PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire IX FM in Patch



Kwiatos
05-21-2004, 05:00 AM
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???

Kwiatos
05-21-2004, 05:00 AM
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???

Atzebrueck
05-21-2004, 05:13 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://c.f.hahne.bei.t-online.de/signatur.jpg (http://www.vow-hq.com)

Kwiatos
05-21-2004, 05:17 AM
Thx for very constructive reply Aztebrueck.

Kamikaze_Gibbon
05-21-2004, 05:24 AM
As a matter of interest, how does the clipped wing (CW) Spitfire IX stand up against a 109G-2. (I presume you mean a 109 as against a 110G-2 - well enough said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Inadaze
05-21-2004, 05:26 AM
I dunno how it compared to specific 109's, but the mk9 was less manueverable than the earlier Spits. Some pilots hated it, they felt it wasn't a Spitfire any more because of it's lower manueverability. Others loved the extra speed they gave.

From the Mk9 onwards the Spit starts becoming much more a BnZ fighter than a TnB. (and the G2 is very maneuvrable in FB.) Even in the AEP MkVb I found a G2 could surprise me with its maneuverabilty.

I found scissors harder in the 9 as well. The best thing to do is to not get dragged into em if you are attacking and go for flaps if your on the defensive.

Turn off and BnZ the 109 if he starts slowing and going into the scissors. He's bleeding energy like crazy and the Spit seems to climb like a monkey with a firecracker up its bum.

I found I have to try and fly much closer to the edge of the flight envelope on the Mk9 to TnB in it.

At first I was wondering if its FM was undermodeled, but some practice in it has changed my mind.

It just needs a different aproach to getting the most out of it I think.

Regards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif ~ Inadaze

609IAP_Recon
05-21-2004, 05:34 AM
I noticed the same, and Inadaze is correct, this tactic was working very well for me.

And as stated the 109F4/G2 was no slouch - it was arguably the best pure dogfighter the Germans produced.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
05-21-2004, 05:50 AM
i think the question remains ......

is the G2 supposed to be able to match the Spitfire in turns ?

saying you simply are not flying good enough is not an answer

we are not talking player performance here ...... but plane performance

Kannaksen_hanu
05-21-2004, 05:57 AM
G2 turning is ok. It should be equal to La-5's, and averagely it is (wins the basic model and loses to La5-FN), I can live with that.

The tuning should be done in Spit IX if any needed. But the tuning should be in overheating times, or more likely the (missing) cooling effect in Desert IMHO. Now that is the only real thing where Spit IX is poorer than any 109.

Extreme_One
05-21-2004, 06:07 AM
The question does depend on who is flying the plane though doesn't it.

I mean if the G-2 is being flown by AI then you can't draw a fair comparison.

I haven't done enough testing to say anything other than that...

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 06:16 AM
WUAF:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>is the G2 supposed to be able to match the Spitfire in turns ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which Spit? We may wish to compare Spit~9 with G~6 or something.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

hughlb2
05-21-2004, 06:27 AM
I've spent a while testing the V, 109G2/6 and IX since I downloaded the patch for the very reason that I felt the turn radius of the IX was a little undermodelled. I thought I was paranoid, but now I really do think its undermodelled and certainly not as nice to fly as the V is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Even the IX's performance increase lacks to compensate for turn radius, I almost have to fly it like a 109 now!

Stalker58
05-21-2004, 06:54 AM
It seems taht Spit IX is little undermodelld in turning dept but overmodelem in max. speed. acording to IL2Compare v.2.4 max speed is &gt;700 km/h at 8000m!

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Turn rate depends on wing powerloading as it depends on wing loading, and G2 has better powerloading than Spit IX.

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 07:48 AM
Boscombe downs reports folks. the 109 is inferior in most respects.

Speeds
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

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

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

Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

Cossack_UA
05-21-2004, 07:53 AM
i picked an Mk9 yesterday online and saw a bf109 g6 about 1 km above. I climbed to his altitude ( 5000 m) tried to engage him as i would in a Mk5. Well at this altitude the 109 outturned me BIG TIME! I was in shock and had to run away from him because the bastard outclimbed me as well. 109 was much better at both vertical and horizontal!

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cossack_UA:
i picked an Mk9 yesterday online and saw a bf109 g6 about 1 km above. I climbed to his altitude ( 5000 m) tried to engage him as i would in a Mk5. Well at this altitude the 109 outturned me BIG TIME! I was in shock and had to run away from him because the bastard outclimbed me as well. 109 was much better at both vertical and horizontal!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So you found how overmodelled is MkV at altitude. It is better than MkIX. The single stage single speed supercharger MkV being better than G6 at 5000m is just hilarious. How could you employ such tactics? attacking a plane with superior high altitude performance from a much lower altitude? Didn't that make you feel like a cheater?

Inadaze
05-21-2004, 08:13 AM
I've been trying to find out how different the MK9 was from the Mk5 in terms of maneuverability. All I could find out was that the 9 isn't to keen on slow speeds.

I found if I can keep the spits speed over 320+kph in turns and it does handle alot better.

A Mk9E-CW against AI G2's gains in turns at those speeds (At least I found it to). Using AI isn't a very reliable measure... I'll see if I can get online with a buddy later and do some g2 vs mk9 testing.

Regards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif ~ Inadaze

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 08:16 AM
Read this for all your CORRECT DATA

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 08:16 AM
Read this for all your CORRECT DATA

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 08:16 AM
Read this for all your CORRECT DATA

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

Kwiatos
05-21-2004, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Turn rate depends on wing powerloading as it depends on wing loading, and G2 has better powerloading than Spit IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Powerloading:
G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg

Spit MK IX Merlin 61 - 0.46 hp/kg
Merlin 63 - 0.48 hp/kg
Merlin 70 - 0,50 hp/kg

Wing loading:

Spit MK IX - 151 kg/m2

G-2 - 179 kg/m2

There is no adventage G-2 in powerloading and is disadventage in weight- to- wing area.

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kannaksen_hanu:
G2 turning is ok. It should be equal to La-5's, and averagely it is (wins the basic model and loses to La5-FN), I can live with that.

The tuning should be done in Spit IX if any needed. But the tuning should be in overheating times, or more likely the (missing) cooling effect in Desert IMHO. Now that is the only real thing where Spit IX is poorer than any 109.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I know how misleading a sim can be and successful in creating myths. La-5 is one perfect example. This plane was just an inferior design. It had so much problems that reports were coming everyday with stories of pilots killed because of La-5, both because of lack of quality of manufacturing but also because lack of performance. The reason why La-5 was designed were the huge stocks of Shvetsov M-82 engines left unused.

La-5 turn performance had nothing special, 21 sec per 360 deg turn, inferior to all 109G types at that time. Climb was the main advantage of the type compared to Yak series available at that time, but it was still inferior to German fighters: 16.5m/s initial climb. Also the engine could not use max power for more than 1 minute!! because of overheating problems. This was to some degree fixed for La-5F, but the problem came back when the engine was uprated again: La-5FN had was capable of maintaining max power for only 2 minutes. Of course in Il-2 we have the late '44 models of M-82 engine, which were capable of maintaning the boost for 10 minutes. Possible some of those engines ended up in La-5FN too, since the production continued in '44 alongside with La-7. But La-5 is just a fantasy plane. Not only it turns like a Yak-9, but the engine shows no problems with overheating. One note though: all radial engine fighters suffered from overheating in prolonged climbs and turnfights because the airflow is not fast enough to cool the engine at max power. Only Fw-190 got enough cooling because it had a cooling fan coupled to the engine, which meant that at max power the engine got max cooling, independent of airspeed.

