong :109 G2 could turn at 20 sec (some aces could could do better though) at 1000m and the datas modelled in FB are correct except if you want to ignore them maybe .

Also , for the guy who said that :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> understood alright and its explanation is quite clear: with every patch the performance of the allied planes (particularly the U.S./U.K. aircraft) continues to decline relative to their axis counterparts. That's pretty obvious and easily understood by those who have played this game for any period of time. If the developers want to craft the game in this manner, that's certainly their right. But it also may be time to drop the charade that it's about historics. That dog just doesn't hunt anymore. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an insult to Oleg , unhonest , and not true at all , i fly this sim since the beggining , and it's quite the opposite , Oleg changed all the FM to make it more realistic , it ain't any conspiracy like you mean , how can i trust your honesty when you say such lies ?

EFG_beber
12-03-2004, 03:16 PM
Here an extract from a French book about aero-technique.
It€s says that slats improve Cz (lift) to 30 at 40%.

My English is very limited and It€s difficult to me to translate all the text.
If a good translator could traduce this text, it will be helpful.

avec fentes=with slats
http://img102.exs.cx/img102/3693/f1-Slats-1.png

http://img102.exs.cx/img102/5369/b2-Slats-2.png

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 03:19 PM
Col.Kurtz .. . . a similer sustained test was done by forum member " JtD " in v2.0

Spitfire was also the better sustained turner in that test

much to the amazement of regular Spit flyers

just another way to show how DF room performance isnt anywhere near accurate to base opinions on

Col.Kurtz
12-03-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> that's exactly what we have in IL-2 FB , a SpitVb outturn any bf at any speed

If you want to prove that a Spit VIII could outturn a Bf109 F4 or G2 with slats (which is know to improve the turn ability by 20 % minimum) at slow speed (cause any spit in the game outturn any 109 easily except at slow speed below 290-300 Km/h) then post the test about the right planes , it 'll be more helpful , Oleg uses the datas of the English RAF so ....

Secondly when you say any spit could outturn any bf at any speed , it is wrong :109 G2 could turn at 20 sec (some aces could could do better though) at 1000m and the datas modelled in FB are correct except if you want to ignore them maybe .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say nothing is this or that way i also dont want to "prove" anything...
I just Post Data i have and know.
And i also dont see any "prove" of people that think a 109 could turn with the Spit.

If spit9 would outurn G10 by 2 sec in substained turn i dont think anyone here could prove that wrong!

Fact is that nearly every Russian plane can outurn the later 109 version but Spit9 cant do this.

I fly German planes from the very beginning of Il2 and have no intention to make my favorit ride stronger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Col.Kurtz .. . . a similer sustained test was done by forum member " JtD " in v2.0

Spitfire was also the better sustained turner in that test

much to the amazement of regular Spit flyers

just another way to show how DF room performance isnt anywhere near accurate to base opinions on

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes JtD did also turn tests but note that they where done with empty tanks with only 3-5%Fuel if i remembre right.He to posts normal in German Forum like me

GR142-Pipper
12-03-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
It is an insult to Oleg , unhonest , and not true at all , i fly this sim since the beggining , and it's quite the opposite , Oleg changed all the FM to make it more realistic , it ain't any conspiracy like you mean , how can i trust your honesty when you say such lies ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, I call them like I see them. At this point, it's fun playing the game but I really don't have a great deal of confidence that many of the flight models really represent much of anything. There is no venom here directed at anyone and I stop well short of saying that any conspiracy exists at all. My view is that many of the models are simply wrong. That you feel differently is certainly your right as well.

GR142-Pipper

BigganD
12-03-2004, 03:46 PM
I see the spit9 better turner then the g6,g10 g14 and so on.. after a while I get out turned in my 109 but some ppl just give up and trys to run. This is a step forward, now you need some skills to fly a spit not jsut pull the stick and in a sec you out turn the 109.

robban75
12-03-2004, 03:58 PM
The Spitfire IXc climb seems almost spot on to the real one in my climbtest. I reached 3050m in 2:14 and 6100m in 4:48.

As for the La-7. I get to 5000m in 3:50 and 6100m in 4:52.

Col.Kurtz
12-03-2004, 04:40 PM
My climbtimes are with start from ground and begin of timecount at liftoff with 220km/h.
Smolenskmap (crimea map gives ~5sec better climb to alt of 5000m for all planes)
So if you start already in air and Crimea map 15 faster for all planes.
Realativ performance stays same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
12-03-2004, 04:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Really I don`t know where you got that thing. It was certainly told and kept repeated to Allied pilots by their commanders, but I don`t see how it would effect the confidence of LW pilots. Personally I never seen or heard this 'week wings' stuff coming from a LW or other nation`s 109 pilot, just the contrary. Franz Stiegler said ie. he never heard of that. It appears the urban myth comes from the allied side, and was propaganda stuff to boost their pilot`s morale with the good old 'your enemy is inferior to you' stuff. Same for turning. I have no idea where you got LW pilots did not have confidence in their planes turning ability.

[QUOTE]

I was talking about 1940. Stiegler doesn't mention flying the Emil. I also qualified it by saying it wasn't true. (that 109's lost their wings). Rudolph Hess did manage to bend the wings on a 109B in 1935(ish). They were strengthed. Some things stick, especially if you've only really seen Biplanes with huge wing areas before. Was it Udet that said of the 109 "that thing will never make a fighter?" He was wrong.

As for the other comments, I was talking about the psychology of RL combat pilots. I have read it somewhere, but then, I've read a lot of things over many years, and it would take me a long time to find the passage. I like to read a lot of conflicting things and then make my own mind up, not jump down the throat of anyone who challenges my worldview.

I'm not trying to put down the Bf109 : I know it's a very fine A/C, one of the very best. I'm trying to shed light on why we believe the Spit would always outturn a 109.

Personally I think the Spitfire was a slightly better aircraft over it's lifecycle : Kurfurst, would you agree that it was, at least, a very good fighter?

k5054
12-03-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
k5054 there are 2 problems.

1.
no 109 outturns a spit in sustained levelturn

2.
no one flys sustained level turns in combat
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both true. Spitfire probably also has a better instantaneous turn at any speed below the pilots g limit and less energy loss above it.
My problem with sustained turn is the russian-based habit of using 'turn time'. It is a real measurement, it has relevance, but it isn't really too useful as a comparison of aircraft, especially when it comes as a time, ie a turn rate, with no g, speed or radius, any one of which would complete the equation and tell us something more.

robban75
12-03-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
My climbtimes are with start from ground and begin of timecount at liftoff with 220km/h.
Smolenskmap (crimea map gives ~5sec better climb to alt of 5000m for all planes)
So if you start already in air and Crimea map 15 faster for all planes.
Realativ performance stays same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crimea is the best map for all kinds of tests.

Here's what I do. I turn of realistic landings so the I can T/O from the beach in the direction of the water. This is good for precise alt readings. I start timer at pull up somewhere around 250-260km/h. I hold a steady climb for the Spit at 270km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

OldMan____
12-03-2004, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
That your statement just shows that you only think on a specific situation. Try to follow a 190 at its hardest turn at 530 kph.. NO WAY a spitfire can follow it until its speed drops below 410 kph.

I fly 190 almost all the time.. and I frequently outturn spitfires this way to get them out of my tail or to surprise them with a slash attack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, what you're describing isn't a sustained turn situation...which is what this discussion is all about.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a few post earlier people seeme to agre sustained turns almost never happen in real combat.

That kind of turn is the type that most LW flyers use to kill spits.

The other guys that just keep turning should not be your concern.. they are not the dangerous ones.


I will not claim anything about how it should be, since I have no real world data enought to calculate each AC lift.

not to you now...

Also I am not judging anyones merit on this couse.. just doon´t like people defending somehting wiht the WRONG argument (just wing load ). If you know that wing load is not the main issue here remember to use it in your argumentation, otherwise your argumentation looks like of someone that does not know what is talking about.


And I said nothing anbout what I do in 109.. I never fly it.. read it I talked about what i Do in SPITFIRE and 190, and is very different of some claiming here. I can outturn any plane in SPIT.. as long as I keep at correct speed... same with 190.

Fehler
12-03-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
This actually has nothing to do with the Spit. There was a global change tot he FM, and that can easily be felt and seen. The problem here is that most people dont recognize the global effects, and point at the FM of a particular plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh it's understood alright and its explanation is quite clear: with every patch the performance of the allied planes (particularly the U.S./U.K. aircraft) continues to decline relative to their axis counterparts. That's pretty obvious and easily understood by those who have played this game for any period of time. If the developers want to craft the game in this manner, that's certainly their right. But it also may be time to drop the charade that it's about historics. That dog just doesn't hunt anymore. Just my take.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny since Oleg himself has said he has not touched the FM's for the 109 and 190 in like 3 patches now.

Global changes have been made, but to make it sound like Oleg has all of a sudden decided to abandon flight data and make the Luftwaffe planes superior for no reason is totally misleading whether intentional or not.

Also, the topic started talking about "Turning" but not exactly what sort of turning. In instant turns at high speed, only the P-51 and P-47 at alt can stay with a 190. Once the 190 loses speed, just about any aircraft can turn inside of him. That's the way it works in the game.

I think the Spit is a great sustained turner. But if anyone is just playing merri-go-round because he/she thinks the Spit is the "End-all" in turning ability, they are not flying the plane correctly. And in sustained turns, online, I have yet to see the Spit bested by any LW plane.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
That's funny since Oleg himself has said he has not touched the FM's for the 109 and 190 in like 3 patches now.

Global changes have been made, but to make it sound like Oleg has all of a sudden decided to abandon flight data and make the Luftwaffe planes superior for no reason is misleading and an embelishment of the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
really ? he's said that just recently has he ?

biggs222
12-03-2004, 11:55 PM
well all that means is that its the SPitfire FM thats being messed with, making it worse....ive been doing tests with the Spit mkIX and VIII 25% fuel vs 109g6s with 25% fuel... with the 109 i can pull the stick all the way back even jerk it all teh way back at 430/400 kph and have no stalling or shuttering, do that with th espit and u get thrown into a high speed stall... and at the same time the 109 is turning tighter then the spit in these high speed turns...

also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however....

the advantage is squarly in the 109s favor there is no "even" about these FMs

not to mention the AI on ace does insane bat moves with the 109 but the ace AI with the spit is pathetic.

the sppitmkIX in AEP is nothing close to anythgin resembling what the spit was know for and well documented in countless history books...

i find it hard to see how a sim and a hand full of 109 fans have shown the "true" nature of the spit, they have pulled the wool from off our eyes... gimmie a break the 109 is clearly overmodeled

ill accepts a plane that when in the right hands can give the spit a handful, but the way it is now a 10 yearold can out dogfight spits now.

Fehler
12-04-2004, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
well all that means is that its the SPitfire FM thats being messed with, making it worse....ive been doing tests with the Spit mkIX and VIII 25% fuel vs 109g6s with 25% fuel... with the 109 i can pull the stick all the way back even jerk it all teh way back at 430/400 kph and have no stalling or shuttering, do that with th espit and u get thrown into a high speed stall... and at the same time the 109 is turning tighter then the spit in these high speed turns...

also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however....

the advantage is squarly in the 109s favor there is no "even" about these FMs

not to mention the AI on ace does insane bat moves with the 109 but the ace AI with the spit is pathetic.

the sppitmkIX in AEP is nothing close to anythgin resembling what the spit was know for and well documented in countless history books...

i find it hard to see how a sim and a hand full of 109 fans have shown the "true" nature of the spit, they have pulled the wool from off our eyes... gimmie a break the 109 is clearly overmodeled

ill accepts a plane that when in the right hands can give the spit a handful, but the way it is now a 10 yearold can out dogfight spits now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO! A year ago, we all got to read how the 109's leevator was set in concrete at high speeds. Then we get this. Now we hear that we cant black out at high speed... Hmmm I wonder why? Oh, perhaps it is because you cant get the ****ed things elevators to go to full deflection at high speed! The very thing we Luft haters wanted in the first place.

