PDA

View Full Version : Spits are outclimbing my bf109!!



Afromike1
05-14-2009, 08:37 AM
I always know that the golden rule to fight in a bf109 is to fight vertically. Well lately, ive been doing this but with no effect. Whenever I fight a spit, his energy always outlasts mine. Ive tried many different ways to conserve my energy. If I dont pull my joystick hard enough then the spit catches up and gets on my tail quicker. But when I pull hard on my stick, I loose insane ammount of energy. I feel like I have to pull hard on the stick because the spit can regain its advantage so easily.

I was flying in a bf109 g-2 and somehow this spit fought vertically with me and won, even though we started with the same E. I only started to realise that I was loosing when after the 2nd loop the spit was still doing well and I could barely fly past 100ms.

Any suggestions?

raaaid
05-14-2009, 08:40 AM
so whats new spit25lbs is best propeller climber

as zeroes, e fighting is not necessary verticval

if you want to insist on flying 109 fight with scissors, theres unbeatable

edit:

i reread your post:

you are turning with a superior turner foe and you say my plane climbs faster there fore it turns faster in the vertical

well this is false

if you have a superior climber like 109 german tactic WAS NOT turning in the vertical but:

make foe co energy let enemy on your six and go straight climbing till a superior state energy when you boom and zoom the enemy repeating the same process as long as necesary

but again spit 25 lbs is best climber so if you want to use this tactic, one of my fauvourite take this plane

stalkervision
05-14-2009, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Afromike1:
I always know that the golden rule to fight in a bf109 is to fight vertically. Well lately, ive been doing this but with no effect. Whenever I fight a spit, his energy always outlasts mine. Ive tried many different ways to conserve my energy. If I dont pull my joystick hard enough then the spit catches up and gets on my tail quicker. But when I pull hard on my stick, I loose insane ammount of energy. I feel like I have to pull hard on the stick because the spit can regain its advantage so easily.

I was flying in a bf109 g-2 and somehow this spit fought vertically with me and won, even though we started with the same E. I only started to realise that I was loosing when after the 2nd loop the spit was still doing well and I could barely fly past 100ms.

Any suggestions?

You said "energy levels were equal" that's not enough. One has to beat down a spits e to about zero and then climb. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here's something to cheer you up.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9413/shot487.jpg

stalkervision
05-14-2009, 09:05 AM
of course then you look at this..

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

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

TinyTim
05-14-2009, 09:25 AM
Which version of Spit? Spit IX is undoubtedly one of the best energy dogfighters in the sim, very hard to beat in any kind of dogfight, be it angles or energy (asuming initial energy was equal). I haven't flown against it in a G2 in a long time, but G2 may have a slight edge in the extreme slow speed turning (slats) or in a rolling scissors.

If that fails - I'd dive and ruuun my @ss off.

Kettenhunde
05-14-2009, 10:15 AM
of course then you look at this..

That the article Mike Williams wrote as part of a ****ing contest with Kurfurst.

The Bf-109's are being compared at "Steig und Kampfleistung" or their 30 minute climb rating while the Spitfires are all at their 5 minute emergency power rating.

Kind of silly isn't it?

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
05-14-2009, 01:58 PM
SPitfires and Bf109's are extremely similar aircraft, both light, fast and great climbers with heavy firepower.

Dont be sure about the Bf109 outclimbing the Spit, it all depends on the various marks.

Mk1 and 109E were very similar.

Mk II was a shade better than the 109E

MkV was better than the 109E

109F4 was better than the SpitV

109G2 was better than the SpitV

SPit IX was better than the 109G6

109G10 and SPit IX were evenish

SPit XIV was better than the 109K4



Of course these are subject to debate and opinion, but its pretty much correct IMHO. And in every comparison case there is not much separating the 2 aircraft.

Xiolablu3
05-14-2009, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">of course then you look at this..

That the article Mike Williams wrote as part of a ****ing contest with Kurfurst.

The Bf-109's are being compared at "Steig und Kampfleistung" or their 30 minute climb rating while the Spitfires are all at their 5 minute emergency power rating.

Kind of silly isn't it?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read the article, its because emergency power was blocked and not to be used, as shown by many Luftwaffe orders. Didnt Marseilles die when his 109G engine caught fire? Heinz Knocke talks about the same thing happening in 'I flew for the fuhrer'.

I dont know when this order was cancelled.

DKoor
05-14-2009, 02:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/8841057266/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8841057266/p/1)

And no, do not try to use combat climb vs Spitfire. Unless you have a n advantage. Otherwise he will probably have a solution on you.