Back to La-5. La-5 production was on the edge of being cancelled all together in '42, when Yakovlev visited the plant in '42. He found the production facilities to be a total mess, and made political pressure to switch the plant to Yak fighters production. The reason La-5 remained in production was the news of Fw-190 comming to front, powered just like La-5 by a 14 cyl radial. Fear that Germans will fit big and powerful engines in very small airframes, kept La-5 alive, Lavochkin airframe being the only one that could realistically take such a big radial (of course now we have I-185 in AEP, another fantasy plane - I just saw in patch readme the defects for I-185: it says "throttle lever not confortable" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Turn rate depends on wing powerloading as it depends on wing loading, and G2 has better powerloading than Spit IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Powerloading:
G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg

Spit MK IX Merlin 61 - 0.46 hp/kg
Merlin 63 - 0.48 hp/kg
Merlin 70 - 0,50 hp/kg

Wing loading:

Spit MK IX - 151 kg/m2

G-2 - 179 kg/m2

There is no adventage G-2 in powerloading and is disadventage in weight- to- wing area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Comparing only wing loding and power loading oversimplifies the problem. This can lead to reasonably correct results if we compare planes with similar aerodynamics, like G-2 with K-4. However Spitfires and 109s were completely dissimilar. For this only a complete computation of turn rate can lead to correct results. This can be done, it is not that hard.

In such a computation instead of powerloading it is used the excess thrust divided by weight, and here Bf-109 stays much better than Spitfire - the airframe of Spitfire produced a lot more drag than Bf-109 - Spitfire was all the time the slower of the planes, when planes were tested at the same altitude with similar power.

Also wingloading does not take into consideration the fact that airfoil used by those planes were different. Spitfire used a much thinner airfoil which produced a lot less lift at the same AoA than 109's airfoil. This can be easily seen in stall speeds. Even though wing loading was better for Spitfire, stall speed for G-2 was 155km/h (96mph) whereas SpitIX has 93mph with old cockpit, and 98mph with new cockpit, which makes it actually worse than G-2 (I think we have the Spit IX with latter years cockpit, but I still did not install the patch).

Overall G-2 should turn better than Spit IX but the difference should not be much. F-4 should turn in 18-19 sec, G-4 in 19 sec, Spit V in 18 sec, Spit IX in 19-20 sec (with small variations for different Spit versions) -- all values at sea level.

Vipez-
05-21-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HamishUK:
Read this for all your CORRECT DATA

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

remember these treals were made against 109G / U-2, not with default armament which would give 109 some extra perfomance.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Turn rate depends on wing powerloading as it depends on wing loading, and G2 has better powerloading than Spit IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Powerloading:
G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg

Spit MK IX Merlin 61 - 0.46 hp/kg
Merlin 63 - 0.48 hp/kg
Merlin 70 - 0,50 hp/kg

Wing loading:

Spit MK IX - 151 kg/m2

G-2 - 179 kg/m2

There is no adventage G-2 in powerloading and is disadventage in weight- to- wing area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Comparing only wing loding and power loading oversimplifies the problem. This can lead to reasonably correct results if we compare planes with similar aerodynamics, like G-2 with K-4. However Spitfires and 109s were completely dissimilar. For this only a complete computation of turn rate can lead to correct results. This can be done, it is not that hard.

In such a computation instead of powerloading it is used the excess thrust divided by weight, and here Bf-109 stays much better than Spitfire - the airframe of Spitfire produced a lot more drag than Bf-109 - Spitfire was all the time the slower of the planes, when planes were tested at the same altitude with similar power.

Also wingloading does not take into consideration the fact that airfoil used by those planes were different. Spitfire used a much thinner airfoil which produced a lot less lift at the same AoA than 109's airfoil. This can be easily seen in stall speeds. Even though wing loading was better for Spitfire, stall speed for G-2 was 155km/h (96mph) whereas SpitIX has 93mph with old cockpit, and 98mph with new cockpit, which makes it actually worse than G-2 (I think we have the Spit IX with latter years cockpit, but I still did not install the patch).

Overall G-2 should turn better than Spit IX but the difference should not be much. F-4 should turn in 18-19 sec, G-4 in 19 sec, Spit V in 18 sec, Spit IX in 19-20 sec (with small variations for different Spit versions) -- all values at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect. The Spitfire's airframe with it's elliptical wing actually produced a lot less drag than the 109!! The wing are for the Spit contributed to far more lift and strength (see the report) than the 109's. The 109's wing would also give no indication that a stall was imminent. The Spitfire would receive buffeting prior to a stall becoming a reality.

Did you read Boscombe Downs report? I suggest you do as these are experts in the field of testing! The report says different from your post. If you have any test data to back up your theory?

I will post again:
Speeds
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

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

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

Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

[This message was edited by HamishUK on Fri May 21 2004 at 08:36 AM.]

HamishUK
05-21-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Turn rate depends on wing powerloading as it depends on wing loading, and G2 has better powerloading than Spit IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Powerloading:
G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg

Spit MK IX Merlin 61 - 0.46 hp/kg
Merlin 63 - 0.48 hp/kg
Merlin 70 - 0,50 hp/kg

Wing loading:

Spit MK IX - 151 kg/m2

G-2 - 179 kg/m2

There is no adventage G-2 in powerloading and is disadventage in weight- to- wing area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Comparing only wing loding and power loading oversimplifies the problem. This can lead to reasonably correct results if we compare planes with similar aerodynamics, like G-2 with K-4. However Spitfires and 109s were completely dissimilar. For this only a complete computation of turn rate can lead to correct results. This can be done, it is not that hard.

In such a computation instead of powerloading it is used the excess thrust divided by weight, and here Bf-109 stays much better than Spitfire - the airframe of Spitfire produced a lot more drag than Bf-109 - Spitfire was all the time the slower of the planes, when planes were tested at the same altitude with similar power.

Also wingloading does not take into consideration the fact that airfoil used by those planes were different. Spitfire used a much thinner airfoil which produced a lot less lift at the same AoA than 109's airfoil. This can be easily seen in stall speeds. Even though wing loading was better for Spitfire, stall speed for G-2 was 155km/h (96mph) whereas SpitIX has 93mph with old cockpit, and 98mph with new cockpit, which makes it actually worse than G-2 (I think we have the Spit IX with latter years cockpit, but I still did not install the patch).

Overall G-2 should turn better than Spit IX but the difference should not be much. F-4 should turn in 18-19 sec, G-4 in 19 sec, Spit V in 18 sec, Spit IX in 19-20 sec (with small variations for different Spit versions) -- all values at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are 100% incorrect. The Spitfire's airframe with it's elliptical wing actually produced a lot less drag than the 109!!

Did you read Boscombe Downs report? I suggest you do as these are experts in the field of testing! The report says different from your post. If you have any test data to back up your theory?

I will post again:
Speeds
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

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

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

Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
05-21-2004, 11:14 AM
Hi,

I hate to start with, 'I saw a TV programme the other week that said...', but, I saw a TV programme the other week that found that the Spit (presumably, the Mk1 as this was a BoB comparison) only turned as well as the Bf109 (presumably the E4), a claim supported by Spitfire pilots who said that the Spit didn't necessarily turn better but it gave far more confidence in a turn because of the stall warning.

So, the Vb should turn as well as what..? Seems like the Vb turns as well as pretty much anything..or did do, in v2.0.

For the IX, I like it..but it's not as much fun as the Vb.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

GR142-Pipper
05-21-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.(...snip...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. That's because the programmers have chosen (told) to allow the 109s and 190s to cut their power and have the effects of this reduction be felt immediately. Other aircraft can cut power and nothing happens for quite a few seconds thereafter. In a scissors situation, an overshoot can't be prevented and the aircraft will be at an immediate disadvantage. Again, this is no accident...the programmers have been told to do it this way. Yet another attempt to artificially craft "sameness" into the game at the expense of realism.