Perhaps no one will be satisfied until the 109 can only sit on the runway and be strafed... Just like it was in WWII... ROFL

WUAF_Badsight
12-04-2004, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
the sppitmkIX in AEP is nothing close to anythgin resembling what the spit was know for and well documented in countless history books.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
except its turn times & climb times & top speed

not to mention its fantastic low overheating ability

you say you can jerk the stick all the way back in a Bf109 ?

so what , the REAL joystick doesnt control the VIRTUAL joystick

anything over 400 in a Messer wont give full elevator deflection , because its so neutered , even tho the RL figure was more like 400 Mph

the VVS tests of the Spitfire Mk9 said its elevator was over-effecient , giving more force than was required even before full deflection was achieved

in the right hands the Spitfire is a monster & can totally dominate Bf109s , countless times the Mk9 has enabled me to achieve co-E over higher opponents

its high alt performance is second only to a couple of fighters

i cant see how you can want it any better than it is , look at the tests done with the Spitfire outside of a DF enviroment , they show the Spitfire doing faster turns & doing sustained turns faster to boot

looks to me like Biggs fights highly experienced Bf-109 players

WUAF_Badsight
12-04-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
thats because of the in-efficient elevator being held back from giving full deflection

no Bf109 can turn with any of the Spitfires at high speed due to this very fact

are all Spitfire fans lawnmowers ?!?!?


PLEASE Biggs , try this , IRL the Bf-109 K4 gave a 24 second turn at 6K , this was in a German test , a level 360 degree turn

try to replicate this using the FB K4

$100 says you cant get it under 30 seconds

Fehler
12-04-2004, 12:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Some stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just coming here and saying the 109 is right, is not going to cut it this time.

Sorry, but this issue will not go away until the 109 is given its proper turning performance. I suggest all you guys who are tired of watching the 109s do unrealistic moves keep after this issue with full focus.

Please, let's have a realistic 109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, as I said before, it is YOU that says the 109 does not match real world data, even though it has been tested to death and is spot on in most areas and even a little under in some. So I really dont see the logic where I have to come here to prove you right, especially when you are not.

Now, -IF- there were a game bug, like the way the 109's manual pitch could be used to gain performance advantages that it did not possess in real life, then I would be inclined to listen to you. Issues like this have been noted in the past and FIXED. But to say "We" need a change because you think it is wrong is not enough. Furthermore, statements like that without basis tend to give you less credibility by uttering them.

People have posted numbers here in the past, and the 109 has been tested and it conforms to those numbers. Show us real world numbers and a track of how you can get better numbers and perhaps someone may listen to you.

But you wont, because you cant.

biggs222
12-04-2004, 01:12 AM
all i know is that now when i go up against g2 and 6s online i cant pull away in a dive (i should be able to slightly). they are able to stay with me in high speed turns. low speed turns is just laughable. and now they are climbing better then the spit. for some reason the spit becomes much more unstable apprasching the stall.. the controls freese up. everythign ive ever read about the spit said that its was incredibly forgiving. the spit in 3.02 is not the same as it was in 2.04

i just dont see the reason for the change. why has it been downgraded so much?

Edit: the only way i was able to turn in and away from the 109 in a high speed turn was to pull into a blackout.. if i stay on the edge the 109 can quickly turn onto my 6 with ease. yes the spit may be able to out turn the 109 at high speed but at a price to the pilot. wich completely cancels out the advantage to the spit.

everythign im saying has to do with even dogfights where there was no distinct hight advantage... when i have the hight advange in the spit im untouchable.... but now when teh spit is even with the 109 the spit practically loses all its, apparently, historical advantages.

i naver had this problem beofe this patch. and im not the one to "whine" about FM either.
again i really dont understand why they keep screwing withthe spit FM.

Hetzer_II
12-04-2004, 01:22 AM
You realy must be a bad pilot if you dont win with the spit in an equal situation. The 109 cant even outclimb you, if he trys just hang on your magic prop and sniper him with the 120mm Hispannos. In turn just keep fast, the old brig elevator of the 109 is a big disadvantage there.... fight with energy not turn..

But maybe you should think about that the spit was not that howly cow like you believe..

But i agree with Fehler, the whining will hold on till:"Perhaps no one will be satisfied until the 109 can only sit on the runway and be strafed... Just like it was in WWII... ROFL
"

Greets

BTW: Your talking of V or IX?

biggs222
12-04-2004, 01:29 AM
im sorry but ur talking to a guy thats flown the spit since its arrival in FB, i know how to fly the plane... i always fly it to its limits... its just that with the new patch the "advantages" it HAD are becoming almost non existant when flown against the 109.

i had a 109 on me tonight, we were practically at an even hight i try climbing away and hes catchign me... so i had no other choice but to dive and try and get some separation there and then may try and turn inside of him. so i dived but i got no separating from him... so still in the dive i turn, but before i can get a better turn radius then him i start to black out, not to mention the spit no shutters much sooner then it used to, and when gettign close to the stall all the control surfaces freese up a bit.. i have to "shake teh plane loose from this freese, in teh mean time teh 109 is getting itself comfortable into postions... dont try a turning knife fright now, ull have no chance.

and this is vs a G2

Hetzer_II
12-04-2004, 02:24 AM
30 mins ago i shoot down 4 109 in one flight... try that with a 109 ;-)

WUAF_Toad
12-04-2004, 02:35 AM
Wow, I can't believe people are complaining about the spitfires, considering the IX is almost untouchable up high. Most fighters going against a high spit will give up and dive away eventually.

Fehler
12-04-2004, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
im sorry but ur talking to a guy thats flown the spit since its arrival in FB, i know how to fly the plane... i always fly it to its limits... its just that with the new patch the "advantages" it HAD are becoming almost non existant when flown against the 109.

i had a 109 on me tonight, we were practically at an even hight i try climbing away and hes catchign me... so i had no other choice but to dive and try and get some separation there and then may try and turn inside of him. so i dived but i got no separating from him... so still in the dive i turn, but before i can get a better turn radius then him i start to black out, not to mention the spit no shutters much sooner then it used to, and when gettign close to the stall all the control surfaces freese up a bit.. i have to "shake teh plane loose from this freese, in teh mean time teh 109 is getting itself comfortable into postions... dont try a turning knife fright now, ull have no chance.

and this is vs a G2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which Spit were you in? If you were in a late Spit, then you probably cant outturn the earlier 109. But if you are in the early Spit I would suggest you record some tracks because at any speed you should easily outturn the 109 G2.

For me, the G-2 has always been suspect, although many people have posted data that it is accurate. The odd thing that I dont understand about that particular plane is that it actually turns better than the F-4, even though it was a bit heavier witht the same wing.

KGr.HH-Gotcha
12-04-2004, 03:40 AM
Very entertaining. So here we go. 109s are uber eh ?


When I started flying for the first time I quickly changed for axis fighter since they were more a challenge to fly.
The SPit VIII and higher are so tough aircraft that I must simply side with Hetzer.
As long as you fly with brains you can't lose.
It turns better, retains better energy, can climb like hell.

The 109s can keep with you for maybe half a turn before they either bleed energy to fast or (in case of a downward spiral) lose controls.

The 109 pilot (same as the Fws) constantly need to check speed and always have to be prepared to disengage.

When I first came here to the forum asking fo rhelp with allied planes I was told to learn to fly....Nowadays with the exception of P47 and P38 pilots I don't know any allied plane that requires much of a brain to fly. Flying a spit to its max performance, what does this mean ?
If some occasional ally players are more successful in it than the original poster I think it's time for some olda fashioned quotes.

1) Got track ?
2) Got historical Data ? (name books)
3) Overall situation ?
4) Devicelink input ?

I found and still find the Spit series to be the best turners and overall performers.

Can't believe it ? Pick a 109 and try to shoot some....

Good Luck. You'll need it...As long as the enemy isn'T a complete jerk or unaware you wont get many chances...

S!

Fehler
12-04-2004, 03:53 AM
Well, another thing to remember that just because something out-turns/dives/climbs something else, it cant do that instantly.

In other words, if you are in a Jug and dive, you will still be in gun range for a length of time until you can extend away.

This was a misconception I had when I first started flying these types of sims. I thought, OK, Ill dive away now... But I was still getting hits. And in this sim, you get hits on you, you get slower.

Biggs, by no means am I disrespecting your flying abilities or your familiarization with the Spit, but you could be doing subtle things that went unnoticed in earlier patches because the FM was more forgiving. Really, without tracks it is hard to tell. Please record one and we can all take a look and see if it is something in your flying that you are not realizing, or something that is wrong with the game.

I know, for my part, I usually have one chance to make a deflection shot on the Spit, or I better run. If I try to make a sustained turn fight with one, I am as good as dead, unless I can get the Spit to commit an error in a rolling scissors or something. One other thing I do in a 190 vs Spit (Which is not the case we are talking about here, I know) is use my superior roll rate to change direction and foil the Spit's aim. I try to roll the opposite direction as soon as the Spit comits to rolling with me and I reverse my roll and turn. Sometimes it works, sometimes it only buys me time for a teammate to come in and shoot at the Spit, most of the time I get a few hits and am as good as dead in my fuel-leaky 190 with Big Butt Bertha sitting on the wing.

I just dont experience what some of you guys are talking about when I fly online.

stathem
12-04-2004, 04:35 AM
Don't be too quick to dismiss what Biggs says.
I am that pilot who's trying to learn how to fly the Spit. As a background, i do and have done, most of my flying in the original Il2 online in a Yak 3. (there are still some of us).
Never flown the Bf109 in AEP/PF before. Flown the Spit a wee bit, and, although my time is limited, I'm trying to learn it ready for the dedicated servers to come back online (hooray). Prompted by this discussion, i tried some QMB's, swapping between the G6 (with mk108) and the IXc, with the AI set on ace. (padlock on) Pretty much straight away I can wax the Ace Spit. Swap, and, although eventually I can take down the 109 ace, it takes a lot longer and a lot more thought and care, working the 109's energy state down and tagging it with the brownings on quick passes before pulling slight upward spirals while it evades. I have a tendancy to pull much too hard, and any quick manouver in a Spit results in blackout. Yes, I need to learn how to fly. I know what I should be doing, but knowing it and doing it in a critical situation takes a lot of practice. Online with full switch and trackIr on, I find it much harder to turn well. (i'm used to padlock).
My point is, the 109 seems easier to fly and get quick kills with. Online, tarting round for 5 mins trying to work the oppo's E-state down just either loses you tally, or gets you killed by people attracted by the tracers.
It's been said many times in this thread that the Spit should not be killed IF the pilot knows what he's about. Does this mean the 109 is now the Noob plane?
(what's the smiley for, "said with a glint in the eye and a sense of devilment?")

OldMan____
12-04-2004, 05:32 AM
No, that is not what we are saying... we are saying that a good spit pilot can keep itself alive forever (on equal terms of numbers etc..).. maybe forcing a kill will make your life more risky.


But THAT is something most pilots don´t get.. sometimes the fight is to keep yourself alive!!

As soon as I notice my target is trying to turn table and shoot me.. I just choose another target and let him eating dust (that in 190)... you can do the same in a spit against any 109.

JG77Von_Hess
12-04-2004, 06:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Very good debate here.
I must say i do agree with Oldman here.

Is it still possible to upload tracks on this page?

I have 2 little tracks V3.02b that i think illustrates why to fly the Spit offline over any other plane. (online im FW190A pilot and i dont like turnfighting)

FW190D vs corsair
Spit Vb vs corsair Plus a little illustration of why i think the spit has no match in this game.
Most gentle stall and extreme fast recovery
Can hang in the prop like none else
Can be spun controled for up to 2 revs
Can climb near stall speed better than most
Easiest spin recover with very little altitude loss.
Most powerfull guns of planes w 2 20MMs(instant Acemakers)
Super forgiving.
All above is my point on things remember that before u jump around.

Im a FW190A pilot since IL2 but find the spit a strong contender for the Crown it also look great almost as cool as a FWhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well for starters pm my and i will Email any interrested nothing fancy ace stunts here just getting the job done..

Regards.

VH.

p1ngu666
12-04-2004, 07:54 AM
i think its more unstable, like biggs has said alot, spit should be pretty stable, better than p51, and argueably better than 109 in some area's

the vb is really nice to fly, but its really slow, too slow down low, doesnt even make 300mph sl, spit mk1 could do 300mph+ at sl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. but i think its the ix thats dodgy in turns, not the vb (too slow, climb too good, iirec)

Sig.Hirsch
12-04-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think its more unstable, like biggs has said alot, spit should be pretty stable, better than p51, and argueably better than 109 in some area's

the vb is really nice to fly, but its really slow, too slow down low, doesnt even make 300mph sl, spit mk1 could do 300mph+ at sl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. but i think its the ix thats dodgy in turns, not the vb (too slow, climb too good, iirec) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea , the Spit V was slow in real life , RAF pilots were desperately waiting for the IX ,

moreover ALL planes in FB are ALL more unstable compared to previous versions of FB , not only the spit ,(bf, yak , la5, lagg ,P-39 etc...) you stall more easily now , and i presume it's more realistic , as even in real life most pilots were scared of pushing their planes to their limits , while that's what we constantly do with FB

p1ngu666
12-04-2004, 12:05 PM
fairly sure a spit v could do 300mph+ at sl irl, but not in fp http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

vb's speed was reasonable until fw190 came along

JG5_UnKle
12-04-2004, 12:52 PM
S! Von_Hess e-mail them over and I can host tracks for download.