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

VW-IceFire
05-14-2009, 04:05 PM
Question: Why get into that sort of battle with any plane...the 109G-2 in particular is such a finely balanced plane it can fly fast, climb fast, has good firepower that is easy to put on target, even the visibility from the cockpit is pretty good.

But the Spitfire IX is an excellent fighter as well and almost as nicely balanced.

Stay high, stay fast, zoom in and engage at your leisure and maintain your advantage. As soon as it equalizes then you've made the battle a 50/50.

thefruitbat
05-14-2009, 04:13 PM
quote:

'we started the fight with the same e'

why did u start? thats your error.

stalkervision
05-14-2009, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">of course then you look at this..

That the article Mike Williams wrote as part of a ****ing contest with Kurfurst.

The Bf-109's are being compared at "Steig und Kampfleistung" or their 30 minute climb rating while the Spitfires are all at their 5 minute emergency power rating.

Kind of silly isn't it?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wondered why something smelled fishy in Denmark here.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks for telling me this Crump. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Oh what a rotten trick to conceive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

stalkervision
05-14-2009, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">of course then you look at this..

That the article Mike Williams wrote as part of a ****ing contest with Kurfurst.

The Bf-109's are being compared at "Steig und Kampfleistung" or their 30 minute climb rating while the Spitfires are all at their 5 minute emergency power rating.

Kind of silly isn't it?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read the article, its because emergency power was blocked and not to be used, as shown by many Luftwaffe orders. Didnt Marseilles die when his 109G engine caught fire? Heinz Knocke talks about the same thing happening in 'I flew for the fuhrer'.

I dont know when this order was cancelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


wow very very interesting info Xiolablu3. Now I'm confused. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
05-14-2009, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you read the article, its because emergency power was blocked and not to be used, as shown by many Luftwaffe orders. Didnt Marseilles die when his 109G engine caught fire? Heinz Knocke talks about the same thing happening in 'I flew for the fuhrer'.

Indeed the Emergency Power (notleistung) was initially blocked.

I see three kind of problems leading to the article`s lack of objectivity:

1, The selection of flight performance data sets are selective.

The best ones are selected for the Spits, like BS 543 (which was noted in subsequent reports having a bit better performance it should have, at least at most altitudes, due to richer mixture setting. Its plainly visible in the drop of climb rate at altitude, but Mike cut that region off his graphs), the worser ones, like JL 165, the Aussie Mk VIII test (forgot serial), Rechlin's test of the Mk IXF, Soviet trials of IXLF etc. are omitted.

For the 109s, the case is the opposite. Only the worst performance data, some with faulty aircraft/engine (ie. WNr 14 026) or figures achieved with tropical equipment and/or gondolas are shown. The better performance data, be it from Rechlin, the Soviet TsAGI, or the Finnish trials and even the mass test with 13 Bf 109Gs at ERLA factory are all omitted.

It is normal that production planes have lower and higher performance than the nominal figures, but to show only the better figures for one side, and only the worser figures for the other is simply dishonest. By the same token its easy to 'prove' that the 109G was 50 km/h faster than the contemporary Spitfire, even at 30 min rating.

2, The second problem is that the comparison is largely anachronistic.

The high altitude Mk IXHF with the Merlin 70 appeared in March 1944; that it see Squadron service in 1943 is a simply lie from Mike, there were IIRC three or four pre-production models produced in that year, and one of them was handed over to a couple of Squadrons one after the other, probably as some kind of trial or familiarization. Yet it is compared to Bf 109G-2 from mid-42, G-6 from early 1943, which were produced at thousands, at boost limitations which were lifted some six months before the HF IX saw service..

The comparison with the Mk IXLF (Merlin 66) is also somewhat odd at the reduced boost, though not so much as in the case of the HF IX. Thing is that the IXLF production was very limited in the first half of 1943 (less than 80 produced in six months, and less than that saw action, against 1000+ 109Gs in service), when the Notleistung for the DB 605A was still banned; it begun to arrive in numbers when the higher rating was just cleared, and was not particularly numerous in operational service until 1944.

In truth, the contempory Spitfire to the 109G-2 till the G-6 was the Mk V (and the Mk LF V) , at +16(+18) boost, but for some reason, Mike is not very keen to make comparison with that version vs the contemporary 109F/G.

There are many other small glitches, but I won't bother with all them - for example, the 30 109Gs Mike claims at the Channel was in reality around 60 (mostly high altitude, pressurized G-1s); the Western Front was largely held (in 1942) by 190s, the other Theatres by 109s, and it was the Med and Russia where the 109Gs went; the Mk IXs were found in Britain only for a considerable time; which is why it is odd why the 109G-1`s performance with GM-1 nitro boost (which added 300 extra HP at altitude, and with ti the plane actually having more power at altitude than a late-war K-4 or Mk XIV.. in other words, it was very *hot* for a boost that cold) is not shown, or even mentioned anywhere.