GR142-Pipper

Bull_dog_
05-21-2004, 11:39 AM
I haven't flown the spit on line or done much testing, but this much I am sure of... the corner speed is way too high... above 400km/hr. I can't recall the exact number, but I have a tendancy to think in relative terms...specifically against the Mustang.... a while back I read a comprehensive comparison between the Mustang and the Spitfire and as far as turning radius were concerned... the spit have a very low corner speed and the Mustang gained the turn advantage only at high speed. A spit did handily track my P-38J down and kill it on line so there is no shortage of speed with the Mk IX

I am having a hard time feeling the difference between the clipped version and the full winged version too... I have been under the impression that the Mk IX could out turn 109's pretty handily and that the roll rate on the clipped version was very high.

Another thing I have experienced both from reading and flying other flight sims is that the spit excels as speed drops but controls get heavy as speed increases...like a Bf 109 but this bird seems to react totally opposite... I feel the need to keep my speed up and use superior elevator authority to kill opponents.

All this dialog is purely anectodotal opinions, but I just don't feel like I'm flying a Mk IX when I'm in it...I was expecting a more "yak-like" feeling with slower rate of roll on full winged version and larger turn radius on clipped wing...but the spitfire feels like a heavy energy fighter.

I was kinda expecting it to be labeled a noob plane due to ease of flight etc... but as it is now, I think it will be a tough bird to fly successfully...

I think we'll see how well it was modelled in the tactics on line players adopt... the plane should be a dogfighter supreme, but I'll bet we'll see energy tactics mostly and some B&Z.

With its climb rate it should excel at energy fighting.

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 12:29 PM
109 isnt as areodynamic as the spit
emil was poor, and the bumpy 109's poor aswell
all over 109 u see bits which could be better, the canopy etc
not so many poor bits on the spitfire

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Nub_322Sqn
05-21-2004, 01:50 PM
I see Huckebein_FW is still trying to sell his fantasies about the Bf109 to the general public.

How amusing.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Xnomad
05-21-2004, 02:34 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 Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.(...snip...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. That's because the programmers have chosen (told) to allow the 109s and 190s to cut their power and have the effects of this reduction be felt immediately. Other aircraft can cut power and nothing happens for quite a few seconds thereafter. In a scissors situation, an overshoot can't be prevented and the aircraft will be at an immediate disadvantage. Again, this is no accident...the programmers have been told to do it this way. Yet another attempt to artificially craft "sameness" into the game at the expense of realism.

GR142-Pipper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try cutting your prop pitch when you cut power that is the reason you can't cut power as quick as the Bf 109

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Xnomad
05-21-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HamishUK:
Read this for all your CORRECT DATA

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This trial you have linked was done with a Bf 109 G-6/U2 that's the one with underwing Gondola cannons. The very same cannons that Luftwaffe pilots hated because they had great difficulty fighting in them when attacked by fighters.

I don't know how a clean Bf 109 G-2 would hold up to a Spitfire IX in real life but I thought that I should make the above clear.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

NegativeGee
05-21-2004, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:

This trial you have linked was done with a Bf 109 G-6/U2 that's the one with underwing Gondola cannons. The very same cannons that Luftwaffe pilots hated because they had great difficulty fighting in them when attacked by fighters.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it you mean a G6/R6?

In the G-6 series, U2 designated aircraft fitted with GM-1 equipment.

Or actually do you mean G-2/R6 as I thought we were discussing the Bf 109 G-2?

Now I'm confused http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Kurfurst__
05-21-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HamishUK:
You are incorrect. The Spitfire's airframe with it's elliptical wing actually produced a lot less drag than the 109!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good for fantasy, but actual data shows the 109 needs always _less_ power to develop the same or higher speed. Ie. 109G-2 developed 540 km/h at 1455 HP, the Mk IX LF required 1690 HP to do the same.. Obviously the Spitfire had far more drag, something logical as it was much larger airframe, and many of it`s aerodynamic solutions (radiators esp - huge bags under the wings, basically) were outdated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The wing are for the Spit contributed to far more lift and strength (see the report) than the 109's. The 109's wing would also give no indication that a stall was imminent. The Spitfire would receive buffeting prior to a stall becoming a reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong on all part.

a, The Spit`s wing was of thin profile and relative to it`s area it provided less lift than the 109s.

b, Bf 109s stall :
"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. "



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Did you read Boscombe Downs report? I suggest you do as these are experts in the field of testing! The report says different from your post. If you have any test data to back up your theory?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The reports you quoted are for a 109G-6 with underwing cannon gondolas, which weight 500 lbs extra, and were flown with pilots inexperienced with the Bf 109. Now, I guess 500 lbs extra weight that was not present on clean fighter would decrease manouverebility a bit, wouldn`t it?

You can post this report as many times as you want. Conditions won`t change.

As for why Spitfire pilots in the game may find dogfighting 109s difficult, I think the answer lays in the fact the 109 has a much better roll rate at those low dogfighting speeds. The Spit doesn`t really shines in roll at any speed, esp. not at high speeds. It`s takes time to initiate manouvers. But otherwise, it`s clearly a better turner than any 109 - but the difference of margin is quite close. Ie. Mark Hanna stated :

"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. "

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Xnomad
05-21-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:

This trial you have linked was done with a Bf 109 G-6/U2 that's the one with underwing Gondola cannons. The very same cannons that Luftwaffe pilots hated because they had great difficulty fighting in them when attacked by fighters.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it you mean a G6/R6?

In the G-6 series, U2 designated aircraft fitted with GM-1 equipment.

Or actually do you mean G-2/R6 as I thought we were discussing the Bf 109 G-2?

Now I'm confused http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a Bf 109 G-6/U2 which is a G-6/R6 with a wooden tailfin. &lt;- (I edited this part)

and yes it's definitley G-6.
A G-2 would have been better than a G-6 against a Spitfire IX and much better than a G-6/U2 against a Spitfire IX.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
05-21-2004, 03:54 PM
Well, according to Huck the turn rate of the Bf109G6 and up was about the same as a Hawker Tempest.

We all know that any Spitfire that flew during WWII could out turn a Hawker Tempest without much effort.
In these trails the Tempest was not fitted with gunpods and wasn't damaged so based on Huckies logic no Bf109G6 and up should be able to out turn a Spitfire IX.

But I am sure Huck or Issy will claim otherwise.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
05-21-2004, 04:10 PM
the Emil had worse stall characteristics than the Mk1 Spitfire

the Mk1 Spitfire was more user freindly at the limit

according to the pilot interviews i have read

would love to be given the chance to test it out myself tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Curly_109
05-21-2004, 04:19 PM
I'll only say this: from my SHORT(!) experience on this plane (1 hour est. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) (SPIT.IX) I manage to outturn the I185 three times in row on desert map without any bigger problems, and shoot it down. Yes, on the map where SPIT overheats like mad. So, SPIT is a very good bird for turns in my opinion. Overall, an excellent fighter.

Skalgrim
05-21-2004, 04:24 PM
too when g2 and spit9 has similar stallspeed without flaps

at least under 250km/h ias get both trouble by turn without flaps in fb

but g2 has maneuver flaps and spit9 has only landing flaps,

therefore can g2 better turn under 250km/h ias in fb


.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri May 21 2004 at 03:51 PM.]

VW-IceFire
05-21-2004, 04:48 PM
The Spitfire IX marks a change in the way that the Spitfire handled. While it was still well liked by most pilots it was certainly not strictly a turn fighter anymore...it was getting heavier. The same can be said of the Spitfire XIV which will be even heavier and likely not as good in a sustained turn as the IX is.