Post in our public forum or chat with any of the JG5 boys when you are next online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Spits undermodelled and 109's as n00b planes please - this place cracks me up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

biggs222
12-04-2004, 01:42 PM
ping, looks like u better get that test server up so we can show these guys what we're talking about.

i wwas in the mkIXe vs the g2, i had 25% fuel, g2 most likely had 25% as well.

the spit is a B&Z only plane now, when flying against the 109s. if ur flying against a compitant 109 flyer then id advise not mixing it up with ur spit mkIX/ VIII and even the Seafire.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

hop2002
12-04-2004, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Start from ground
100% Fuel timecount at liftoff with 220km/h IAS,substained climb with 260-250km/h IAS
Time to alt in Game/ (Real Data)/ too fast or slow

109K4
3050m--1:54min
5000m--3:05min (real data unknow)
6100m--3:52min
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Isegrim's chart, which I believe is based on the original German test/calculations, the figures for the 109K4 at 1.98 ata, with MW 50 are:

3050m - 2:06
5000m - 3:37
6100m - 4:32

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spit9c
3050m--2:22min (2:09min) 13sec too slow
6100m--5:08min (4:45min) 23sec too slow
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So according to your test, the Spit IX doesn't even match it's real numbers?

In comparison, the K4 is 12 sec too fast at 3050m, 40 sec too fast at 6100m.

k5054
12-04-2004, 03:49 PM
So how much sooner could a Spit 9 get to 20,000ft than a 109K?

'bout two years.

GR142-Pipper
12-04-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
That's funny since Oleg himself has said he has not touched the FM's for the 109 and 190 in like 3 patches now.

Global changes have been made, but to make it sound like Oleg has all of a sudden decided to abandon flight data and make the Luftwaffe planes superior for no reason is totally misleading whether intentional or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not misleading at all and can be accomplished in one of two ways: 1) raise the capabilities of the axis aircraft or 2) like I said, lower the capabilities of the U.S./U.K. aircraft. It appears that he has chosen the latter but at the end of the day, it's the same old story....U.S./U.K. aircraft's relative performance with their opponents continues to decline.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, the topic started talking about "Turning" but not exactly what sort of turning. In instant turns at high speed, only the P-51 and P-47 at alt can stay with a 190. Once the 190 loses speed, just about any aircraft can turn inside of him. That's the way it works in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The discussion did indeed talk about turning but the thread has outlined both sustained and instantaneous turns. It's pretty clear that the conversation has broadened to include both types of turning situations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the Spit is a great sustained turner. But if anyone is just playing merri-go-round because he/she thinks the Spit is the "End-all" in turning ability, they are not flying the plane correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It depends on what the adversary is doing as to what type of maneuvering should be employed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And in sustained turns, online, I have yet to see the Spit bested by any LW plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then I ask you to reserve judgement for a bit and watch some low-altitude fights. The 109's turning performance is very close to the Spit now (and Yaks, LaGGs and LAs) in this area...and it has no business being so.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-04-2004, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by biggs222:
also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>thats because of the in-efficient elevator being held back from giving full deflection <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be willing to believe that except that the 109 can continue to turn harder than the pursuer who gets blacked out. Given that the 109 can, it leaves to no other conclusion than the blackout parameters are established on an individual aircraft basis.

GR142-Pipper

Von_Rat
12-04-2004, 11:53 PM
if i remember correctly, wasn't a spit1 faster at sea level than a spit5, in real life.

Fehler
12-05-2004, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by biggs222:
also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>thats because of the in-efficient elevator being held back from giving full deflection <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be willing to believe that except that the 109 can continue to turn harder than the pursuer who gets blacked out. Given that the 109 can, it leaves to no other conclusion than the blackout parameters are established on an individual aircraft basis.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper, I am seriously beginning to believe you have lost any credibility you once had. If you pull a hard tun IN ANY LUFTWAFFE PLANE you will bleed energy faster than a turning plane. Your speed will decrease, and you will lose your energy. If you are losing energy, faster than a guy that is blacking out in front of you, you will be getting slower and be able to reach your best turning radius faster (Because he is still faster than his best turning speed) But this only stays this way for a short period of time.

It is really THAT freaking hard to understand?

If you are blacking out in a plane, you are going too fast for the circle you are trying to pull. Is THAT too hard to understand?

Therefore, if you THINK the 109 is going to pull inside of you either slow down or pull into the turn a little less tightly. You will still bleed his energy until you can turn very tightly and he wont be able to escape with a dive, or run away (If he is stupid enough to follow you) This is because he will have no energy left and you will still have energy because you have a better turning plane. Try it online. That is exactly the way it works. Or continue to play right into his hands, it is totally up to you.

After reading some of your posts, I have the suspicion that the way you really want it is that the 109 wont outdive you, will bleed in maneuvers, but only when you want him to bleed, cant outclimb you, cant outshoot you, and cant outturn you at any speed or altitude. Would this finally make you think this sim is accurate?

I would be positive in my assumption that 109 drivers would LOVE to have the elevator authority that the SPit/P-51/P-47 have. I may even come back to flying the 109 if it had that type of high-speed elevator authority.

The thing that gets me is that I think you are a pretty good pilot. That's why I really cant understand why you dont realize these things. Your perception is quite off in this matter.

Use devicelink to prove it to you. You will see that the planes go to blackout at the same G. That is, of course, IF you can get the plane to that G in the first place. In most cases, the 109 elevator has been diminished so much that it cant get to that G level. It is that simple.

GR142-Pipper
12-05-2004, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by biggs222:
also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>thats because of the in-efficient elevator being held back from giving full deflection <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be willing to believe that except that the 109 can continue to turn harder than the pursuer who gets blacked out. Given that the 109 can, it leaves to no other conclusion than the blackout parameters are established on an individual aircraft basis.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Pipper, I am seriously beginning to believe you have lost any credibility you once had. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, not having your endorsement is just not going to keep me awake at night.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you pull a hard tun IN ANY LUFTWAFFE PLANE you will bleed energy faster than a turning plane. Your speed will decrease, and you will lose your energy. If you are losing energy, faster than a guy that is blacking out in front of you, you will be getting slower and be able to reach your best turning radius faster (Because he is still faster than his best turning speed) But this only stays this way for a short period of time.

It is really THAT freaking hard to understand? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We KNOW all that, Fehler. You're always talking about the one little piece of the flight envelope (just above corner speed) in which the 109 decelerates into it's optimum turn rate. Well great but the problem is that momemt is VERY fleeting and the fight continues. The problem is that the 109 continues to nearly match the turning ability of aircraft which were KNOWN turners...something that the 109 was not regarded as (again, G-6 and later).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you are blacking out in a plane, you are going too fast for the circle you are trying to pull. Is THAT too hard to understand? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, we KNOW all that. The problem is that the 109 in front of me that is co-speed/co-altitude/co-flight path is not blacking out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Therefore, if you THINK the 109 is going to pull inside of you either slow down or pull into the turn a little less tightly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Psst...I (and many others here) know how to play the game, Fehler.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You will still bleed his energy until you can turn very tightly and he wont be able to escape with a dive, or run away (If he is stupid enough to follow you) This is because he will have no energy left and you will still have energy because you have a better turning plane. Try it online. That is exactly the way it works. Or continue to play right into his hands, it is totally up to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We know all that. Respectfully, we just don't need a tutorial from you on the basics.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>After reading some of your posts, I have the suspicion that the way you really want it is that the 109 wont outdive you, will bleed in maneuvers, but only when you want him to bleed, cant outclimb you, cant outshoot you, and cant outturn you at any speed or altitude. Would this finally make you think this sim is accurate? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All that's wanted is for the developers to model the aircraft correctly and have the same laws of physics apply to each type. Many (myself included) feel that this isn't being done right now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would be positive in my assumption that 109 drivers would LOVE to have the elevator authority that the SPit/P-51/P-47 have. I may even come back to flying the 109 if it had that type of high-speed elevator authority.

The thing that gets me is that I think you are a pretty good pilot. That's why I really cant understand why you dont realize these things. Your perception is quite off in this matter.[/quote} I used to do this for a living...in real life...Fehler. I realize these things. (snicker)

[quote]Use devicelink to prove it to you. You will see that the planes go to blackout at the same G. That is, of course, IF you can get the plane to that G in the first place. In most cases, the 109 elevator has been diminished so much that it cant get to that G level. It is that simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please. All that app does is parrot what the game code itself says. If the game code is incorrect, then the information coming out of Devicelink is equally incorrect.

GR142-Pipper

NN_EnigmuS
12-05-2004, 04:10 AM
pipper i ve you are so aware of the game just come on the lobby and Pm me,we can go on 1vs1 with both spit and 109 each other you will see if you stand a chance in both case and see if the spit is so outclassed in turn

we can said this afternoon for testing are you Ok?

NorrisMcWhirter
12-05-2004, 04:50 AM
Hi,

About the only valid point I've seen regarding the Spit performance being downgraded is that the Spit doesn't give much of a stall warning whereas it's common knowledge that the Spit had a good reputation in this department. The only other comment would be that the overheating had been adjusted but I'm not so sure that it hasn't been adjusted 'in a favourable direction to the Spit pilot' again since v3.0.

The only chance you have against the Spit is to engage with higher E and to disengage as soon as this advantage is diminished; if I don't destroy a Spit in the first pass with a 190, I generally maintain my speed and go to look for a, frankly, easier target. To say that they are porked is almost as unbelievable as the suggestion that the 109 is some kind of uber plane.

Cheers,
Norris

GR142-Pipper
12-05-2004, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
pipper i ve you are so aware of the game just come on the lobby and Pm me,we can go on 1vs1 with both spit and 109 each other you will see if you stand a chance in both case and see if the spit is so outclassed in turn

we can said this afternoon for testing are you Ok? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The testing has already been done. However, if you see me on HL, give me a message and we'll 1 v 1 anyway. I pick the server.

GR142-Pipper

ICDP
12-05-2004, 05:23 AM
I have been flying the Spitfire IX (various marks) online for a few days and I found it to be an exellent all round fighter. By this I mean it can turn 'n' burn and it can Boom 'n' Zoom in equally great measures. At slower speeds it isn't the best turner in the sim, I was unable to turn with Yak3's and Ki84's for example but I found the Spit IX roughly the equal of the 109 in low speed turnrate. At medium to high speeds there is not many aircraft that will outturn a Spit IX without risking blackout. I found myself easing off in turns against 109's at medium to high speeds, it was all over 109's at these speeds.

All in all an outstanding fighter that is able to fight successfully at all speeds.

This is a quote directly from Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show", it was quite an eye opener for me. Some might say it is annecdotal but never the less it is a noted Spitfire ace who made the following statement.

"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Take from this what you will but if a noted Spitfire ace makes such a statement regarding low speed turnrate of Spitfire v 109 then maybe the current FM's of both aircraft aren't so far off.

Regards

NorrisMcWhirter
12-05-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
I have been flying the Spitfire IX (various marks) online for a few days and I found it to be an exellent all round fighter. By this I mean it can turn 'n' burn and it can Boom 'n' Zoom in equally great measures. At slower speeds it isn't the best turner in the sim, I was unable to turn with Yak3's and Ki84's for example but I found the Spit IX roughly the equal of the 109 in low speed turnrate. At medium to high speeds there is not many aircraft that will outturn a Spit IX without risking blackout. I found myself easing off in turns against 109's at medium to high speeds, it was all over 109's at these speeds.

All in all an outstanding fighter that is able to fight successfully at all speeds.

This is a quote directly from Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show", it was quite an eye opener for me. Some might say it is annecdotal but never the less it is a noted Spitfire ace who made the following statement.

"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Take from this what you will but if a noted Spitfire ace makes such a statement regarding low speed turnrate of Spitfire v 109 then maybe the current FM's of both aircraft aren't so far off.

Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so; Clostermann had the wrong octane fuel in his Spit which is why he couldn't out-turn a 109 down low. It's the same reason why the Vb should easily outclimb the FW190A3. Common sense, really.

Cheers,
Norris

OldMan____
12-05-2004, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by biggs222:
also the 109 doesnt completely black out in these hard pullign turns... the spit does however..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>thats because of the in-efficient elevator being held back from giving full deflection <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd be willing to believe that except that the 109 can continue to turn harder than the pursuer who gets blacked out. Given that the 109 can, it leaves to no other conclusion than the blackout parameters are established on an individual aircraft basis.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


not true. I have conducted a lot of testing with friends online side by side(at lan) that proved me that all planes tested blackened out same time. One guy had to follow the other that was turning..keeping same distance (EXACTLY) and same speed(as exactly as we could do it) (so same flight path since relative montion between the 2 is ZERO.

Just remember.. if the guy in front of you is anywhere NEAR your GUNSIGHT... you are making a MUCH harder turn than him (you are skidding relative to him). It would not be exagerate to telll I pass 1/10 of my combat flying backened out because of very hard G turns at high speed with my 190.



UNFORTUNATELy this sim doe snot simmulate blackout per plane.. since THAT would be more realistic. Different cockpit layouts (seat, pedals high, angle of your body) will gie different G resistance to your pilot. I already read many places tha Spit and 190 had cockpits made thinking on making the pilto more confortable at high G turns. So they should have an advantage.

NN_EnigmuS
12-05-2004, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
I have been flying the Spitfire IX (various marks) online for a few days and I found it to be an exellent all round fighter. By this I mean it can turn 'n' burn and it can Boom 'n' Zoom in equally great measures. At slower speeds it isn't the best turner in the sim, I was unable to turn with Yak3's and Ki84's for example but I found the Spit IX roughly the equal of the 109 in low speed turnrate. At medium to high speeds there is not many aircraft that will outturn a Spit IX without risking blackout. I found myself easing off in turns against 109's at medium to high speeds, it was all over 109's at these speeds.

All in all an outstanding fighter that is able to fight successfully at all speeds.

This is a quote directly from Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show", it was quite an eye opener for me. Some might say it is annecdotal but never the less it is a noted Spitfire ace who made the following statement.

"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Take from this what you will but if a noted Spitfire ace makes such a statement regarding low speed turnrate of Spitfire v 109 then maybe the current FM's of both aircraft aren't so far off.

Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so; Clostermann had the wrong octane fuel in his Spit which is why he couldn't out-turn a 109 down low. It's the same reason why the Vb should easily outclimb the FW190A3. Common sense, really.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

c'mon he had bad octane!!!
and then you will say it was a bad pilot nope?

ICDP
12-05-2004, 05:53 AM
In reply to NorrisMcWhirter,

It sounds like he is quoting from experience gained from multiple encounters, not a one off single engagement. If it had have been like you described he would simply have exclaimed "What is wrong, why is my Spitfire so sluggish down low all of a sudden, this is not normal. I should be easily outturning that 109!"

It really comes to something when people are ready to claim the words of an experienced Spitfire ace are rendered "irrelevant" in such a contrived manner. Also I would be very interested to hear where you got your facts from. Your statment implies that the RAF were using the wrong octane fuel in their Spitfires thus reducing their performance considerably. Hardly something that would not have been mentioned before is it?

NorrisMcWhirter
12-05-2004, 06:09 AM
Hi,

Calm down chaps - I was being sarcastic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What I said was deliberately ridiculous but no more ridiculous than some of the other statements made around these parts of late or resulting actions thereof. I only said it cos I was drunk...er...in a bad mood...er...but it's alright now....



Ta,
Norris

ICDP
12-05-2004, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Calm down chaps - I was being sarcastic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What I said was deliberately _ridiculous_ but no more ridiculous than some of the other statements made around these parts of late or resulting actions thereof. I only said it cos I was drunk...er...in a bad mood...er...but it's alright now....



Ta,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D'oh!

LOL, please don't do that again without a http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif inlcuded http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
12-05-2004, 06:39 AM
^ hehe..sorry, yes, I usually accompany sarcastic comments with a wink but I had thought that one so over the top that it wouldn't require one.

Is Clostermann's book back in print now? Last time I went into Motor books in London, they said it was out of print. I'd be interested in a paperback copy if nothing else; it's one I've always wanted to read.

Cheers,
Norris

NN_EnigmuS
12-05-2004, 06:44 AM
hehe no problem

in france le grand cirque has been re-edited with brand new photos etc... as a kind of updated version,a must to have

ICDP
12-05-2004, 06:46 AM
It's an excellent book and is in print again (hard back). ISBN 0-297-84619-1

The new edition is complete (the older editions had parts missing). I can totally recommend this book, no WWII aviation nut should be without it.

WOLFMondo
12-05-2004, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Is Clostermann's book back in print now? Last time I went into Motor books in London, they said it was out of print. I'd be interested in a paperback copy if nothing else; it's one I've always wanted to read.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got the new version recently for Borders, hardback only AFAIK. Worth every penny though.

stathem
12-05-2004, 02:05 PM
erm, sure I've read somewhere it's the 109 that had more laid back seating which improved G-tolerance for the Bf drivers... and reduced visibilty a little.

and very early on, Spits and Hurris did suffer from not having 100 octane fuel, it took a while to secure relaible quantites (from you know where), although obv. If they were going slower then turn times bblah blah blah http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
12-05-2004, 06:01 PM
Hi,


Thanks chaps.

Tesco.net and Play.com seem to have it cheapest..at around 14 quid delivered. Anyone beat that?

Cheers,
Norris

WUAF_Badsight
12-05-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
it leaves to no other conclusion than the blackout parameters are established on an individual aircraft basis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
they are , but your pilot isnt

different planes generate G more eaisly or less eaisly compared to others

because control surfaces very in efficiency

because planes very in design

the pilot is the same, in a Mustang you will inflict greater G , it has much more effective control surfaces than the Bf109 at high speed

thus the virtual pilot gets blacked-out quicker & harder

not because the Bf pilot suffers less black-out , but because the Mustang generates G harder & faster because of the way it performs

blackout is standard all thru FB

plane abilitys are not

(this is where Pipper brings up Bf109 sticking with him in a Turn , thinking that the Bf109 is at the exact same E-state , thinking that the Bf109 pilot is under the same amount of G , thinking that the Bf109 pilot isnt made to suffer the same effects he is)

knowledge of planes based on DF experience , can be mis-leading

GR142-Pipper
12-06-2004, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
it leaves to no other conclusion than the blackout parameters are established on an individual aircraft basis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>they are , but your pilot isnt

different planes generate G more eaisly or less eaisly compared to others

because control surfaces very in efficiency

because planes very in design

the pilot is the same, in a Mustang you will inflict greater G , it has much more effective control surfaces than the Bf109 at high speed

thus the virtual pilot gets blacked-out quicker & harder

not because the Bf pilot suffers less black-out , but because the Mustang generates G harder & faster because of the way it performs

blackout is standard all thru FB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, many of us (myself included) simply don't believe it and the list of disbelievers is growing. That you feel otherwise is your right.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
12-06-2004, 04:23 AM
Never forget that there are much more people that disbeliefs you than disbeliefs oleg.

I know how games are coded.. I know how complicated that stuff is.. and cannot imagina ahell of a reason how blackout would work differently on two planes unless by purpose.

Kurfurst__
12-06-2004, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spit9c
3050m--2:22min (2:09min) 13sec too slow
6100m--5:08min (4:45min) 23sec too slow
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So according to your test, the Spit IX doesn't even match it's real numbers?

In comparison, the K4 is 12 sec too fast at 3050m, 40 sec too fast at 6100m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably you used the wrong numbers for the Spit. British standard was to perform climb tests with OPEN radiators. Yet, and appearantly you compare the tested results against CLOSED radiators. We all know it`s your favourity myth about the IX that it climbed with the K-4. For this to be true, you need to use ***special*** comparisons, ie. you keep comparing with stats with CLOSED rads, which according to the British were not standard for a Spitfire in climb and would naturally increase it`s rate of climb... apply radiators to other planes as well (you never do, that`s the problem), and their ROC will be greater, too.

The K-4 tested figures seem to me as realistic and compare well with the real life, if we apply the same standards as you do, i.e. closed radiators for the 109K. The 109`s drag state depending on wheter the radiators were in Open or Closed positions varied much more greatly than on the Spitfire. That is because the 109s radiator drag could vary by a factor of 10, on the Spitfire only by a factor of 2. That is because the Spits radiators were not sunk into the wings, and represented a constant - large - source of drag.


I am looking forward to you analysis of the Spit MkV climb rate, which still climbs TWICE as fast as it should be - equalling the ROC of high altitude Spit VIII/IX and 109G/K variants at altitude...


@Pingu, the Spitfire WAS unstable around the longitudal axis. This is mentioned in and by several reports and pilots. The reason was for that the very short stick movement required for big changes in pitch. Plus, usually instability comes in the same axis where the plane is manouverable. Not neccesary a bad thing, but comes at a price...

OldMan____
12-06-2004, 05:53 AM
Sometimes I think people just have an autocomplain mode.

Yesterday night.. I was flying at one full real server (non-historical) where 90% of axis were Ki-84... and 90% os allies were spitfires.

I was in by beloved FW190 A8.. and dived on a spitfire about 400 meters below me at almost reverse course.

He saw me diving and made a full pull continuous turn to right.. I just managed my speed using a more open turn and when got the correct turn spped I pressed full elevators... instantly I overturned him and made a nice snapshot that saw his wing off...


Next thing I read at coms.

" dammit Ki-84 overmodelled ..."
" they can overturn, overrun any allied plane..."
" Uber noob plane!!! try some real plane sometimes"


I just wrote..

"press S and look what plane I am using"


the guy did not answered anymore...

Ugly_Kid
12-06-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, many of us (myself included) simply don't believe it and the list of disbelievers is growing. That you feel otherwise is your right.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, this isn't simply a matter of faith or belief. Devicelink is open to everyone and there are at least two good plotter tools for it. By bothering to perform even minimal amount of testing you will notice that the g-load required for respective blackouts do not have national boundaries...Even the wing-failure of P-51 occurs at g-level that is not lightly achievable to any other aircraft in the game. Of course the devious conspiracy goes so far that even devicelink output is falsified (along with turnrate, compass direction and very many other parameters that confirm the G-load by cross-checking)

OldMan____
12-06-2004, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, many of us (myself included) simply don't believe it and the list of disbelievers is growing. That you feel otherwise is your right.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, this isn't simply a matter of faith or belief. Devicelink is open to everyone and there are at least two good plotter tools for it. By bothering to perform even minimal amount of testing you will notice that the g-load required for respective blackouts do not have national boundaries...Even the wing-failure of P-51 occurs at g-level that is not lightly achievable to any other aircraft in the game. Of course the devious conspiracy goes so far that even devicelink output is falsified (along with turnrate, compass direction and very many other parameters that confirm the G-load by cross-checking) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I make your words mine...

VW-IceFire
12-06-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Sometimes I think people just have an autocomplain mode.

Yesterday night.. I was flying at one full real server (non-historical) where 90% of axis were Ki-84... and 90% os allies were spitfires.

I was in by beloved FW190 A8.. and dived on a spitfire about 400 meters below me at almost reverse course.

He saw me diving and made a full pull continuous turn to right.. I just managed my speed using a more open turn and when got the correct turn spped I pressed full elevators... instantly I overturned him and made a nice snapshot that saw his wing off...


Next thing I read at coms.

" dammit Ki-84 overmodelled ..."
" they can overturn, overrun any allied plane..."
" Uber noob plane!!! try some real plane sometimes"


I just wrote..

"press S and look what plane I am using"


the guy did not answered anymore... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! Right on! Good manuvering. Tough to find a good FW190 pilot but I saw you on TX-0C3 and I certainly believe it.

Odd the connection between Ki-84 and FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

meina222
12-06-2004, 11:09 AM
In FB 2.04, the Spitfire IX c/e was the most dominant allied prop fighter the way it was modelled (in terms of flight capabilities since the P-47 armamament is unmatched IMHO) In the hands of an experienced player it would either outrun, outclimb or outturn any axis plane (depending which one.)

In dogfight performance on the deck it is roughly equal to a G-10 (marginally better than K-4) although it should be flown differently (since the Bf-109 will get the early advantage due to its superior ability to perform aerobatic splits and sharp non-sustained turns.)