Its the same tricks in the other two articles; picking the worst/best tests, showing figures for the highest/lowest boosts etc.


I don't know when this order was cancelled.

In September/October 1943. See:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine...g_September1943.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605A_GLmeeting_September1943.html)
and
http://www.kurfurst.org/#engines (for the various 109G manuals from autumn 43 showing the rating cleared)

Kettenhunde
05-14-2009, 09:08 PM
If you read the article, its because emergency power was blocked and not to be used, as

All engines are developed over their design lifecycle including the Merlin.



The comparison with the Mk IXLF (Merlin 66) is also somewhat odd at the reduced boost

You mean the Merlin 66 (+18)? That is the highest boost the engine was cleared for during the war without the use of special fuels, AFAIK.

That is representative of the vast majority of RAF Spitfires in service with the RAF in 1944 and 1945.

That is a 5 minute rating which means if we remove the “should have would could have” fantasy element and go with what a trained pilot would do, he would be restricted to maximum continuous rating of (+7) after using Emergency power.

That is what the POH says is the way to get maximum performance out of the aircraft and not have it crash or quit on you.

Just like any other engine, running it on Emergency power meant it had to be inspected, required maintenance performed, and the engine returned to service by the authorized maintenance personnel.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-14-2009, 09:54 PM
If you read the article, its because emergency power was blocked and not to be used, as shown by many Luftwaffe orders.


Bf109 G-4/R3, G-6/R3 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Februar 1944

Take-off and emergency power: may not be used, is blocked. Start- und Notleistung: Darf nicht benutzt werden, ist blockiert.

A false impression is created that the aircraft was never cleared.

In fact, like most manufacturers the engine was cleared and older serial numbers were not. These engines were brought up to standard during their first overhaul.


The pistons of older engines (before above-mentioned works numbers) will be replaced by reinforced pistons during the first partial overhaul.


http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine...142ban_June1942.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclearances/DB605_142ban_June1942.html)

That is typical aviation practices that are still in use today.

Things like the article mentions wing breakages in Bf-109 but does not mention the fatal accidents involving the Spitfire breaking apart in high speed flight.

We do know that the Spitfires were all flown with sealed gun ports while the Bf-109's were flown without such nuances. These things make a considerable difference in both the performance and handling of the aircraft.

This is by far not a comprehensive list nor do I care to create one.

You as the reader are free to weigh the merits on your own judgement.

All the best,

Crumpp

uppurrz
05-14-2009, 10:13 PM
Kurfurst do you have Spitfire tests that are not so selective or are the ones Mike Williams used the only ones available?

Are you calling Alfred Price a liar as well?

Bf 109 in Luftflotte 3 as of 17 May 43.

10. (Jabo)/JG 2 13 8 (serviceable)
11. /JG 2 14 9
12./JG 2 15 12
total 42 29

http://www.geocities.com/CapeC...2/LWJul42.html#May43 (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWJul42.html#May43)


Its the same tricks in the other two articles; picking the worst/best tests, showing figures for the highest/lowest boosts etc.

How can it be as you say when this stated:

The charts below reflect performance representative of the mid war period <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">1942-43</span>.

Can you give us the monthly production numbers of the 80 109G-1/R2s produced and what was there intended use.

ImpStarDuece
05-14-2009, 10:22 PM
Anyone got a popcorn smiley?

M_Gunz
05-14-2009, 11:05 PM
It's cherries vs lemons time again now that the mod-community is in action!

Kettenhunde
05-15-2009, 12:01 AM
How can it be as you say when this stated:

The charts below reflect performance representative of the mid war period 1942-43.

I completely don't follow your logic here.

It seems to be circular in that the article states it is representative therefore it is representative.

Uppurrzz, if you are satisfied with it and it concludes the things you want it too, isn't that enough?

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-15-2009, 12:07 AM
Anyone got a popcorn smiley?

This board needs one, In fact, it could use the entire snack counter smiley.

M_Gunz
05-15-2009, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How can it be as you say when this stated:

The charts below reflect performance representative of the mid war period 1942-43.

I completely don't follow your logic here.

It seems to be circular in that the article states it is representative therefore it is representative.

Uppurrzz, if you are satisfied with it and it concludes the things you want it too, isn't that enough?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! We all need to believe that chart is the single complete truth as well! THEN it will be enough.