Even so...I've taken the IX out for a spin and its a very dangerous fighter. What you are doing in a circling turn fight with any high speed WWII fighter is beyond me.

The interesting thing is that on the SimHQ forums we have another person on the other end of the scale suggesting that he'll never fly for the Blue team ever again because the Spitfire IX leaves him with no advantages (which is generally true of the IX historically but pilot skill and tactics are still the deciding factor).

Its just crazy, the IX is beautiful...leave her alone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

EPP-Gibbs
05-21-2004, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inadaze:
I dunno how it compared to specific 109's, but the mk9 was less manueverable than the earlier Spits. Some pilots hated it, they felt it wasn't a Spitfire any more because of it's lower manueverability. Others loved the extra speed they gave.

From the Mk9 onwards the Spit starts becoming much more a BnZ fighter than a TnB. (and the G2 is very maneuvrable in FB.) Even in the AEP MkVb I found a G2 could surprise me with its maneuverabilty.

I found scissors harder in the 9 as well. The best thing to do is to not get dragged into em if you are attacking and go for flaps if your on the defensive.

Turn off and BnZ the 109 if he starts slowing and going into the scissors. He's bleeding energy like crazy and the Spit seems to climb like a monkey with a firecracker up its bum.


Regards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif ~ Inadaze<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure about this. I've not heard the quote "It's not a Spitfire anymore" levelled at any Merlin engined mark. It was said by some pilots about the Griffon engined Spits as they were somewhat more brutal and also the engine spun the other way, reversing the torque reaction and making the whole plane feel different.

When tested it was found that the Mk IX outperformed the MkV in all areas except turn performance, in which it was similar. It was tested against a 109G6 and found to be better overall, and able to out turn it with ease.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"

EPP-Gibbs
05-21-2004, 04:59 PM
It's interesting what is said about the 109G-2 in terms of manoeuverability in IL-2, because historically the G-series marked the start of the decline in that area as the increasing weight took it's toll on the small airframe. The F series are seen as the pinnacle of 109 development in terms of handling.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-21-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
It's interesting what is said about the 109G-2 in terms of manoeuverability in IL-2, because historically the G-series marked the start of the decline in that area as the increasing weight took it's toll on the small airframe. The F series are seen as the pinnacle of 109 development in terms of handling.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


true 100% but as most of us know the FM for the F4 and G2 are switched ,try it your self and you'll see that the G2 is the better turnfighter then the F4 wich it should be not

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Xnomad
05-21-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Inadaze:
I dunno how it compared to specific 109's, but the mk9 was less manueverable than the earlier Spits. Some pilots hated it, they felt it wasn't a Spitfire any more because of it's lower manueverability. Others loved the extra speed they gave.

From the Mk9 onwards the Spit starts becoming much more a BnZ fighter than a TnB. (and the G2 is very maneuvrable in FB.) Even in the AEP MkVb I found a G2 could surprise me with its maneuverabilty.

I found scissors harder in the 9 as well. The best thing to do is to not get dragged into em if you are attacking and go for flaps if your on the defensive.

Turn off and BnZ the 109 if he starts slowing and going into the scissors. He's bleeding energy like crazy and the Spit seems to climb like a monkey with a firecracker up its bum.


Regards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif ~ Inadaze<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure about this. I've not heard the quote "It's not a Spitfire anymore" levelled at any Merlin engined mark. It was said by some pilots about the Griffon engined Spits as they were somewhat more brutal and also the engine spun the other way, reversing the torque reaction and making the whole plane feel different.

When tested it was found that the Mk IX outperformed the MkV in all areas except turn performance, in which it was similar. It was tested against a 109G6 and found to be better overall, and able to out turn it with ease.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cough cough cough ahem Bf 109 G-6/U2 if you are going to say G-6 don't forget the /U2 bit as it makes a big difference.

Bull_dog_
05-21-2004, 05:32 PM
I tell ya Ice...if I didn't go external and Oleg tuned the climb rate down I'd swear I was flying a Tempest.... the Mk IX has a heavy energy fighter feel to it...not a light nimble turn fighter....of course I've flown several different flight sims and Spitfires always had a sweet spot where they could out turn everything...go too fast or too slow and you miss the sweet spot...but those hi/low yo-yo's were absolutely devistating with a Spit.

Mark my words...you'll be able to tell how well the modelling is by the kind of tactics that are used on line. I have read countless sources that state Spits of all marks were best in class turnfighters over the European theater on the western front and I'm banking that the spit as it is currently modelled is used as an energy fighter in most online battles...

Even offline, I have difficulty out turning AI Fw's and G-6's. I am finding myself using energy tactics with the AI... this spit will be very good at that cause it is fast and climbs well... but I personally feel the turn rate is too slow on the standard wings and the roll rate is too slow on clipped wings....

I'm not going to quote data either...I'm sick and tired of that argument...this is an arguement of relativity...if a Spit out turned a certain aircraft at 300mph or slower in real life then I'd expect it to do so in this game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Spitfire IX marks a change in the way that the Spitfire handled. While it was still well liked by most pilots it was certainly not strictly a turn fighter anymore...it was getting heavier. The same can be said of the Spitfire XIV which will be even heavier and likely not as good in a sustained turn as the IX is.

Even so...I've taken the IX out for a spin and its a very dangerous fighter. What you are doing in a circling turn fight with any high speed WWII fighter is beyond me.

The interesting thing is that on the SimHQ forums we have another person on the other end of the scale suggesting that he'll never fly for the Blue team ever again because the Spitfire IX leaves him with no advantages (which is generally true of the IX historically but pilot skill and tactics are still the deciding factor).

Its just crazy, the IX is beautiful...leave her alone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 05:43 PM
at certain speeds a clippy should out roll a 190, and not be very far behind in the whole speed range

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Comparing only wing loding and power loading oversimplifies the problem. This can lead to reasonably correct results if we compare planes with similar aerodynamics, like G-2 with K-4. However Spitfires and 109s were completely dissimilar. For this only a complete computation of turn rate can lead to correct results. This can be done, it is not that hard.

In such a computation instead of powerloading it is used the excess thrust divided by weight, and here Bf-109 stays much better than Spitfire - the airframe of Spitfire produced a lot more drag than Bf-109 - Spitfire was all the time the slower of the planes, when planes were tested at the same altitude with similar power.

Also wingloading does not take into consideration the fact that airfoil used by those planes were different. Spitfire used a much thinner airfoil which produced a lot less lift at the same AoA than 109's airfoil. This can be easily seen in stall speeds. Even though wing loading was better for Spitfire, stall speed for G-2 was 155km/h (96mph) whereas SpitIX has 93mph with old cockpit, and 98mph with new cockpit, which makes it actually worse than G-2 (I think we have the Spit IX with latter years cockpit, but I still did not install the patch).

Overall G-2 should turn better than Spit IX but the difference should not be much. F-4 should turn in 18-19 sec, G-4 in 19 sec, Spit V in 18 sec, Spit IX in 19-20 sec (with small variations for different Spit versions) -- all values at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are incorrect. The Spitfire's airframe with it's elliptical wing actually produced a lot less drag than the 109!! The wing are for the Spit contributed to far more lift and strength (see the report) than the 109's. The 109's wing would also give no indication that a stall was imminent. The Spitfire would receive buffeting prior to a stall becoming a reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are confunsing Cd0 with overall drag. Spitfire IX has a slightly better Cd0 than G2, 0.021 vs 0.023. Keep in mind that this Cd0 is calculated using wing area (drag divided by (a factor multiplied with wing area)), so Spitfire obtains in a such calculation a better Cd0 simply because it has a larger wing area, but the drag produced by Spitfire was much larger than the drag produced by 109. This is why when using the same power 109 was always significantly faster. I hope this explanation was simple enough for you to comprehend.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HamishUK:

Did you read Boscombe Downs report? I suggest you do as these are experts in the field of testing! The report says different from your post. If you have any test data to back up your theory?