It does not outclimb the K-4 although it comes very close to matching it - however, the K-4 is simply 'helpless' against it in average steepness turn climb - the spit will effortlessly gain on alt without bleeding much E or stalling. Combined with the
noverheat 'bug' this meant that if the spit player wanted to avoid the dogfight he/she could drag the Bf-109 high enough (> 6km) where the poor Bf-109 would start feeling short of air.

On the FW190 I won't comment much - it is only a threat when flown from above since it is always very hard to perform evasive maneuvers against it - the thing can roll and change direction blazingly fast to cut your way to make a best deflection shot - however, if you learn to evade it (which is not that awfully difficult btw after some experience) and the FW190 misses you - bye bye poor FW190.

Finally the Spit IX could easily outclimb any Japanese plane to an alt where the latter would be useless. Even the P-51D was no sweat against a Ki-84, if the Ki-84 did not have alt advantage. I had no respect for the Japanese planes the way they were modelled in 2.04 (maybe I just didn't meet good players flying them.) I also didn't like flying them (although I should say the Ki-84 is better than a FW-190 any version.)

Again this is my experience with 2.04. I still don't use PF (I have it but my cheap joystick finally decided to part me so I have to buy a new before playing the new game.)

So if Spit is still the same - absolutely no reason for complaining about being weak in any aspect.

USAflyer
12-06-2004, 01:44 PM
Pipper:

Respectfully, your wrong.

Atomic_Marten
12-06-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Next thing I read at coms.

" dammit Ki-84 overmodelled ..."
" they can overturn, overrun any allied plane..."
" Uber noob plane!!! try some real plane sometimes" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reply:
"If u think it's über, try use it, you may end up happy"

Ok. For real KI84c is IMO the aircraft with best performance in game. That goes for weapons too. But Spit also have teeth of it's own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I presume that you have run onto a players with these 2 key characteristics:

-no matter if I am in KI84c and he is in Yak3, he will do head-on on me over and over again.
-he is on enemy six, and that fact renders him blind to any other fact, like that I am on his 6.(in fact, I am sure that he realize that I am on his 6, if for nothing else, then by seeing bursts buzzing all around him and also hittin his a/c, but hey who cares about that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

After some time seeing this online is quite funny.

And what makes it so funny is the fact that these players are key whiners online.

ICDP
12-06-2004, 03:15 PM
I shot down three P51's on F16_Dedicated (or maybe Warclouds) in one mission flying a Fw190a8, one in a fairly one sided dogfight, another in a very hard fought dogfight and one who flew alongside me completely oblivious to the fact I was even there. I couldn't believe my luck, I just gently formed up behind him and let him have it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point? It takes all sorts to fly online, some good some not so good and some who should know better. The next time you feel your favourite fighter is outclassed when it shouldn't be, just try to remember how often you easily outturned the same AC in the past.

I think the problem with "fans" whining over particular aircraft arises when the particular aircraft involved is "toned down" in performance. Frankly (no pun intended) some aircraft are released with overmodelled performance in quite a number of areas. Eventually most of these aircraft are tweaked and tuned to more realisitic levels and that is when the whining starts. The biased fans of these aircraft get used to the fact that they have a relaxed FM with sometimes massive performance boosts and they cry foul when they are fixed. The real fans of these aircraft are the ones who ask questions when the performance is obviously wrong, wether it is above or below specs it is still wrong to them. When they present their grievences they do so with researched data to back up their claims, they don't use data based almost exclusively upon online DF experiences.

Disclaimer: I am not acusing any individuals, just a general observation from these kind of threads on this forum.

ICDP
12-06-2004, 03:16 PM
I shot down three P51's on F16_Dedicated (or maybe Warclouds) in one mission flying a Fw190a8, one in a fairly one sided dogfight, another in a very hard fought dogfight and one who flew alongside me completely oblivious to the fact I was even there. I couldn't believe my luck, I just gently formed up behind him and let him have it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point? It takes all sorts to fly online, some good some not so good and some who should know better. The next time you feel your favourite fighter is outclassed when it shouldn't be, just try to remember how often you easily outturned the same AC in the past.

I think the problem with "fans" whining over particular aircraft arises when the particular aircraft involved is "toned down" in performance. Frankly (no pun intended) some aircraft are released with overmodelled performance in quite a number of areas. Eventually most of these aircraft are tweaked and tuned to more realisitic levels and that is when the whining starts. The biased fans of these aircraft get used to the fact that they have a relaxed FM with sometimes massive performance boosts and they cry foul when they are fixed. The real fans of these aircraft are the ones who ask questions when the performance is obviously wrong, wether it is above or below specs it is still wrong to them. When they present their grievences they do so with researched data to back up their claims, they don't use data based almost exclusively upon online DF experiences.

Disclaimer: I am not accusing any individuals, just a general observation from these kind of threads on this forum.

OldMan____
12-06-2004, 04:15 PM
The point is.. people just complain withou thinking... they just automatically complain trying to evade from eny responsabilities from their won defeat. The guy that complained to me about the Ki84 didn´t even got the time to check I was in a FW..

I really have a very high respect for spitfires online..since they have an clear advantage on long fights. But I face even LA7 in close dogfight..as long as I feel I can do it ... but when I feel danger.. I evade.. go away. Just learn to do that and NO plane will be Uber to you.. or at least not as much as it used to be.

WUAF_Badsight
12-06-2004, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, many of us (myself included) simply don't believe it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why not ?

my explanation fits exactly with what happens in-game

GR142-Pipper
12-07-2004, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, many of us (myself included) simply don't believe it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
why not ?

my explanation fits exactly with what happens in-game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not really but no matter as it's just a recreational game and not a cure for cancer. Relax little brother...you're trying too hard.

GR142-Pipper

WUAF_Badsight
12-07-2004, 01:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Not really but no matter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no matter ? , im sorry but what i explained is how it is . . . its of no matter if you dont have anything to show otherwise

GR142-Pipper
12-07-2004, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Not really but no matter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no matter ? , im sorry but what i explained is how it is . . . its of no matter if you dont have anything to show otherwise <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In that case, no wonder you're sorry. Time for you to have another banana, Badsight.

GR142-Pipper

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 03:59 AM
You being wrong isn't Badsight's fault http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif personal insults won't really help either i.e. Bananas....

You can't come on a forum like this, basically accuse people of lying and then (when you realise you are wrong) tell them it doesn't matter.....

WUAF_Badsight
12-07-2004, 04:36 AM
back onto topic . . . the Messerschmitts have been given advantages at the stall limits . . . . im talking about power , they are able to pull around at slow speed in turns & over loops better than Spitfires

IRL slow speed flying is dominated by weight , lift , wing load & power-load

both are in the Spitfires favour , even power loading

the Spitfire might do gental constant turns faster than Bf109's , but we dont fight that way online

they way we use these digital A/C shows the Spitfires losing out at the stall limits , it cant pull around like a Bf109 , it cant ride the stallthe same way

. . . its . . . its . . .. more mushy & less capable

now Bf-109 fans , without BS , but being honest to yourself

do you really believe that the Bf109 with its smaller wing , heavier wingload & lower lift should perform like this ?

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 05:28 AM
If we are talking 'without flaps' they maybe, but if the 109 even has combat flaps dropped he already has an advantage over the spit at low speed.

I think the combat flaps are overdone, but all low speed high-AOA performance in FB/PF is suspect IMHO.

The 'hanging on the prop' vertical climbs that a lot of a/c can perform are just BS (109's included) how many WW2 a/c could climb at 150Kph vertically at full power without any torque? I mean come on...

Anyway, I digress....

But WRT the Spit vs 109 I still think it should be better around stall limits with Slats and Combat flaps, the spit (no slats no combat flaps) has a much better high speed wing WRT turn performance.

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 05:36 AM
Before I blather on (and I'm not disagreeing with you Badsight) I will get some proper testing done.

Probably tomorrow night I will test online 1vs1 Spits and 109's and record tracks from both perspectives and we should be able to see the differences http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

meina222
12-07-2004, 05:39 AM
Now excuse me Badsight but that is not completely correct at least for 2.04. Except for the first few seconds of turn the spit and bf-109 g10/K4 ride the stall wave at pretty much the same rate (if this is correct english, i not excuse me.) I have had multiple dogfights against good players online just to test spitfire (I believe I had most against a guy named Aristo of a J27 squad or something like this, he wasnt bad at all I should say and certainly used much better gear than my sidewinder 1 joystick.)

Now there's the crucial difference - in shallow climb turns (of course not that close to the stall limit) the spit just starts gaining noiceably - the bf109 cannot keepup (any version even the agile and leapy g2) but again you have to be ultra careful in the first few seconds of such tactics. Prolonged 1 v 1 fight in a spit then turns into a pice of cake while the bf pilot sweats, stalls, overheats and wonders why the hell is the spit so uber. Now that might be not very realistic, but online combat with so many dogfights is also not realistic as a whole, so who cares.

Again Spit = very very uber at least in 2.04.

Again I cannot attest for 3.0-3.02

meina222
12-07-2004, 05:44 AM
As a matter of fact I'm so confident in the spit's ability to outfly any Bf-109 that I'm ready to bet a fortune on a standard 1 v 1 match server spit IX v Bf-109 in 2.04. Without mistakes the spit should take 10 out of 10 unless there's something about the bf-109 there I am not familiar with.

meina222
12-07-2004, 05:48 AM
I know that whole discussion was about turning in particular, but I don't believe that **** when british pilots you see said that spits outturned bf-109s easily. The clipped wing maybe. But where's the real data for combat - impossible to verify - propaganda if you ask me.
The bf-109 is just avery capable plane and no chance was the backbone german fighter and produced long after the war (a mid 30's design!)
It is modelled good! Period.

JG77Von_Hess
12-07-2004, 05:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifLooking forward to count the bullet holes in ur BF109 Unkle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Regards.

VH.

meina222
12-07-2004, 06:05 AM
Unkle, I've already done this with some capable member of the J27 squad (not the kommodore) although I didn't keep tracks. Because there was some language exchange due to the exact same argument what plane should overcome the other the whole thing was aken very seriously.

The result was that anytime I wanted I could apply tactics that would assure me the win with 95% chance (the 5% count for some headon lucky bullet from the other side in the initial path cross) which of course drew bitter feelings bc the tactics involved a prolonged fight (no overheats for the spit HEHEHE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif)

On deck I just dared test v K4 (no guts for G6/AS due to the bitter exchanges again) - absolute parity until the K4 got out of fuel - noone made any mistake for 5 min in turns splits rolls sciccors and all the stuff - in the end the K4 was with no fuel (he started 25)

Zmir88IAP
12-07-2004, 06:19 AM
A 109K4 turns out a SpitMkVIII...nobody can tell me that his can be right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But maybe the Tempest will outturn the Emils http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
We'll see.

meina222
12-07-2004, 06:31 AM
not VIII but IX and yes in game this is pretty much the case.

DIRTY-MAC
12-07-2004, 06:42 AM
I have on several occations read about Spitfire pilots saying that they avoid getting under 300km/h in a turnfight with the Bf109 because it general turns better there.
I also have an book if Im not mistaken written by a RAF pilot about BoB and in it was turning performance figures for the Spit,Bf109E and Hurricane, it noted that the hurricane had the tightest turning circle,
then came the Bf109E and last the SpitMkI
I don´t remember if it was continius turn or not or what speed.
I can try to find it if someone is interested

anyway
In fact I think the Bf109E was in general a better performer in a dogfight than the SpitMk1 but it didn´t get so many oppertunities to proove it in BoB, becase of their restrained orders for protecting their bombers, wich always put them in a bad position when meeting the British fighters.The Brits had the anitiative for the most, and attacked the Germans that had to take defencive manouvres.
and as soon as you do that you are in a disadvatage.

Regarding compare Spit vs Bf109 on a DF server is TOTALLY USELESS!
as the opponent you meet probably have other joystick settings, and you dont have the excact same skills, its pointless
A really good Bf109 pilot will out manovre a Spit, and a really good Spit pilot will out manouvre a Bf109, but they will do it in different ways.

IIJG69_Kartofe
12-07-2004, 07:43 AM
And here you can have testimonials of REAL PILOTS who flew BOTH 109 and SPIT'S.


http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/movies/EAA_Interviews.wmv

Personally i prefer listening real pilots than pixel's pilots opinion.

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A 109K4 turns out a SpitMkVIII...nobody can tell me that his can be right But maybe the Tempest will outturn the Emils
We'll see. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> not VIII but IX and yes in game this is pretty much the case. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did either of you read the last 10 pages of this thread? No I guess not.

I'll deal with you later Von_Hess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif don't forget that (complete BS) pilot kill I landed on your P-38 from 350+M http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Anyway we can test turn rates and such without shooting....

And no offence Dirty Mac but how else can you compare relative performance except in the situation where it matters most? Online 1vs1 - you can record tracks, my stick settings are not going to make me turn tighter unless the other guy has stupid stick settings.

Trust me Von_Hess does not have such limitations. We will test fairly and then swap aircraft - I am open to the idea that the FM might be off.....

Wouldn't be the first time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
We will see...

HayateAce
12-07-2004, 08:26 AM
Oleg and 1C, all we ask is bring the 109 back down to some sort of realism, really.

It has just become a silly acting airplane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JG77Von_Hess
12-07-2004, 08:44 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifDang Unkle!! I allready forgot that little insidence eheheh, *Cough*

Ahh well i was loaded up with 3 droptanks and rockets, and this u still find as a good kill,, and bla bla was flying crappy P38 bomber... goble blabber. darn overmodelled german 20mms, Zods too good climbing A4 u cheat...so i geuss that we can forget that one now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well have a look at it on wednsday Unkle.

Regards with a staint of bitter lead smell

VH.

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg and 1C, all we ask is bring the 109 back down to some sort of realism, really.
It has just become a silly acting airplane.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO

Yes Von Hess we will test this and hopefully when faced with solid evidence we can come to a conclusion that is not based on tinfoil hat bias but shows how the game is coded.

Anyone is welcome to test rather than just suppose....

BBB_Hyperion
12-07-2004, 10:08 AM
Unkle regardless which Data you present HayateAce will say its wrong (without any proof) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stathem
12-07-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
anyway
In fact I think the Bf109E was in general a better performer in a dogfight than the SpitMk1 but it didn´t get so many oppertunities to proove it in BoB, becase of their restrained orders for protecting their bombers, wich always put them in a bad position when meeting the British fighters.The Brits had the anitiative for the most, and attacked the Germans that had to take defencive manouvres.
and as soon as you do that you are in a disadvatage.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect Mac, the BoB had many varied and changeable conditions, sometimes on the same day, sometimes in different phases of the battle, to make such sweeping statements with uses of words like 'always'

Hopefully when Oleg's version comes out, we will all learn a little more.

Try "The Most dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay for a very in depth and (I think) balanced account of the Battle. Although I am sure there'll be more than a few in here who'll write it off as 'propaganda' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
12-07-2004, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You being wrong isn't Badsight's fault http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif personal insults won't really help either i.e. Bananas....

You can't come on a forum like this, basically accuse people of lying and then (when you realise you are wrong) tell them it doesn't matter..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, there's a difference between telling people that they're lying and saying that they're mistaken. Some have an inability to make this distinction. If it were my goal to call someone a liar, I'd do so straight up. So, anyone is welcome to find a post of mine in which I have called anyone here a liar. That's a word that should be used very, very sparingly...but it's not. Second, I don't think I'm wrong. That you feel differently, so be it.

GR142-Pipper

DIRTY-MAC
12-07-2004, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
anyway
In fact I think the Bf109E was in general a better performer in a dogfight than the SpitMk1 but it didn´t get so many oppertunities to proove it in BoB, becase of their restrained orders for protecting their bombers, wich always put them in a bad position when meeting the British fighters.The Brits had the anitiative for the most, and attacked the Germans that had to take defencive manouvres.
and as soon as you do that you are in a disadvatage.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect Mac, the BoB had many varied and changeable conditions, sometimes on the same day, sometimes in different phases of the battle, to make such sweeping statements with uses of words like 'always'


maybe I put it a bit wrong
with always I meant when they had to stuck to the bombers I didn´t mean that they always did this,

I agree with what you say above, sorry for my crappy english
I hope you understand what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, many of us (myself included) simply don't believe it

If I don't believe something someone is saying then I think they are lying. OK I'm not accusing you of lying so sorry if that was misunderstood. Agree to disagree I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Anyway, we are arguing about arguing the point is easy to prove with device link.

meina222
12-07-2004, 03:21 PM
Mr Unkle, yes I read most of the nonsense in the previous 10 pages and actively contribute to it bc of boredom! I usually don't write in these forums (see my total number of posts) but today I'm bored so I do and I stand by what I say, namely, my opinion on the performance of spit vs bf109 in turning and other important aspects.

It is not useless to compare planes in online dogfight especially when you do it with many different players so that you can get an opinion about whether what you achieve is bc of human factor or game parameters. This is a perfectly valid comparison - that is how you determine your tactics knowing your opponent's plane.

As for the so called 'pixel pilots' - Mr. Kartofe, you as such, perhaps, should not care about your own opinion so why post it at all?

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> usually don't write in these forums (see my total number of posts) but today I'm bored so I do and I stand by what I say <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> - Good one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hopefully then we can clear this up (either way) with some good tracks and opinion will not factor into it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bull_dog_
12-07-2004, 04:20 PM
A possible discrepency between spit and messer turn ability may come from control effectiveness. I've read in several instances where the both aircraft's controls become heavy at speed, but the 109 was worse in this regard.

Specifically speeds above 300 began to degrade performance and agility, above 350 the effect was very noticable and above 400 mph, indicated the controls were near immovable and rolling the aircraft was just not feasible as an evasive manuever. This is modelled in game in early and mid war varients but maybe not as it should be and for some reason is omitted in late war varients, but I am unaware of any changes to the aircraft that would explain the newfound elevator and aileron authority.

There are references I've read in the past from Jug pilots who score many victories on 109's when they dive from high altitude (109's often had that advantage when jugs close escorted bombers) and the Jug would snap or barrrel roll out of the way and cause the 109 to overshoot. This was effective if timed right because the 109 couldn't follow the manuever at speed. The Jug could then roll in behind the Messerschmidt and follow it as it either continued its dive or tried to pull out...usually couldn't in time due to elevator authority problems and the Jug would often score a kill diving after it and closing the gap with its superior dive performance.

I have never read of similar problems with Fw series so I have always thought this was a problem with the Bf. Just conjecturing here, but my reading doesn't match with my in game experience in this aspect.

JG5_UnKle
12-07-2004, 04:41 PM
300 what? Kph or mph?
I'm assuming 300mph, depends on which accounts you read IMHO :

Bf 109 D:
The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or "yaw" as we call it; neither was there any tendency to "hunt". It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure that any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon be made to feel ashamed of himself.
Seldom do we find a single-seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed.
In about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily.
Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship's straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

Me 109 E-4:
"I established a recommended minimum looping speed of 450 kmh and found that the gearing of the propellor control was just right for looping with a little practise it was easy to keep the RPM at 2300 throughout looping manoeuvres. The ailerons were light and extremerely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50 % faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips. During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.
109 G-2/Trop:
"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460 kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."
- Dave Southwood, test pilot.

109 G:
It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fr¤ntil¤ was creating the glory of the war pilots.

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- V¤in¶ Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of V¤in¶ Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

HayateAce
12-07-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
A possible discrepency between spit and messer turn ability may come from control effectiveness. I've read in several instances where the both aircraft's controls become heavy at speed, but the 109 was worse in this regard.

Specifically speeds above 300 began to degrade performance and agility, above 350 the effect was very noticable and above 400 mph, indicated the controls were near immovable and rolling the aircraft was just not feasible as an evasive manuever. This is modelled in game in early and mid war varients but maybe not as it should be and for some reason is omitted in late war varients, but I am unaware of any changes to the aircraft that would explain the newfound elevator and aileron authority.

There are references I've read in the past from Jug pilots who score many victories on 109's when they dive from high altitude (109's often had that advantage when jugs close escorted bombers) and the Jug would snap or barrrel roll out of the way and cause the 109 to overshoot. This was effective if timed right because the 109 couldn't follow the manuever at speed. The Jug could then roll in behind the Messerschmidt and follow it as it either continued its dive or tried to pull out...usually couldn't in time due to elevator authority problems and the Jug would often score a kill diving after it and closing the gap with its superior dive performance.

I have never read of similar problems with Fw series so I have always thought this was a problem with the Bf. Just conjecturing here, but my reading doesn't match with my in game experience in this aspect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting. I will have to test some more, but I don't think any of the 109 series suffers much reduction in roll rate at higher speeds. If it does, maybe it's not enough. Thankfully, elevator response is lessened on some models. I will test the 6AS and later tonight to see what speeds affect them.

Be very careful of pilot accounts only. Words can have so many varying degrees of meaning, then throw in language translation on top and you have quotes that are only marginally useful. "Locked Up" controls may very well mean "Stiffened" to another person speaking another language.

Perhaps we will get a few things straightened out with the Bf109s eventually. Keep the good dialog going. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG52_Meyer
12-07-2004, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:



Perhaps we will get a few things straightened out with the Bf109s eventually. Keep the good dialog going. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, perhaps the *ridiculous* hardening of the elevator can finally be fixed... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hetzer_II
12-07-2004, 11:22 PM
Yes and maybe we can fix the lowspeed turnin abilities of the P51 at least...

WUAF_Badsight
12-07-2004, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
And here you can have testimonials of REAL PILOTS who flew _BOTH_ 109 and SPIT'S.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol really ?

they were guessing about the Spitfire in that movie !

WUAF_Badsight
12-07-2004, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
This is modelled in game in early and mid war varients but maybe not as it should be and for some reason is omitted in late war varients, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FALSE

thats one major red herring dude

the G10 & the K4 are the last varient Bf109 in FB/PF

they have the heaviest elevators of all Bf models

WUAF_Badsight
12-08-2004, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
I have on several occations read about Spitfire pilots saying that they avoid getting under 300km/h in a turnfight with the Bf109 because it general turns better there.
I also have an book if Im not mistaken written by a RAF pilot about BoB and in it was turning performance figures for the Spit,Bf109E and Hurricane, it noted that the hurricane had the tightest turning circle,
then came the Bf109E and last the SpitMkI. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
confirmation on this would be highly interesting !

the Spitfire is supposed to wallow ever-so-slightly more than Bf-109s at the stall limit ??

HayateAce
12-08-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:



Perhaps we will get a few things straightened out with the Bf109s eventually. Keep the good dialog going. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, perhaps the *ridiculous* hardening of the elevator can finally be fixed... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So a well-documented and widely known fact that the 109 suffered from stiff to immovable controls the higher the speed went is, *ridiculous* ?

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter. "


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-08-2004, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
(3) At 400 mph <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes HayateHater . . . 400 MPH . . . not the 400 Kmh we have now in FB

FYI , it was Emils that suffered the most from this effect

why dont you post with your real login name so we can all see the online playing Yank-Whiner that you really are dude , or do you think your actually fooling some ?

JG5_UnKle
12-08-2004, 02:50 AM
I think the issue with control lockups is because of an IAS/TAS mixup - explains why the K-4 turns at 6000M in about 34 seconds when it should be 24!!!

But saying the controls don't stiffen early enough in the 109 (in FB/AEP/PF) is just plain moronic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 03:15 AM
Rhis kind of complain..where everything in a plana is acused as being wrong, overmodelled etc.. each time changing the precise poitn of discussion, is a clear indication of PLAIN WHINING.

The type of whining that come because of frustration and disbelief of your own expectgations... not because it has ANY PRECISE fudamentations.



Plese.. someone POST calculations about wing LIFT of 109 and spitfire at discussed speeds... if you cannot do it.. how can you just say.. " a plane with much wigher wing linf.. bla bla bla.." ?


Come on people..grow up. No one is giving anyomre any serious attention to this thread exactly because of that attitude. Bring real conclusive, math based , physics based, and mechanics based data and calculations that prove 109 is wrong.. and NO ONE will isagree with you. Bring your will only... and you are discussing religion.

IIJG69_Kartofe
12-08-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for the so called 'pixel pilots' - Mr. Kartofe, you as such, perhaps, should not care about your own opinion so why post it at all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So called ??? No no ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
IMO there is only two types of pilots, real ones who fly real planes, and simmers who fly pixels planes.


I don't care about MY opinion ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Uh ???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

R U taking me for some kind of schyzoprénic guy postig from a sanatorium??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

My post doensn't concern opinion but TESTIMONIALS of REAL pilots.
I hope you see the difference between "feelings" or "opinions" and real experience of competent pilots.
If you (and everybody here) don't (or don't want) see ... So you are right and posting facts here is a total waste of time.