I will post again:
[same old bull]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, please not again! This was discussed a hundred times until now, but I'll do it once again (some members here need special help to understand even the basics).

First this is RAE test, done in RAE fashion, that means no precaution was taken to make a meaningful test, no measurements were made, only the gut feeling of the test pilot was considered enough. Not even the most basic, common sense, requirement for this test was not satisfied: comparing something that can be compared. They used in test a Bf-109 with the 500lb external gunpods, that affected the aerodynamics and even more severely the weight, running at limited boost, with pilots that were instructed not to turn harder than the AoA at which the slats started to come out.

Such a test will never give accurate results. But of course when you conduct such a test you're not interested in getting accurate results. This one remainds me very much of the Fw-190 vs P-47 test done by USAAF, in which the pilot that flew Fw-190 did not have ONE SINGLE HOUR of flight in a single seat fighter!! just imagine how well was he able to put the Fw-190 to test, he was blacking out all the time. About the same credibility have the RAE tests too. Remember, no actual measurements were made in those tests!! RAE tests on captured material were the kiss and hug for fighter pilots scared to death by the hun. Beside this in RAE tests Spitfire was always the best, even in areas in which it was notoriously lagging behind. Just have a laugh on how Spitfire outrolls the Mustang, Spitfire that had a mediocre peak roll rate of 60 deg/sec at a very slow speed, ailerons were cement stiff at higher speeds (clipped wing was slightly better, but still very much worse than Mustang).

So please, unless you want to make a clown out yourself do not bring RAE tests here again. Oleg himself said that british tests are the most unreliable sources. Butch2k said something similar too. In my view tests tests on captured material are inherently unreliable, because they are done on hastly repaired crashed planes that were flown by pilots unfamiliar with the planes. Actually there are German tests done on Spit V with complete measurements, do you want to get the Spitfire according to Boscombe measurements or the Rechlin tests? Oleg furiously refused to model the La-5FN according to the data resulted from German tests, because he felt that they were not accurate.

To conclude, the planes in AEP are modelled according to factory specs, plus a check with data available in Russian tests (which I agree that are the most reliable tests done on foreign material, better than German, British or American). Historically Spit IX was an worse turner (and sometimes an worse climber) than Spit V, also historically G-2 was a very good turnfighter, many Axis pilots on Eastern Front using it exclusively as a turnfighter against the nimble Yaks, reaching incredible scores. Both planes turn in v2.01 in 19-20 sec which is perfectly realistic. Also 109 should roll significanly better than the eliptical wing Spit, which it does not unfortunatelly.

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
at certain speeds a clippy should out roll a 190, and not be very far behind in the whole speed range

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even in its dreams, I know the NACA chart you point to, but it is not supported by any test. It was probably from data received from the brits, with no reflection in a real life test however. I'd like to see the test in which Spit reached 120 deg/sec, until then this is pure fantasy.

Actually we have TWO very detailed NACA tests in which eliptical wing Spit did only 60 deg/sec, compared to the data in that chart, which claim a baseless 90 deg/sec roll rate. Historically all pilot accounts tell about the mediocre roll rate of Spitfire and how stiff were the ailerons at higher speed (peak roll was reached at very low speed).

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
It's interesting what is said about the 109G-2 in terms of manoeuverability in IL-2, because historically the G-series marked the start of the decline in that area as the increasing weight took it's toll on the small airframe. The F series are seen as the pinnacle of 109 development in terms of handling.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This was not the opinion of all pilots. In fact there was little difference in weight between F4 and early G models. Only 100 kg, less than between G models themselves. Usually the pilots were comparing F4 with MW50 models of G, which indeed were less maneuvrable (and they are in FB).

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
too when g2 and spit9 has similar stallspeed without flaps

at least under 250km/h ias get both trouble by turn without flaps in fb

but g2 has maneuver flaps and spit9 has only landing flaps,

therefore can g2 better turn under 250km/h ias in fb

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very good point Skalgrim! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
at certain speeds a clippy should out roll a 190, and not be very far behind in the whole speed range

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even in its dreams, I know the NACA chart you point to, but it is not supported by any test. It was probably from data received from the brits, with no reflection in a real life test whatsoever. I'd like to see the test in which Spit reached 120 deg/sec, until then this is pure fantasy.

Actually we have TWO very detailed NACA tests in which eliptical wing Spit did only 60 deg/sec, compared to the data in that chart, which claim a baseless 90 deg/sec roll rate. Historically all pilot accounts tell about the mediocre roll rate of Spitfire and how stiff were the ailerons at higher speed (peak roll was reached at very low speed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 06:10 PM
id presume the 190 roll rate in chart is also from brits and also wrong :P
some sources site and big improvement in roll, others dont so i dunno.
the heavy aliron was fixed wasnt it? the alirons balooned at highspeed, they changed to metal and that fixed it

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 06:10 PM
I myself have not spent much time in the cockpit of a Spit IX. I spent too much time outside it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My notes on the turning ability of the Spit.

The 109G and Spit series have a similar wing area I think.

The 109G has slats and combat flaps. Spit does not.

I think at high speed, the spit should take the 109 easy, but slower when the slats and combat flaps come into play your on the loosing side.

Thats my openion based on nothing more then my common sense. Im sure someone can find data to prove me wrong, but thats my 2 cents.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 06:14 PM
Yes. At low speeds, the charts show the clipped to roll faster then the 190. Above 250KPH the FW-190 is better. The Spit QUICKLY looses its roll rate at speeds above that. I will try and dig up the chart.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/RollChartClr2.jpg

I think this will help you guys. Enjoy.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
at certain speeds a clippy should out roll a 190, and not be very far behind in the whole speed range

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 06:17 PM
i feel this thread is gonna go into strange chart, conflicting anicdotal eviedence mode a la ORR

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 06:50 PM
Oh, I just read again the chart. It says 110 deg/sec for eliptical wing Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif those NACA engineers that found 60 deg/sec for the same Spit in two consecutive and extensive tests must have been real idiots, right?

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 06:57 PM
If you look closer, one is clipped, one is eliptical.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Oh, I just read again the chart. It says 110 deg/sec for eliptical wing Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif those NACA engineers that found 60 deg/sec for the same Spit in two consecutive and extensive tests must have been real idiots, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If you look closer, one is clipped, one is eliptical.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Oh, I just read again the chart. It says 110 deg/sec for eliptical wing Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif those NACA engineers that found 60 deg/sec for the same Spit in two consecutive and extensive tests must have been real idiots, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, right. But 110 deg/sec is the roll rate for the eliptical wing. Once again TWO comprehensive NACA tests showed beyond doubt that eliptical wing Spit was capable of only 60 deg/sec. Spit V used in test had metal ailerons fitted, and was basically the same wing up to Spit XIV.

Gib, do you think NACA engineers were idiots?

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 07:12 PM
well it reaches 60degrees at 360mph i think
cant read the numbers well

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 07:14 PM
oh ps
thanks gib, sorry i forgot tothank, and i posted me comment same time as u i finks

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 07:14 PM
The chart I posted IS Naca test's in 1947. Please post your NACA test. Did they apply 50lb stick force? Was it at 10000 feet? What speed? These are all questions that must be answered before you can prove anybody wrong. Please forgive me if you have posted this info on page 2 since I have not looked on that page.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If you look closer, one is clipped, one is eliptical.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Oh, I just read again the chart. It says 110 deg/sec for eliptical wing Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif those NACA engineers that found 60 deg/sec for the same Spit in two consecutive and extensive tests must have been real idiots, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, right. But 110 deg/sec is the roll rate for the eliptical wing. Once again TWO comprehensive NACA tests showed beyond doubt that eliptical wing Spit was capable of only 60 deg/sec. Spit V used in test had metal ailerons fitted, and was basically the same wing up to Spit XIV.