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 05:34 AM
Testimonials only? And how about your abstraction of the testimonials you are speaking about? And your feeling about game? remember you need some sort of your own input to effectivate any comparissons with any subjective opinion of any other person.


Or are you a re-incarnation of a famous WW2 ace that remembered all your past live experiences by hipnosys?


You do use your feeling in this statements since if you manifest anything about the game you are using your own feel of it to compare with WW2 pilots statements.

That is why oleg dismiss pilot stamenets , and I agree with him, they cannot be use as proof since they are subjective views, opne to subjective interpretations and made in a period of their lives where everything was under a very subjective perspective...

USAflyer
12-08-2004, 05:58 AM
Just ignore Luftlover hayateace gr142astro (whatever his name is) and mr.pipper. They are mere trolls with malicious intent. They are also an ambiguous duo...if you catch my drift.

IIJG69_Kartofe
12-08-2004, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You do use your feeling in this statements since if you manifest anything about the game you are using your own feel of it to compare with WW2 pilots statements.

That is why oleg dismiss pilot stamenets , and I agree with him, they cannot be use as proof since they are subjective views, opne to subjective interpretations and made in a period of their lives where everything was under a very subjective perspective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about WW2 pilots testimonials but about TODAYS pilots who have flown BOTH spits and 109, i'm talking about testimonials in the VIDEO wich i have posted the link in this thread (10th page).

Tell me why these pilots would lie about their real experience of these planes?
1 reason, give me 1 good reason.

And i totally agree with oleg when he dismiss WW2 pilots statements for the sames reasons as you.
But here, in this video, these pilots don't fly only one side/plane, they fly alot of different planes, allied and axis planes.

If you want to make an AIRBUS Sim and an AIRBUS pilot tell you your sim FM's are wrong and the real plane can't do that ... What will you do ... Ignoring his statement, or hear him?

If M HANNA tells me the Plane Y is a better turner at slow speed than plane Z, i believe him because he has flown these 2 planes IRL.


P.S. Oleg has asked the advice of a real P51 pilot before the release of AEP, so he don't dismiss all pilot statements.

P.S.to P.S. Sorry for my bad english.

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You do use your feeling in this statements since if you manifest anything about the game you are using your own feel of it to compare with WW2 pilots statements.

That is why oleg dismiss pilot stamenets , and I agree with him, they cannot be use as proof since they are subjective views, opne to subjective interpretations and made in a period of their lives where everything was under a very subjective perspective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about WW2 pilots testimonials but about _TODAYS_ pilots who have flown BOTH spits and 109, i'm talking about testimonials in the _VIDEO_ wich i have posted the link in this thread (10th page).

Tell me why these pilots would lie about their real experience of these planes?
1 reason, give me 1 good reason.

And i totally agree with oleg when he dismiss WW2 pilots statements for the sames reasons as you.
But here, in this video, these pilots don't fly only one side/plane, they fly alot of different planes, allied and axis planes.

If you want to make an AIRBUS Sim and an AIRBUS pilot tell you your sim FM's are wrong and the real plane can't do that ... What will you do ... Ignoring his statement, or hear him?

If M HANNA tells me the Plane Y is a better turner at slow speed than plane Z, i believe him because he has flown these 2 planes IRL.


P.S. Oleg has asked the advice of a real P51 pilot before the release of AEP, so he don't dismiss all pilot statements.

P.S.to P.S. Sorry for my bad english. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, my bad. I toght you were speaking about WW2 pilots. Ok today pilots who flew BOTH of them may be taken into account (although are not 120% proof since the pilot may fit better with one flying style thgan with other)

JG77Von_Hess
12-08-2004, 12:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifHello Guys.

Just a little thing to try out, Start a 4v4 team fight but only use 80% throttle as Max engine power settings.
This brings a whole different feel, the total exagerated low speed thrust is nerly gone, climbing at too low speeds will be penalized, break turns does what it should do, stalling is not an option and fishflopping around near stall speed will get u killed, u cant spin out and recover and start to climb whith in seconds, u cant take off and do a loop imidiatly after u retracted ur gear, ur plane does bleed E...WOW

Just forget the putty sound sound of the engine, top speed and manifold pressure indications.

Cool planes to this in FW190A4 and BF109F2-F4

Regards.

VH.

Kurfurst__
12-08-2004, 03:18 PM
Re : Those 400 mph roll statements on the Bf 109`s roll rate.

The qoutes are coming from a British report on captured, damaged Bf 109E.

Below is the part describing roll speed and stickforces.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1095082092_spiti_109e_ailerons.jpg

What is evident that compared to the Spitfire I tested, the Bf 109E could initiatial roll rate was twice as fast than the Spitfire Mk I at low speeds, stickforces very similiar.

Above 300mph the roll performance degrades similiarly on both planes, but on the Spitfire, the stickforces are EXTREMELY high compared to the 109E... ca. 60 lbs vs. 35 lbs at 400 mph!!

The 109 series from the 109F and later variants got new wing design with completely different Frise type ailerons, so statements about the Emil are not true to any later model. Effectiveness of the Spitfire ailerons were also improved by using metal ailerons from the MkV onwards, this improved roll rate at high speeds, but the stick forces were still excessive. According to the NACA test, the stickforces were such that the ailerons were impossible to be fully deflected above as little as 140 mph IAS... resulting in poor rate of roll at high speeds.

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 05:03 PM
Sometimes I think you also exagerate a little Kurfust. Not because some statements said that Spit had problems at 140> mph that this will be 100% true. I think is not necessary to attack others planes when defending yours.

Nubarus
12-08-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You do use your feeling in this statements since if you manifest anything about the game you are using your own feel of it to compare with WW2 pilots statements.

That is why oleg dismiss pilot stamenets , and I agree with him, they cannot be use as proof since they are subjective views, opne to subjective interpretations and made in a period of their lives where everything was under a very subjective perspective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about WW2 pilots testimonials but about _TODAYS_ pilots who have flown BOTH spits and 109, i'm talking about testimonials in the _VIDEO_ wich i have posted the link in this thread (10th page).

Tell me why these pilots would lie about their real experience of these planes?
1 reason, give me 1 good reason.

And i totally agree with oleg when he dismiss WW2 pilots statements for the sames reasons as you.
But here, in this video, these pilots don't fly only one side/plane, they fly alot of different planes, allied and axis planes.

If you want to make an AIRBUS Sim and an AIRBUS pilot tell you your sim FM's are wrong and the real plane can't do that ... What will you do ... Ignoring his statement, or hear him?

If M HANNA tells me the Plane Y is a better turner at slow speed than plane Z, i believe him because he has flown these 2 planes IRL.


P.S. Oleg has asked the advice of a real P51 pilot before the release of AEP, so he don't dismiss all pilot statements.

P.S.to P.S. Sorry for my bad english. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Todays pilots fly stripped down planes and don't push them to their limits because they can't risk damaging them, so todays pilot testimonials are not 100% accurate on how these WWII planes should perform and therefore they should not be used to model WWII sims.

WUAF_Darkangel
12-08-2004, 06:06 PM
According to:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html

It takes 19s for a spitfire mk1a and 25s for a 109 E-3 to turn through 360 dgrees "at minimum radius without height loss. Both aeroplanes at full throttle at 12.000 ft"

On an Okinawa map with clear weather default ammunition with limited ammunition on and full amuunition load and 100% fuel it takes the spitfire mk9C about 19s +/-1s (best turn time) to do a 360 degree turn at sea level. So IMO the turn time for the spitfire is about right in this game considering the fact that turn time gets less at lower altitudes and that the mk9s turn was worse than the mk1s turn.

The MW50 system on the 109 is probably (i wont say it is) overmodelled. The 109 K-4 turns noticeably better than the 109 E-4 in this game, about 2s difference in a 360 degree turn, because of the MW50.

JG77Von_Hess
12-08-2004, 07:02 PM
Yes but i think if u really want to campare WW2 performance on certain planes u should take British date for the spit and german data for the messy, if u collect all availeble performance trails wich is provided so many times in this forum and carefully compare them, u can c there is so many holes in them. Every thing from drag values to Vds are so unclear. Seriously its interresting but u need much more data then just a few pilot statements and some performance trails done by the enemy.

Regards.

VH.

p1ngu666
12-08-2004, 09:34 PM
graph tastic kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

so u need a gorrila in both planes, spit to roll, 109 to yank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

between the spit and 109, there isnt enuff roll advantage for it tobe a decider, like 190.

oh btw, some dora climb charts is what im mainly after http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-08-2004, 11:32 PM
Hmm dodge this .)

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/1092spitturn.tif

Nubarus
12-09-2004, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG77Von_Hess:
Yes but i think if u really want to campare WW2 performance on certain planes u should take British date for the spit and german data for the messy, if u collect all availeble performance trails wich is provided so many times in this forum and carefully compare them, u can c there is so many holes in them. Every thing from drag values to Vds are so unclear. Seriously its interresting but u need much more data then just a few pilot statements and some performance trails done by the enemy.

Regards.

VH. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German planes are modelled with German data, Russian planes with Russian data, Japanese planes with Japanese data and I am pretty sure they used US data for the US planes, UK data for the UK planes.

JG5_UnKle
12-09-2004, 05:54 AM
WUAF_Darkangel Interesting material thanks - I especially like the note from Dowding complaining about Spit pilots over-using boost!, however we don't have Mk1 spits or E-3's in FB so we will have to wait for BoB for such comparisons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG77Von_Hess
12-09-2004, 05:58 AM
Well ok.
I do not use a computer game as a historical yardstick nor a substitute for reallife flight physics and calculations.

I was refereng to various popular test wich is time after time used to proof someones point on reallife perfermance vs in game of WW2 planes on this forum.

Example a british test on a german plane... conclution all tested planes was wastly superior to the german plane in almost any aspects... only problem was it was tested with wing gondolas + guns. An other examle is the drag values for P51 they have been recalculeted in 1999 wich results in a higher value, this factor influences on many things.

I do have some amount of data on german planes in german, but it does not mix up that well with this game, in its current state.

Im not interrested in a specifik planes performance here, but an overall way IL2 handles the aspects of flight physics. using correct reallife date for a plane in a broken inviorment is not cool in my op. Perhaps this is the reason why we seem to have a problem here.

I actually find this debate good and interresting, perhaps u got misguided by the fact that i have JGsomething in my name??

VH.

k5054
12-09-2004, 02:30 PM
We see so many UK and US tests here because they are available. Anybody can go to the national archive of either country and look at them , copy them and post on the net. If they are flawed, especially when using captured aircraft, well, they tested what they could get.
The only german-sourced captured a/c data I've seen is the La-5FN test in Lerche's book, which most Russians would not even recognise.
If anybody has good german data, or japanese, then that should be posted on the net too.
(Is it true the Bundesarchiv charges highly for copies?). Little of it is, and that is often manufacturer data like the FW stuff, which is possibly biased. Also there is often no distinction between projected and actual performance.
If anybody has tests other than the well-known ones, FIND SOMEWHERE TO HOST IT!

Nubarus
12-10-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG77Von_Hess:
Well ok.
I do not use a computer game as a historical yardstick nor a substitute for reallife flight physics and calculations.

I was refereng to various popular test wich is time after time used to proof someones point on reallife perfermance vs in game of WW2 planes on this forum.

Example a british test on a german plane... conclution all tested planes was wastly superior to the german plane in almost any aspects... only problem was it was tested with wing gondolas + guns. An other examle is the drag values for P51 they have been recalculeted in 1999 wich results in a higher value, this factor influences on many things.

I do have some amount of data on german planes in german, but it does not mix up that well with this game, in its current state.

Im not interrested in a specifik planes performance here, but an overall way IL2 handles the aspects of flight physics. using correct reallife date for a plane in a broken inviorment is not cool in my op. Perhaps this is the reason why we seem to have a problem here.

I actually find this debate good and interresting, perhaps u got misguided by the fact that i have JGsomething in my name??

VH. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you draw your conclusions too fast Von Hess.
Just because I quoted you and said something different then you makes me misguided?

Oleg himself stated several times that the German planes are modelled with German data, but if you feel something is not correct you should email your data with a detailed explanation on what you think is wrong to PF@1C.ru instead of assume that Oleg used the British tests to model the German planes.

k5054
12-10-2004, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> An other examle is the drag values for P51 they have been recalculeted in 1999 wich results in a higher value, this factor influences on many things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the factor certainly influences many things, but it did so in 1944-5. Recalculating it in 1999 makes no difference. Are you referring to Dave Lednicer's drag calculations based on computer analysis of the shapes? Well, that's fine for comparison, but it is a ballpark method and does not account for the claimed radiator duct thrust for instance.

If you want the drag of a P-51D, you have the power, speed and weight, and all the measurements, you can calculate the drag at various heights from SL to 25,000ft and see if you get a consistent figure. Of course you'll have to work out the induced drag too, and subtract it from the total to get form drag. You may need to make an informed guess of prop efficiency and Oswald factor. A good spreadsheet will help, once you have the formulae down you can insert new data for different aircraft.

Some methodology, and previously discivered figures, may be found in Hoerner's 109G analysis, and in a paper by Loftin of NACA, where he deduces flat plate areas for many a/c types. Badly, IMHO, but he was head aerodynamicist at NACA, whereas I am not....
urls when I can find them.

JG77Von_Hess
12-10-2004, 05:00 AM
So if we look upon things in this way as manufactoring data for LW planes is Bias and the factory performance testings for the planes is propoganda, what else is there to do?? An other fine example is the dive test for F and G hybrids with org tail vs the new tall one, it was not that the stick got fixed in cement as many says that set the limit it was the unstability when reaching mach 0.802. not damage or permanent deformations.

K5054 i do have most of those figures for the P51, thanx some years back i made a comparison between mustang A,B,D vs FW190A 4.5.8 D9
Including peek climb rates at mill and emergency
power seetings
Top speeds and initial accels vs altitude
Initial dive accel.
Instan/sustaind turn rates vs altitude
etc. this was done before i started to play IL2, and i dont have all the calcs anymore.
It took my a month to collect all what i needed.

Ohh and the radiator nozzle thrust effect are messured on many planes, not only the mustang benefited from this at high speed. What figures did u use for the mustang 300Thp at Vmax in 24000ft?

And the recalculation of the drag values did show that the figures often used perhaps was a bit too optemistic, same goes for the wingloading figures.

Why use amarican manufactoring data for us planes and british for brit planes then? and the naca tests for that matter.
If german WW2 date is looked opoun in this way?

Is your rule that the allies won the war hence the fact that every thing they made was better, and all the LW pilots could do was scream actung spitfeuer and bail out before they get hammerd to bits, cos virtually all allieds planes could fly rings around the germans... then that would be bias and ignorance to the big gold medal.

I wrote up before that im not going for a beef up on my pet plane and poopoo off an other i dont have an interrest in one side only, all i care for is flying in an invioment as good as it can get with as accurate planes we can have, i dont think we have that in il2 at the moment, i think so many things are toned down and compromised that we can not achive results that matches those from the tests.

Overdone slow speed thrust.
Induced drag is way too mild.
Climbing out of best climb speed is penalized around 20% where 40-50%+ would be more apropriate.
Near no torque u can fish flop around nose up near stall at full throttle.
Stall recovery can be done from a complete depature to climbing with in 1000ft
I can match original peek climb charts at 80%-85% throttle for some planes all the way up to 33000ft
Dont u think this is an indication of the basics not right? and a serious discussion of sertain planes performance in here is a bit difficult.

My hopes for BoB are utterly high and i hope such things will be very different there than what we c now in il2.

I hate to get into a debate about 2 planes which is best bla bla, so if any will discuss this futher pm me and we can do this wia mail or something else.

Regards.

VH.

k5054
12-10-2004, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I wrote up before that im not going for a beef up on my pet plane and poopoo off an other i dont have an interrest in one side only, all i care for is flying in an invioment as good as it can get with as accurate planes we can have, i dont think we have that in il2 at the moment, i think so many things are toned down and compromised that we can not achive results that matches those from the tests.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur totally. I do not advocate picking some tests as gospel and dismissing others as unreliable. In general I prefer tests by the national aerodynamic outfit, ie RAE good, AFDU not so good. Rechlin good, factory, doubtful.
Wright field or Pax river, good, and so on. But I don't let this prejudice overcome common sense. I like to use all the test data I can find, and look for consensus.
The problem is some aircraft don't have good tests widely available. An example is the Bf110. If you look in any standard ref for 110C, you'll probably find a speed of 349mph at 22000ft. That was the captured example tested by the RAE. Of course the speed must be what they measured, but it's clearly not possible with a standard DB601A to get best speed at that height. They had a model with a N type supercharger. But the figure is widely quoted for the C-4. And no better test is available, AFAIK, even in the big 110 schiffer book.

JG77Von_Hess
12-10-2004, 06:15 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifYes K5054 valid vs common accepted test figures not allways goes hand in hand, and much of the data for german planes are quite difficult to get hands on, i was lucky to know a freind of my father, an pilot instructor and aero dynamics teacher who burned for WW2 planes and aircraft evolution in that period, he had that special abillity to explain things in pictures so even a stubborn boy like i was back then could understand it.

As for the mustangs radiator system to be able to nullify its drag figure at high speed high alt, the germans did also test nuzzle trust from radiators(109) and so did the russians http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards.

VH.

NorrisMcWhirter
12-10-2004, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You do use your feeling in this statements since if you manifest anything about the game you are using your own feel of it to compare with WW2 pilots statements.

That is why oleg dismiss pilot stamenets , and I agree with him, they cannot be use as proof since they are subjective views, opne to subjective interpretations and made in a period of their lives where everything was under a very subjective perspective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about WW2 pilots testimonials but about _TODAYS_ pilots who have flown BOTH spits and 109, i'm talking about testimonials in the _VIDEO_ wich i have posted the link in this thread (10th page).

Tell me why these pilots would lie about their real experience of these planes?
1 reason, give me 1 good reason.

And i totally agree with oleg when he dismiss WW2 pilots statements for the sames reasons as you.
But here, in this video, these pilots don't fly only one side/plane, they fly alot of different planes, allied and axis planes.

If you want to make an AIRBUS Sim and an AIRBUS pilot tell you your sim FM's are wrong and the real plane can't do that ... What will you do ... Ignoring his statement, or hear him?

If M HANNA tells me the Plane Y is a better turner at slow speed than plane Z, i believe him because he has flown these 2 planes IRL.


P.S. Oleg has asked the advice of a real P51 pilot before the release of AEP, so he don't dismiss all pilot statements.

P.S.to P.S. Sorry for my bad english. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Todays pilots fly stripped down planes and don't push them to their limits because they can't risk damaging them, so todays pilot testimonials are not 100% accurate on how these WWII planes should perform and therefore they should not be used to model WWII sims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why not? Relatively speaking:

a. The planes will both typically have armaments removed.
b. THe planes will both typically have heavy equipment like radios replaced.
c. The planes will both typically be in a good state of repair.
d. Both planes will be flown by a pilot not wishing to push his aircraft to the limit.
e. There is more chance of the plane having the correct fuel/correct configuration/being flown according to best practice because wartime documents will be available to ensure this is the case.

Relatively speaking, you won't get results the same as in-the-field WW2 combat aircraft but you will get a relative indication of performance.

i.e. it may not be 100% accurate but what is? It's certainly no worse than potentially biased, wartime reports based upon potentially damaged aircraft using potentially incorrect fuels/engine settings/configurations etc and about as good as you'll get bar creating a time machine and warping back to fetch absolutely typical aircraft to test.

I see no harm in using it in conjunction with wartime information.

Cheers,
Norris

Enofinu
12-10-2004, 10:22 AM
ppl have problems with spitfire turnrate?? how in hell?? huh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ill give asswipe to any allied pilot who takes 109 against me in spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nubarus
12-10-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You do use your feeling in this statements since if you manifest anything about the game you are using your own feel of it to compare with WW2 pilots statements.

That is why oleg dismiss pilot stamenets , and I agree with him, they cannot be use as proof since they are subjective views, opne to subjective interpretations and made in a period of their lives where everything was under a very subjective perspective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about WW2 pilots testimonials but about _TODAYS_ pilots who have flown BOTH spits and 109, i'm talking about testimonials in the _VIDEO_ wich i have posted the link in this thread (10th page).

Tell me why these pilots would lie about their real experience of these planes?
1 reason, give me 1 good reason.

And i totally agree with oleg when he dismiss WW2 pilots statements for the sames reasons as you.
But here, in this video, these pilots don't fly only one side/plane, they fly alot of different planes, allied and axis planes.

If you want to make an AIRBUS Sim and an AIRBUS pilot tell you your sim FM's are wrong and the real plane can't do that ... What will you do ... Ignoring his statement, or hear him?

If M HANNA tells me the Plane Y is a better turner at slow speed than plane Z, i believe him because he has flown these 2 planes IRL.


P.S. Oleg has asked the advice of a real P51 pilot before the release of AEP, so he don't dismiss all pilot statements.

P.S.to P.S. Sorry for my bad english. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Todays pilots fly stripped down planes and don't push them to their limits because they can't risk damaging them, so todays pilot testimonials are not 100% accurate on how these WWII planes should perform and therefore they should not be used to model WWII sims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why not? Relatively speaking:

a. The planes will both typically have armaments removed.
b. THe planes will both typically have heavy equipment like radios replaced.
c. The planes will both typically be in a good state of repair.
d. Both planes will be flown by a pilot not wishing to push his aircraft to the limit.
e. There is more chance of the plane having the correct fuel/correct configuration/being flown according to best practice because wartime documents will be available to ensure this is the case.

Relatively speaking, you won't get results the same as in-the-field WW2 combat aircraft but you will get a _relative indication of performance_.

i.e. it may not be 100% accurate but what is? It's certainly no worse than potentially biased, wartime reports based upon potentially damaged aircraft using potentially incorrect fuels/engine settings/configurations etc and about as good as you'll get bar creating a time machine and warping back to fetch absolutely typical aircraft to test.

I see no harm in using it _in conjunction_ with wartime information.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see:

Fact: Spitfires have a very good sustained turn rate, funny thing is that many (obvious Axis players) over here preech that it got worse with each version of the Spitfire with the V currently in game having the best sustained turn rate.

However, I read a performance test between the V and the IX that states that the IX had a simular sustained turn rate as the V but that the IX was better to maintain the turn without losing hight due to more engine power and could disengage the V at will due to better speed and climb while these Axis players here claim that the V was a better dogfighter then the IX due to better manueverability. (I never saw them put up any evidence on that subject btw)
Then I read another test between the IX and the XIV stating again that the sustained turn rate was the same but the that the XIV gave less stall warning.

So basicly the test documents show clearly a different story then those posts over here from these guys claiming it got worse with each version.

Some weeks ago some obvious Axis player posted that video about 2 pilots flying todays cleaned up versions of the Bf109 and Spitfire and they claim that the Bf109 had a much better sustained turn rate and where going on about like it was some sort of gospel and posts with this video in it kept popping up like mushrooms.

That's exactly the reason why I feel that todays pilot testiminials don't mean squat regarding how these planes flew over 60 years ago, not to mention under completely different sercomstances as well.

robban75
12-10-2004, 01:56 PM
Alex Henshaw, chief test pilot at the Castle Bomwich Spitfire factory.

"I loved the Spitfire in all of her many versions. But I have to admit that the later Marks, although they were faster than the earlier ones, were also much heavier and so did not handle so well. You did not have such positive control over them. One test of manouverability was to throw the Spitfire into a flick roll and see how many times she rolled. With the Mark II or the Mark V one got two and a half rolls but the Mark IX was heavier and you got only one and a half. With the later and still heavier versions one got even less.The essence of aircraft design is compromise, and an improvement at one end of the performance envelope is rarely achieved without a deterioration somewhere else."

Now, these are words from the chief test pilot, but his opinions is indeed his owns, I'm sure it is possible to find another pilot saying excactly the opposite. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And which is correct, I guess we'll never know.

WUAF_Badsight
12-10-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Some weeks ago some obvious Axis player posted that video about 2 pilots flying todays cleaned up versions of the Bf109 and Spitfire and they claim that the Bf109 had a much better sustained turn rate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
none of the people in that Video had flowen the Spitfire (any Mark)

that Bf109 was complete except for ammunition & the MW50 not being filled with liquid

WUAF_Darkangel
12-10-2004, 08:43 PM
In dis game the 109 K-4 is faster dives and climbs better and even turns BETTER than the 109 E-4. Was this really possible for the K-4 with MW50 in ww2?