Gib, do you think NACA engineers were idiots?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The chart I posted IS Naca test's in 1947. Please post your NACA test. Did they apply 50lb stick force? Was it at 10000 feet? What speed? These are all questions that must be answered before you can prove anybody wrong. Please forgive me if you have posted this info on page 2 since I have not looked on that page.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The chart you posted IS NOT A NACA TEST, don't try to misinform Gib. It is a NACA summary of research done on lateral maneuvrability, it has information from a lot of sources, and the charts for Spitfire do not come from NACA own data. I read it with utmost attention and no source is given for the roll data on Spitfire.

Here is one of the extremely detailed NACA own tests on Spitfire:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

on page 45 there is a nice chart with roll rate against speed and stick force. There clearly says that Spitfire could do only 1.1 radians/sec at 50lb stick force. How much degrees/sec does that make Gib? you did not show any math skills in the past, but I see that you still enter this kind of discussions for which you are utterly unprepared.

So once again Gib, NACA chart on Spitfire says 1.1 rad/sec for 50lb force. How much is that in degrees/sec? I like to hear that from your mouth.

Gibbage1
05-21-2004, 07:57 PM
Look. Im just trying to add to the conversation. You dont need to get personal or treat me like some kid here. Keep it friendly, and before you go off on math skills, try modeling an aircraft in 3D, OK?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The chart I posted IS Naca test's in 1947. Please post your NACA test. Did they apply 50lb stick force? Was it at 10000 feet? What speed? These are all questions that must be answered before you can prove anybody wrong. Please forgive me if you have posted this info on page 2 since I have not looked on that page.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The chart you posted IS NOT A NACA TEST, don't try to misinform Gib. It is a NACA summary of research done on lateral maneuvrability, it has information from a lot of sources, and the charts for Spitfire do not come from NACA own data. I read it with utmost attention and no source is given for the roll data on Spitfire.

Here is one of the extremely detailed NACA own tests on Spitfire:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

on page 45 there is a nice chart with roll rate against speed and stick force. There clearly says that Spitfire could do only 1.1 radians/sec at 50lb stick force. How much degrees/sec does that make Gib? you did not show any math skills in the past, but I see that you still enter this kind of discussions for which you are utterly unprepared.

So once again Gib, NACA chart on Spitfire says 1.1 rad/sec for 50lb force. How much is that in degrees/sec? I like to hear that from your mouth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Look. Im just trying to add to the conversation. You dont need to get personal or treat me like some kid here. Keep it friendly, and before you go off on math skills, try modeling an aircraft in 3D, OK?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, you did not add anything to the conversation. You just brough a chart that contains a Spitfire roll graph which is not supported by any known test. The data measured by NACA is in complete disagreement with what you posted. I hope next time, when you try to "add something to the conversation" you will bring the REAL Spitfire roll chart.

Oh, and 1.1 rad/sec is roughly 65 deg/sec. THIS is eliptical wing Spitfire performance at 50lb.

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 08:14 PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Rad

was this naca test the one on the beat up spitfire?
also check page 4
some useful info

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

crazyivan1970
05-21-2004, 08:47 PM
People, please keep it civil and avoid personal attacks.

Thanks

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

p1ngu666
05-21-2004, 08:51 PM
/me attacks ivan with a feather boa http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Mechy01
05-21-2004, 08:56 PM
~S~ I don't know if you guys seen this...but take a peek anyways....

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=009976

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2004, 09:48 PM
*bah* why bother? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Fri May 21 2004 at 09:01 PM.]

HellToupee
05-21-2004, 11:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
If you look closer, one is clipped, one is eliptical.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Oh, I just read again the chart. It says 110 deg/sec for eliptical wing Spit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif those NACA engineers that found 60 deg/sec for the same Spit in two consecutive and extensive tests must have been real idiots, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, right. But 110 deg/sec is the roll rate for the eliptical wing. Once again TWO comprehensive NACA tests showed beyond doubt that eliptical wing Spit was capable of only 60 deg/sec. Spit V used in test had metal ailerons fitted, and was basically the same wing up to Spit XIV.

Gib, do you think NACA engineers were idiots?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but at what speed the chart shows the spitfire rolls at 60deg a sec at around 340mph IAS, what use is stating it can only roll this fast without stating at what speed, its not a flat line.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 11:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
Yes but at what speed the chart shows the spitfire rolls at 60deg a sec at around 340mph IAS, what use is stating it can only roll this fast without stating at what speed, its not a flat line.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



65 deg/sec is the PEAK ROLL performance, that means regardless of speed this what the MAXIMUM you can get with 50lb stick force. Read the chart on page 45 of this document:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

This is the real test done by NACA on handling of eliptical wing Spitfire. NACA engineers found that peak roll for 50lb force is attained at 150mph (yes, very low speed) and was measured at 65 deg/sec.

kubanloewe
05-22-2004, 01:51 AM
IX outturn a 109G2 without Flaps but with combat Flaps the 109 turns tighter and the ability to close radiators on the 109 helps a bit too.

but why the IX outclimb the G2 with ease in every height and the K4 with MW50 over 6200m upwards and the TA152H between 6000m and 8000m in such a way ?

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

DuxCorvan
05-22-2004, 02:09 AM
Spitfire IX uses the airframe of Spitfire V. If they'd wanted it to perform as a Spitfire V they would have gone on with Mk. V production.

But they want to face the threat of the new Fw 190 that was superior to Spitfire V, OK?

So they had to change Spitfire phylosophy and produce a BnZ fighter, sacrificing manoeuvers for speed.

So, stop frying your brains: historical events explain Mk.IX new FM. It's the same story ever, the race of sword and shield. Armamentistic race.

The last half of war was for BnZ fighters, producing another pleasant turning Spitfire had no sense. There were no more dogfights out there, just bouncings.

They finally even changed wing to adopt the laminar flow technology. That's the evolution of Spitfire, and Mk.IX marked the turning point.

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Kurfurst__
05-22-2004, 04:23 AM
I think there`s something buggy about the Spit roll rates in that NACA chart. Basically it doesn`t agree with anything I have on Spitty roll rate. My guess is that the chart shows a clipped wing Spitty at 110 degree line, and the other very high roll rate curve is a calculation for 'what-if-the-Spitties-wings-were-100%-rigig', ie. if you read the whole report, it mentions that the Spitfire`s roll rate suffers from wing flexing, which reduces the roll by 60%. Applying this 60% to 110 deg/sec

All the other flight tests of Spitty roll rate seem to support this, ie. even British trials state that clipping wings doesn`t gives much difference in roll etc. There`s also an oral desription from Dave Southwood, who said a clipped wing Spitty does a full roll at 3 secs (~= 120 deg/sec) at 460 km/h, whereas in his 109G aricle he states the 109G requires 4-4.5 secs (80-90deg/sec) which is 'similiar to the elliptical wing Spitty'. He also notes the ailerons were light on the 109s, but rather heavy on the Spitty (elevotors were the opposite case).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

p1ngu666
05-22-2004, 12:16 PM
i think the cables stretching :\
iirec that was a problem they fixed, cos at highspeed the alirons could pop up and flutter, but u locked in dive or sumin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
that would explain the best rate at low speed, your pulling the wire, it gets longer but doesnt move aliron much

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Bull_dog_
05-22-2004, 05:34 PM
Well I had a good chance today to give the mk IX a workout from both the seat and the seat of a 109G 6...of course most folks haven't had the time to work out the quirks of the mk IX.

The G6 was pretty evenly matched until speed slowed down, then it seems to grab and advantage. It feels odd to be out turned in a Spitfire... nothing I've ever read indicated that the Spit was anything but a turn fighter supreme...even the mk IX.

I got plenty of kills in the IX and killed many (especially those clipped versions as they can't turn well at all) so all in all the Spit is a formidable adversary, but some times I feel like I'm flying a Tempest rather than a spit...except the climb rate is truly exceptional and energy fighting is really good in it. Speed seems decent, but not as good as I first thought...I saw a P-38 leave the Mk IXe behind at about 2000 meters.

I really wish we had a Mk V with the C-wing now then I could have my turn fighter with an ammo load http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EPP-Gibbs
05-22-2004, 09:50 PM
This Magister_Ludi chap....sounds like another on these boards, Huckbein_FW. Are they the same? Very similar stance along the lines of ZE SPIFIRE IZ RUBBISH! ZE LUFWAFFE IZ ALVAYS ZUPERIOR!!! I HAVE ZE PROOF!!!

The sort of chap who will argue that white is black and black is white and promptly get knocked over at the next pedestrian crossing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"

crazyivan1970
05-22-2004, 11:20 PM
I think Gibbs is KGB agent http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VW-IceFire
05-22-2004, 11:34 PM
Wow...nice to read the report from a guy who actually flew the thing.

I'm having a blast flying the Spitfire and the differences between the Mark V and Mark IX are really subtle but noticeable and its nice to see.

I'm likely never going to be a pilot but its nice that this sim can get the respect of real pilots and those with sticktime behind the warbirds that were "flying". It bridges some of that gap between fiction and reality for me...its a neat experience!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

tazzers01
05-23-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What's up with Spitfire MK IX in AEP? Is these normal that you couldn't otturn G-2? Bf G-2 in AEP has equal turn rate and is much better in sicissors and rolling sicisors than SPit MK IX.
As i know Spitfire MK IX have ratio weight to wing area about 151 kg/m2 - worse than Spit MK V - 136 kg/m2. So Spit MK V should turn slighty better then MK IX. But still Spit MK IX have better ratio than BF's. For example BF G-2 - 179 kg/m2, G-6 - 182 kg/m2.
So we have undermodelled Spit MK IX in turn rate or overmodeled Bf's ( expecialy G-2) ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Turn rate depends on wing powerloading as it depends on wing loading, and G2 has better powerloading than Spit IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Powerloading:
G-2 - 0,47 hp/kg

Spit MK IX Merlin 61 - 0.46 hp/kg
Merlin 63 - 0.48 hp/kg
Merlin 70 - 0,50 hp/kg

Wing loading:

Spit MK IX - 151 kg/m2

G-2 - 179 kg/m2

There is no adventage G-2 in powerloading and is disadventage in weight- to- wing area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Comparing only wing loding and power loading oversimplifies the problem. This can lead to reasonably correct results if we compare planes with similar aerodynamics, like G-2 with K-4. However Spitfires and 109s were completely dissimilar. For this only a complete computation of turn rate can lead to correct results. This can be done, it is not that hard.

In such a computation instead of powerloading it is used the excess thrust divided by weight, and here Bf-109 stays much better than Spitfire - the airframe of Spitfire produced a lot more drag than Bf-109 - Spitfire was all the time the slower of the planes, when planes were tested at the same altitude with similar power.

Also wingloading does not take into consideration the fact that airfoil used by those planes were different. Spitfire used a much thinner airfoil which produced a lot less lift at the same AoA than 109's airfoil. This can be easily seen in stall speeds. Even though wing loading was better for Spitfire, stall speed for G-2 was 155km/h (96mph) whereas SpitIX has 93mph with old cockpit, and 98mph with new cockpit, which makes it actually worse than G-2 (I think we have the Spit IX with latter years cockpit, but I still did not install the patch).

Overall G-2 should turn better than Spit IX but the difference should not be much. F-4 should turn in 18-19 sec, G-4 in 19 sec, Spit V in 18 sec, Spit IX in 19-20 sec (with small variations for different Spit versions) -- all values at sea level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are 100% incorrect. The Spitfire's airframe with it's elliptical wing actually produced a lot less drag than the 109!!

Did you read Boscombe Downs report? I suggest you do as these are experts in the field of testing! The report says different from your post. If you have any test data to back up your theory?

I will post again:
Speeds
17.........The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

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

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

Turning circle
20.........The manoeuvrability of the Spitfire IX in this respect is greatly superior to that of the Me.109 and it easily out-turns the Me.109 in either direction at all speeds.

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hamish they do not have results to back anything up their theory is that if they shout loud enough and say it often enough then people will finally beleive the rather twisted and in many cases made up figures that they generally pluck out of thin air, add a few mathematical looking symbols, tell eveybody they are an aerodynamycist and expect you to go away feeling humbled.

Our squad is starting performance testing between the various types to see if the FB flight models match in any way the only real life data that anybody has seen; the Boscombe Down trials reports and if you want I will post the results as and when we get them.

Whatever the results don't get too bothered by the Luftwhiners they do not know any more than you do. They just complain incessantly and they have very vivid imaginations.

Phil

Kurfurst__
05-23-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the cables stretching :\
iirec that was a problem they fixed, cos at highspeed the alirons could pop up and flutter, but u locked in dive or sumin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
that would explain the best rate at low speed, your pulling the wire, it gets longer but doesnt move aliron much
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cable strech can be one reason, though I don`t think it`s important on small craft according to the NACA, it was more a problem on bombers.

The roll rate problem on the Spit was caused by three reasons,

1, Balloning of early fabric covered ailerons at high speeds, which greatly reduced aileron effectiveness, ie. the rate of roll developed at give aileron deflection. This was indeed fixed with the MkVs and later, which received metal covered ailerons, which of course didn`t bulge. I think the design of the fabric ailerons was bad in the first place, since there were planes with similiar fabric covered ailerons that could develop stellar roll rates...

2 and 3, Excessive aileron forces at high speeds, coupled with the fact that the narrow canopy, and the high mounted grip didn`t allow the pilot to excert full sideways force, only 40 lbs. At the same time, at even lower speeds such as 130mph already 30lbs was rquired to fully deflect the ailerons.. at high speed such as 400mph, even partial deflection would require immense forces, 60-70 lbs! This indeed was problem that never got fixed, it was simply designed this way. High stick forces is especially a problematic factor, since it will take more time to deflect the ailerons fully when you have to use all your strenght, which will cause delays in achieving peak roll rates the plane would be capable of! In other words, the _practical_ roll rates, ie. 45-90 degrees roll you use in DFs are reduced much more than you would believe from the peak roll rates..

A partial fix was to clip the wings, as reducing wingspan always improves the roll rate, but it was found to only help significantly that have below avarage set of ailerons, the good ones did not improve much. Pilots didn`t like it, as the gains were outweighted by the disadvantages, which effected the Spit`s traditional good points (handling, turning, climb rate), and still wouldn`t make them competitive with the 190s in rolls. It was suggested not to clip the wings in reports after trials.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Nub_322Sqn
05-23-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
This Magister_Ludi chap....sounds like another on these boards, Huckbein_FW. Are they the same? Very similar stance along the lines of ZE SPIFIRE IZ RUBBISH! ZE LUFWAFFE IZ ALVAYS ZUPERIOR!!! I HAVE ZE PROOF!!!

The sort of chap who will argue that white is black and black is white and promptly get knocked over at the next pedestrian crossing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it's the same guy.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

KaRaYa-X
05-23-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
Very similar stance along the lines of ZE SPIFIRE IZ RUBBISH! ZE LUFWAFFE IZ ALVAYS ZUPERIOR!!! I HAVE ZE PROOF!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you serious!? First of all Huck and Isegrim aren't german-speakers so your racist comment didn't hit them at all I guess. Other than that you've just managed to insult every german-speaker on this board. Nice going *******!

I beg you mods, please do NOT let this idiot get away with this. He did not only hijack this thread with his bull**** comments and lack of knowledge but he also insults people without any reason. His racist comment towards german-speaking people is especially to be considered.

Please Ivan... ban this guy

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

[This message was edited by KaRaYa-X on Sun May 23 2004 at 01:00 PM.]

tazzers01
05-23-2004, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
Very similar stance along the lines of ZE SPIFIRE IZ RUBBISH! ZE LUFWAFFE IZ ALVAYS ZUPERIOR!!! I HAVE ZE PROOF!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you serious!? First of all Huck and Isegrim aren't german-speakers so your racist comment didn't hit them at all I guess. Other than that you've just managed to insult every german-speaker on this board. Nice going *******!

I beg you mods, please do NOT let this idiot get away with this. He did not only hijack this thread with his bull**** comments and lack of knowledge but he also insults people without any reason. His racist comment towards german-speaking people is especially to be considered.

BAN HIM! NOW!
Please Ivan... let justice prevail

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick Mr Police man the bad man has an opinion. You must destroy him before others have an opinion also. Ban him. Ban him! BAN HIM! And his dog, his mom, his offspring and his gran. How dare he have an opinion its just soooooooo unfair!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
05-23-2004, 12:53 PM
i thought it was funny myself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
its obviously a funny
i wouldnt be offended by it.
and cable stretchin is a problem for any size craft.
doubt u would be happy if i replaced the wires on your car with elastic bands http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

its the degree of stretch, thats the main thing

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

609IAP_Recon
05-23-2004, 01:00 PM
let me ask this:

what good are all the turn charts when someone can use trim sliders and full flaps?

Do you use the full trim when measuring the turnrate - if not, you should, because you can practically turn an aircraft on a dime with full trim and combat flaps.

I know there are sources about this, but I still doubt they used it like we do. (fyi - I did bring this up in beta testing).

also - as far as spit9 overheat in desert: try using manual prop pitch

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

KaRaYa-X
05-23-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tazzers01:
Quick Mr Police man the bad man has an opinion. You must destroy him before others have an opinion also. Ban him. Ban him! BAN HIM! And his dog, his mom, his offspring and his gran. How dare he have an opinion its just soooooooo unfair!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
The General Discussion forum has become very ill.

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Nub_322Sqn
05-23-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tazzers01:
Quick Mr Police man the bad man has an opinion. You must destroy him before others have an opinion also. Ban him. Ban him! BAN HIM! And his dog, his mom, his offspring and his gran. How dare he have an opinion its just soooooooo unfair!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
The General Discussion forum has become very ill.

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't tell me you failed to see the sarcasm in that post?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

KaRaYa-X
05-23-2004, 02:07 PM
I guess that if he had said something similar concerning US citizens we would already have 2 more pages filled with people commenting how sick and how unamerican that is...

But oh well, as long as it's only those Germans. Who cares... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif (Sarcasm off)

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

KaRaYa-X
05-23-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-ONub_322Sqn:
Don't tell me you failed to see the sarcasm in that post?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every joke has its limit and I feel he has went past that. If you feel that it was ok, than that's your opinion; others however might not find it as funny as you do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Some of you might think I'm overreacting but I'll have to say that I've seen too much of this happen lately. So my sense of humour for such things is pretty non-existant right now. Anyway I don't feel like having to justify myself...

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

Nub_322Sqn
05-23-2004, 02:16 PM
All people who get so tight when their country is made fun of a bit and then fly off the handle need to get their heads checked.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
05-23-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-ONub_322Sqn:
Don't tell me you failed to see the sarcasm in that post?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every joke has its limit and I feel he has went past that. If you feel that it was ok, than that's your opinion; others however might not find it as funny as you do http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you ask me you're way too sensetive.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

p1ngu666
05-23-2004, 02:17 PM
sarcasm is unamerican isnt it?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

im reading a bill hicks book atm, and that is funny http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

KaRaYa-X
05-23-2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-ONub_322Sqn:
All people who get so tight when their country is made fun of a bit and then fly off the handle need to get their heads checked.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read what I wrote right above your post. Oh and I do not see myself as patriotic at all. I've just seen enough of this...

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

EPP-Gibbs
05-23-2004, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
Very similar stance along the lines of ZE SPIFIRE IZ RUBBISH! ZE LUFWAFFE IZ ALVAYS ZUPERIOR!!! I HAVE ZE PROOF!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you serious!? First of all Huck and Isegrim aren't german-speakers so your racist comment didn't hit them at all I guess. Other than that you've just managed to insult every german-speaker on this board. Nice going *******!

I beg you mods, please do NOT let this idiot get away with this. He did not only hijack this thread with his bull**** comments and lack of knowledge but he also insults people without any reason. His racist comment towards german-speaking people is especially to be considered.

Please Ivan... ban this guy

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--

[This message was edited by KaRaYa-X on Sun May 23 2004 at 01:00 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, well, well. Do we have sense of humour failure here?

(1) I did not mention Germans, race, or anything, you did. My post was a question and a parody on this chap's style of posting. A parody, that's it. I'm parodying the chap's heavy pro-LW stance. It's there..it's real. Why can it not be joked about.

As far as being offensive goes, you're the one flinging insults, and this chap does too on occasion.

From your reaction I'd guess you were perhaps of Germanic origin, though the ones I know would have laughed...oh yes, and they yell "Achtung Schpitfuer!!" in overdone German accents on teamspeak when are flying together, for fun.

Perhaps you are living up to the German stereotype regarding sense of humour?

As I'm still here, I suspect the moderators might be agreeing with me on this.

OMIGOD!! My Sig! Will it get me banned because it shows me acting aggressively towards a German? Ohh dear! I hadn't thought of that angle....mind you according to Huckbein, what I depict will be proved to be physically impossible, so I might just get away with it!!

Some of you guys are sooooooo serious.

Lighten up, mate.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.djurovich/Sig4.jpg
"If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!"

[This message was edited by EPP-Gibbs on Sun May 23 2004 at 01:30 PM.]

Nub_322Sqn
05-23-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-ONub_322Sqn:
All people who get so tight when their country is made fun of a bit and then fly off the handle need to get their heads checked.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read what I wrote right above your post. Oh and I do not see myself as patriotic at all. I've just seen enough of this...

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post wasn't directed to you in particular.
When I address a post to someone I always quote them.

Like I said, you're way to sensetive.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
05-23-2004, 02:28 PM
Shutup and talk about the airplanes - idiots.

Spitf_ACE
05-24-2004, 12:44 PM
I like the new spits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

but I'd prefer it if they made them out of metal in 3 dimensions then shipped them to our homes so we can fly about in them for real. (as long as they got the FM right)

Maybe that's asking too much from a FREE patch!?

tazzers01
05-24-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tazzers01:
Quick Mr Police man the bad man has an opinion. You must destroy him before others have an opinion also. Ban him. Ban him! BAN HIM! And his dog, his mom, his offspring and his gran. How dare he have an opinion its just soooooooo unfair!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
The General Discussion forum has become very ill.

--= flying online as JG=52Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure. Been feeling a bit queezy of late whaddya think it is? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif