PDA

View Full Version : FW 190 D9 vs Spit 25lbs on Full Real



jayhall0315
04-22-2009, 01:57 PM
I would like some advice from some of you full real and closed pit guys. Over the last several months I have become decent with the FW 190 in full real environments with one exception, nimble planes that are both very fast and out turn me.

As an example, last night I was fighting a guy in a Spit 25lbs with my FW 190 D9. I happened to run into him with about 400m of alt advantage, so I made a quick dive, he saw me and started to sharply turn. I got a few shots on his tail but not enough to put him out of action. Then he started to come about while I continued straight and pulled higher into almost a stall turn. I then semi-hammerheaded onto him again and got another light blast on his wing, but again, not enough to hurt him badly and by this time we were approaching co-E and he was now coming about. At this point I decided to push down into a slight dive and extend away. I would have liked to stay in the fight,but with his turning ability and my lack of mirrors, I was afraid of losing him in my rear blind spot.

The problem is, with the FW 190s which have no mirrors, once you become co-E with a tight turner who has almost equal speed, you need to egress because you can no longer see the bandit (unless team-mates are helping you). Any experienced closed pit FW aces want to chime in ?

arthursmedley
04-22-2009, 02:10 PM
I am in no way any sort of 'ace' but I do like the Dora.
I think you did the right thing ie; attacking with height in hand and knowing when to call it a day and run. O.k you got some hits on him but not enough for an instant kill?

Well never mind, better luck next time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
and there's often the possibility of him not making it home now. You might have holed his tank?

You got trackir yet Jay?

jayhall0315
04-22-2009, 02:14 PM
No, I am still using a custom script I got from Chris085 on these forums that works with my CH Fighterstick (I have also used the mini-joystick on the CH Pro Throttle in the past as well). But I keep 'mentioning' to my fiance what a nice birthday present it would make and she keeps replying what a nerd I am, LOL

I must say too, it amazes that the Germans built this beautiful cockpit on the FW 190 with electromechanical controls and simple layout and somehow got the canopy glass all wrong. You would have thought, that by about 1942 or so, they would have said, "Hot damn boys we got ourselves a premier fighting machine, now lets add a low drag bubble canopy to it with a mirror and presto !... instant ace machine."

I guess they ended up hiring some of the guys who got fired from General Motors for making the manual landing gear on the Wildcat. LOOOOOOOOOL

Stiletto-
04-22-2009, 02:41 PM
Jay do you have a TrackIR? Sound's like you don't or are not used to the closed pit servers.

I would advise just taking some time flying on these servers until you get used to tracking bandits well inside the cockpit. I think most veterans on this server are not so dependent on mirrors.

The first thing I say when engaging a Spitfire on a full click server is definately not "man I wish I had his mirror". Tracking an enemy that is engaged with you shouldn't be so hard whatever cockpit you are flying in.

A little kick of the rudder can help with that 6 o'clock visibility and don't forget to dip your wings looking for bandits below you. Also, never fly in a straight line too long, I usually climb to gain altitude in a big circle looking out everywhere. If you are flying parallel to the front line, it make's it harder for enemies to figure out who you are than a hungry bandit coming straight into enemy lines. Sometimes you have to disguise your intents.

Urufu_Shinjiro
04-22-2009, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315: But I keep 'mentioning' to my fiance what a nice birthday present it would make and she keeps replying what a nerd I am, LOL


Get her one of these:

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/Urufu_Shinjiro/i-love-nerds.jpg

arthursmedley
04-22-2009, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I keep 'mentioning' to my fiance what a nice birthday present it would make and she keeps replying what a nerd I am, LOL

Go see her Dad. Make it part of her dowry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Its worth it!

The canopy on the 190? I like it. Lots of good views behind. Now add trackir with the 6dof mod and mmmm..........

Woke_Up_Dead
04-22-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm by no means a Dora expert, particularly not in closed pit, but I will throw in my $0.02 anyway. Diving away is probably the best idea, but if you want to try the second best thing then get into a scissors fight with him. If you scissor in a shallow dive then you should have no trouble seeing him over your shoulder against the sky behind you; I can do this in closed-pit using a hat-switch configured to act like a mouse. The Spitfire is slow and predictable in rolls, so even as he passes through your blind spot you can anticipate where he will go, and if he suddenly disappears then you can be fairly certain that he pulled up, probably your cue to dive. I can usually force them in front of me even when I'm flying something that does not roll and scissor as well as a 190. My problem is lining up the shot the first time he passes in front of me; he will usually pass too high or too low in front of my nose, and then he will sometimes smarten up and disengage from the scissors.

I don't think mirrors would help you in a dogfight anyway, when I have them I only use them to check my long six; once the bandit is on my tail I have to look over my shoulder.

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
... I was afraid of losing him in my rear blind spot.
I vaguely remember reading this from a WW2 vet pilots advice to a rookie.
"... and remember, that guy in the other plane is just as scared as you"

This ntrk V4.08 - 1.8MB (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/SomeHLServer.zip) is a bit old, but it might help you with a few ideas.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

na85
04-22-2009, 02:58 PM
In any FW190, as soon as the other guy achieves energy parity with you, you should immediately begin looking for a way to disengage (even if you're just going to climb out beyond his visible range and come back in from above).

If you do find yourself with a spit above you, you can escape by performing a series of split-S maneuvers or corkscrewing downward. The 190 has better high-speed maneuverability, so you should be able to get away from him that way.

Manu-6S
04-22-2009, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I would like some advice from some of you full real and closed pit guys. Over the last several months I have become decent with the FW 190 in full real environments with one exception, nimble planes that are both very fast and out turn me.

As an example, last night I was fighting a guy in a Spit 25lbs with my FW 190 D9. I happened to run into him with about 400m of alt advantage, so I made a quick dive, he saw me and started to sharply turn. I got a few shots on his tail but not enough to put him out of action. Then he started to come about while I continued straight and pulled higher into almost a stall turn. I then semi-hammerheaded onto him again and got another light blast on his wing, but again, not enough to hurt him badly and by this time we were approaching co-E and he was now coming about. At this point I decided to push down into a slight dive and extend away. I would have liked to stay in the fight,but with his turning ability and my lack of mirrors, I was afraid of losing him in my rear blind spot.

The problem is, with the FW 190s which have no mirrors, once you become co-E with a tight turner who has almost equal speed, you need to egress because you can no longer see the bandit (unless team-mates are helping you). Any experienced closed pit FW aces want to chime in ?

You can't beat a SpitIX25lbs on 1v1 with pilots of the same skill (if not by an good ambush).

The good 190 pilots always go in pairs. Even if you are not in a TS with a friend pilot you can always count in the collaboration of Axis pilots in every closed pit server.

Axis pilots need to learn work as a team if they want to survive against late Allied planes.

Stay with your teammates and don't go alone if you have not a good SA. Usually blue pilots use tactics as Drag and Bag by reflex.

Infact this is the problem I have when I fly Allied in '43/'44: in every plane not named Spitfire (or P47 at 10km) you have to play with your teammates to survive (P51? P38?) but many still don't follow real tactics.

You don't know how many times I've been killed flying a P51 because I usually try to give an hand to one of my teammates but after they are safe they leave me alone in danger...

If you have to extend do it versus your base... I've seen lots of SpitIX25lbs pilot following 190s over their own blue airbase: if he's not seen by one of your teammates he'll be downed by the flak...

Xiolablu3
04-22-2009, 04:26 PM
Sounds like you are already using reallife Luftwaffe tactics.

Those guys knew the strengths of their machines and the strengths of their enemies too.

I have seen on RAF battle reports post-battle of Britain, that the RAF pilots are always quick to mention the rare times that the Luftwaffe pilots stuck around to dogfight.

'For once the Germans were keen to mix-it' is one comment I see quite a lot. The Germans knew not to engage in a turning battle with a better turning enemy except in rare circumstances, which is why the RAF pilots often comment that usually the Germans would not stay around to dogfight.

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 04:46 PM
'For once the Germans were keen to mix-it'
Is from the DF that the LW new that they had superior numbers in depth ('another 12 or so FW's joined the fight').. which makes sense.
But even with this the spits did fairly well against superior numbers...

As one can see, there's not that many reports of 1-vs-1, and in this situation, as usual, no matter how good the pilots are.. it's your 'imagination/original tactical thinking' that will make you win.

There are some 1-vs-1 reports available, and here you see the 'better pilots' in action.
Naturally with more than 1, tactics change 'on the fly'

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

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
..which is why the RAF pilots often comment that usually the Germans would not stay around to dogfight.
I think this was more due to Big Picture tactical doctrine than waste time/fuel/personel with low value targets, In which the Germans were absolutely correct, but the numbers were against them.

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 05:16 PM
Points to ponder...
1) The FW has 'almost' lousy forward view, but you can use the side windows (via rudder) to line up.
2) The FW has EXCELLENT rear view (like the P-51D, and Yak3..etc) and this is it's strength, although the anti-FW lobby would ridicule this.

How many times I have taken control of a DF with a target on my six... about 90% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The FW roll rate and rear view, gives you unsurpassed tactical advantage over any attacker, that even a Yak3 would envy.

The rest is your imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
NB: The FW is excellent in Low-n-Slow flight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

K_Freddie
04-22-2009, 05:28 PM
Almost forgot... (sorry I'm a ChatterBox tonight)

With FullPit, the best FW tactic is to do rolls of around 135 degrees and pull elevators hard for 1 second, then do the next roll and pull.

About 1 second timing is about the best (a yak3 is about 0.75 secs) as it make the attackers stick/rudder coordination difficult to keep a bead on you. It also slows you down drastically, starting an overshoot.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

julian265
04-22-2009, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I would like some advice from some of you full real and closed pit guys. Over the last several months I have become decent with the FW 190 in full real environments with one exception, nimble planes that are both very fast and out turn me.

If the spit was pulling hard turns, and you attack with angle advantage, you can *gently* zoom after each attack without losing your energy advantage.

It's the spits that don't pull many hard turns that you have to worry about, they'll get co-E quite quickly.

IIRC the spit has good speed below 2-3km, and the dora holds the advantage above that... Try to keep things at an altitude which allows you to run away if you need to.

Ba5tard5word
04-22-2009, 10:09 PM
I don't play online but isn't the Fw-190D way faster than any Spit? Maybe use that...

na85
04-22-2009, 10:16 PM
My version of il2compare doesn't list the spit25... neither does Hardball's

HayateAce
04-22-2009, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:

How many times I have taken control of a DF with a target on my six... about 90% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The FW roll rate and rear view, gives you unsurpassed tactical advantage over any attacker, that even a Yak3 would envy.



I would give those opponents about a 3 out of 10 on the skill-scale.

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

X32Wright
04-22-2009, 11:12 PM
Hmm you shold have done vertical rolling scissors and exploit the roll rate of the Dora since the spitfire when using ailerons slows down enormously plus the spit25lb is very bad above 5.5k meters.

na85
04-22-2009, 11:30 PM
I would think that if you're trying to capitalize on a roll rate advantage, a flat scissors would work better than the rolling variety, would it not?

The rolling scissors, AFAIK, is more of a contest of sustained climb performance, which the 190 lacks.

TS_Sancho
04-22-2009, 11:40 PM
Hey Jayhall, part of the trick is roll rate and elevator authority at high speed. While it cant compete with spit25 in sustained turn under 450 kph it can change direction a lot faster than the spit25. Dora fights best at 6000 meters give or take and likes to fly fast. Dora conserves E as well as P51 so if your speed is down to 400 kph or so drop the nose a bit and extend. In combat advance your throttle to the point your boost gage stops climbing(around 103 %) then close cowl flaps.Reserve wep for emegencies and high alt(8000+). Spit25 rate of climb gets neutered at high speed so as long as you stay fast you keep the advantage. Get used to blind deflection shots as your using the roll rate and energy state to yo-yo over the top of a tighter turning opponent to pull enough lead to hit. Dora has a generous ammo loadout as well so when in doubt shoot.
If pure defensive remember roll and elevator are key. Push over to get out of enemy line of sight then roll 120 degrees or so, pull hard elevator on your lift vector then reverse the manuever. If timed well you will be on high six of your opponent.
Hope this helps

julian265
04-22-2009, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by na85:
My version of il2compare doesn't list the spit25... neither does Hardball's

Mine does (normal 4.07 version)

"SpitfireLF-IX-25"

Now that I'm on the computer with IL2C on it, I can see the dora holds the speed advantage at any height. The margin is enough to use without overheating at all altitudes also.

na85
04-22-2009, 11:59 PM
Bizarre... mine doesn't list the SpitIX25 at all.

Best I have are IXe's and c's

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 12:55 AM
Superior agility can defeat superior sustain level turn ability using geometry and physics in the real world.

1. When the superior turning aircraft attempts to exploit this advantage, use agility to roll 360 degrees in the opposite direction stopping in the turning plane. The angular distance is decreased and rate will defeat radius.

2. Roll the vector of lift and angle the vector of thrust below the horizon so that weight adds to lift and thrust. In this manner the aircraft can sustain a better turn ability over a short term. Pull the nose well ahead and use agility to roll and zoom to gun solution.

Both methods work in real life and I have been told work in your game.

All the best,

Crumpp

na85
04-23-2009, 12:59 AM
Can you elaborate on #1?

I feel like rolling 360 degrees would accomplish nothing.

jayhall0315
04-23-2009, 03:00 AM
Yeah Kettenhunde - Roll 360 degrees ? That would just be rolling in a circle ? Or rolling around to where you were originally pointed ? That does not make sense either.

Maybe a little clarification

Thanks

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 03:06 AM
I feel like rolling 360 degrees would accomplish nothing.


Just rolling in and of itself will not accomplish anything.

In this case you perform what is termed a "displacement roll". The attacker is displacing the defender to a another location in order to over come an inferior rate of angular change with geometry.

http://www.tpub.com/content/av...-1222/P-12220028.htm (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220028.htm)

Page 69, middle of the page:

http://books.google.com/books?...lt&resnum=6#PPA69,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=hBxBdKr0beYC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Air+combat+rolling+in+the+opposite+direction+of +a+targets+turn&source=bl&ots=9qbj1MkJNh&sig=X8TLS6qGpPT-Y4a4C7DzXCgG9bM&hl=en&ei=6THwSZmIMMSgjAei0s3ODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA69,M1)

Your opponent is turning and he has a superior rate of angular change. Since you cannot match that rate of angular change, you need to increase the amount of distance that rate moves the nose of your aircraft in relation to the target.

What do I mean by that? Think of it like this. One degree at 1 meter distance is ~inch but 1 degree at 1000meters is 25 feet. By rolling to the outside of the turning plane, we increase the distance we are following so that our same rate of angular change now covers more distance. Our aircraft nose can now pull lead on a target with greater rate of angular change.

The other benefit of rolling to the outside of the turning circle is the offset of our plane of geometry so that we can fly a larger radius to end up at the same spot of gun solution.

All the best,

Crumpp

julian265
04-23-2009, 03:32 AM
So you're suggesting the 190 pilot:

Firstly stays further back from the tail of the spit, because the angle and turn rate required for lead is reduced? ie "set up your shot whilst at a longer range".

Secondly, don't follow the spit's turn, roll over and pull downward, to cut across the spit's turn path?

Edit - ah, links. AKA High/low yo-yo.

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 04:33 AM
Firstly stays further back from the tail of the spit, because the angle and turn rate required for lead is reduced? ie "set up your shot whilst at a longer range".


Not so far away that you cannot accurately shoot but remember the close you get, the more his angular rate advantage is amplified.


Secondly, don't follow the spit's turn, roll over and pull downward, to cut across the spit's turn path?


Co-energy, use a displacement roll to offset geometry.

Energy advantage, use a Lag displacement roll, which is sort of a displacement roll combined with a high Yo-Yo to preserve your energy advantage and defeat the turn rate advantage of your opponent.



1. When the superior turning aircraft attempts to exploit this advantage, use agility to roll 360 degrees in the opposite direction stopping in the turning plane. The angular distance is decreased and rate will defeat radius.


Is a displacement roll.....


2. Roll the vector of lift and angle the vector of thrust below the horizon so that weight adds to lift and thrust. In this manner the aircraft can sustain a better turn ability over a short term. Pull the nose well ahead and use agility to roll and zoom to gun solution.


Is a low Yo-Yo...

A low Yo-Yo is exactly what Oscar Boesch used to defeat a Yak 3 in the last few days of the war while flying an FW-190A series Sturmjager. Infact he overtook the Yak so fast he collided with it.

Sorry, I am not an "air combat" guy, I just know how the physics works so I do not mean to confuse you.

If your game models aircraft V-Speeds, you should do very well in a dogfight using airplanes like the P47.

All the best,

Crumpp

julian265
04-23-2009, 05:33 AM
So the 360 degree roll you described AKA displacement roll is what I (and possibly na85 and jayhall) know as a barrel roll? ie with plenty of elevator and rudder input?

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 06:24 AM
Yes it is a barrel roll in the opposite direction of the opponents turn. You can adjust your track by varying the amount of G loading in the roll. Experience will show you how much elevator to input.

Only use rudder for coordination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2qPLEgKdQ

Let me know how it works in your game!

All the best,

Crumpp

Manu-6S
04-23-2009, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by julian265:
So you're suggesting the 190 pilot:

Firstly stays further back from the tail of the spit, because the angle and turn rate required for lead is reduced? ie "set up your shot whilst at a longer range".

Secondly, don't follow the spit's turn, roll over and pull downward, to cut across the spit's turn path?

Edit - ah, links. AKA High/low yo-yo.

I can say that when you are on a Spit' six you must try the most succesful firing solution: a near snap shot during the Spit turn (because it will turn...).

Crumpp's solution is good for every plane in Il2, since it's a basic energy manouvre... but twhen you speak about energy management be aware of Spit.. above all the 25lbs.

With a 109 at slow/medium speed the up/down yoyo is a good way to preserve your energy.

With a 190 the down/up yoyo is best choice but keep in mind that you will not be able to keep energy advantage like other planes.

I think it's better the classic one/two passes for snap shots followed by the extention. avoiding stupid head-on, of course.

You should use the high roll rate and the good elevator response in a very tight turn searching for the right lead: however don't turn more than 45°... if you have missed the Spit do level and extend (or try another pass if you energy advantage is very high... but if you fail again it's time to extend)

In those attacks FIRE long burst.. you have a great ammo quantity... use it.

SlickStick
04-23-2009, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Bizarre... mine doesn't list the SpitIX25 at all.

Best I have are IXe's and c's

As the +25lbs. is essentially a Mk. IXc with higher boost, to see stats for the +25lbs in Hardball's program, select the LF IXc and then just slide your mouse over the column headings and if there is a difference, a little window will pop-up showing the +25lbs stats.

Example: Move your mouse over the words "Speed Sea Level (Km/h)" and the +25lbs. info will pop-up in a window.

na85
04-23-2009, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

In this case you perform what is termed a "displacement roll".

Roger that, makes sense now.

I thought you were describing something different.

na85
04-23-2009, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by julian265:
So the 360 degree roll you described AKA displacement roll is what I (and possibly na85 and jayhall) know as a barrel roll? ie with plenty of elevator and rudder input?

It's more than a barrel roll.

You know he's going to turn and cut across you, so you use the elevators to put yourself in a not-so-shallow zoom climb. You then quickly unload and roll towards the opponent (away from his direction of turn) to keep him in sight as he cuts underneath you. When he passes underneath and your angle-off approaches 0, you pull down into what is basically a split S and find yourself more or less behind your bandit. What you're doing is trading your excess airspeed relative to the bandit for altitude initially. This altitude advantage will let you use gravity to assist your turn and increase your turn rate (degrees per second) so you can pull down on the bogey in lag pursuit instead of lead pursuit. It's all about pulling fewer G's than the other guy.

I think Kettenhunde meant 180 degrees and not 360 degrees. Have a look at the links posted; they're good illustrations.

Manu-6S
04-23-2009, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
So the 360 degree roll you described AKA displacement roll is what I (and possibly na85 and jayhall) know as a barrel roll? ie with plenty of elevator and rudder input?

It's more than a barrel roll.

You know he's going to turn and cut across you, so you use the elevators to put yourself in a not-so-shallow zoom climb. You then quickly unload and roll towards the opponent (away from his direction of turn) to keep him in sight as he cuts underneath you. When he passes underneath and your angle-off approaches 0, you pull down into what is basically a split S and find yourself more or less behind your bogey.

I think Kettenhunde meant 180 degrees and not 360 degrees. Have a look at the links posted; they're good illustrations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you have to go up / roll 180° / down? The enemy will be lower than you and you can lose sight, going up you'll be slower and a relative easy target for other enemy in the furball.

Go down instead: you'll keep him in sight and you'll be in his blind spot... you'll be fast enough to decide if make the kill or extend withou problem.

na85
04-23-2009, 10:06 AM
You won't lose sight.

That's why you slowly roll towards the bandit as you climb; so that you can follow him visually.

You go upwards because you already have excess airspeed and you want to conserve your energy.

Going down means:

-You increase your airspeed further but this will hurt your turn radius.
-You will be decelerating during the upward turn to get behind him.
-You have to fight against gravity the whole time as you immelmann back up.

Better to conserve your energy by trading airspeed for altitude. This way as you dive back down you'll be speeding up as you close in on his 6, not slowing down as you climb up into him.

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 10:28 AM
It's more than a barrel roll.

You know he's going to turn and cut across you, so you use the elevators to put yourself in a not-so-shallow zoom climb. You then quickly unload and roll towards the opponent (away from his direction of turn) to keep him in sight as he cuts underneath you. When he passes underneath and your angle-off approaches 0, you pull down into what is basically a split S and find yourself more or less behind your bogey.



That is almost a perfect lag displacement roll. Look at the diagram on the link I posted closely, you can see he rolls opposite the direction of the opponents turn. Look at where his canopy is in the roll diagram.

http://www.tpub.com/content/av...-1222/P-12220028.htm (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220028.htm)

If you pull up, roll slow, and end in in a lag pursuit, you have done a lag displacement.

You want to perform a maximum rate of roll to arrive at a shooting solution if you are Co-E.

If your opponent goes into a hard break turn right, you use a maximum rate roll to the left coming out of in a hard turn to the right. Keep turning and you will pull lead.

You will lose sight for less than a second during the roll. In RL your neck and eyes move and you pick them up on the other side of the roll. IIRC, TrackIR would help with this. I use it on FS2004. I did it once in IL2 a long time ago when Faustnik invited me to try the game.

Your nose should be able to pull lead for you to take a shot. It will be an off plane shot as you are no longer in the same turning circle so it won't look like a tail shot. You should be looking at the top of your opponents airplane. Put you sight ahead and let them fly through it.

Try it and tell me if it works! I suggested this some time ago and I was told then it worked perfectly.

All the best,

Crumpp

na85
04-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Sorry K, I really don't understand what you're saying.

In this link you posted: http://www.tpub.com/content/av...-1222/P-12220028.htm (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220028.htm)

He goes into a shallow zoom climb while rolling towards the opponent's initial position (as you would say he rolls opposite the direction of opponent's turn) and then waits for the bogey to pass beneath him, before pulling back down. In the diagram shown, his downward turn is at an oblique angle but other than that I think what I described matches this diagram.

You're saying that a pilot should roll to the left, complete 360 degrees of roll, and then break right?

Why roll at all then, if the end result is just a level turn?

DKoor
04-23-2009, 11:00 AM
Roll is what you want if you fly FW. Spitfire is not match for FW when roll is in question and will likely lose more energy no matter how good it performs it (input on pilots part).
That is why rolling to one and other side in combination to firewalling the throttle in shallow dive is always a great escape plan for FW.

And escape is all you should be concentrated on if you are in equal positions to Spit25.

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

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 11:18 AM
Why roll at all then, if the end result is just a level turn?

You are now displaced to an off plane reference. You have increase the distance your angular rate of change moves your gun solution.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4820/displacementroll.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=displacementroll.jpg)



He goes into a shallow zoom climb while rolling towards the opponent's initial position

It looks that way in the diagram but read the description carefully. You do not zoom in shallow climb for a displacement roll, you pull the nose up to establish a positive G roll to gain displacement. It is pull up and roll performing a barrel roll.

In the description, the diagram is using a displacement roll as a follow on from a low yo-yo. The bogey has the energy advantage and the attacker has used a low Yo-Yo to increase energy and a follow on of a displacement roll to neutralize the turn superiority of the opponent.


You will practice this maneuver as a follow-on to a low yo-yo.

You have to align your fuselage with bogey to begin the maneuver.

Start the roll by raising the nose above the bogey and roll opposite direction of turn towards the bogeys six o'clock. This is not a zoom remember, it is the establishment of a positive G barrel roll to ensure displacement.


You will practice this maneuver as a follow-on to a low yo-yo. Initiate the displacement roll from anywhere in the low yo-yo by attempting to align fuselages on the inside of the bogey’s turn. Failing to align fuselages will increase your TCA. Raise your nose above the bogey, and roll away from the inside of the turn toward the bogey’s six. If you do not raise the nose, you will execute a simple aileron roll which neither displaces your aircraft nor controls your closure. Use rudder and back stick to keep your fuselage aligned. Adjust your rate of roll to arrive in a firing envelope. If your intentions are to increase your nose-to-tail while maintaining the preferred lead or pure pursuit, pull the nose higher in the vertical while increasing your rate of roll, as in Figure 10.T-45C Revision 1Page 17

http://www.tpub.com/content/av...-1222/P-12220028.htm (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-1222/P-12220028.htm)

I can see how it could be very confusing!

All the best,

Crumpp

na85
04-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Does anyone have a track that shows these displacement rolls?

Manu-6S
04-23-2009, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by na85:
You won't lose sight.

That's why you slowly roll towards the bandit as you climb; so that you can follow him visually.

You go upwards because you already have excess airspeed and you want to conserve your energy.

Going down means:

-You increase your airspeed further but this will hurt your turn radius.
-You will be decelerating during the upward turn to get behind him.
-You have to fight against gravity the whole time as you immelmann back up.

Better to conserve your energy by trading airspeed for altitude. This way as you dive back down you'll be speeding up as you close in on his 6, not slowing down as you climb up into him.

As I said the up/down yoyo is good for most of the planes, but 190s really suffer losing speed, and gaining altitude you lose speed.

You can't turn so you better go near the spit in the fastest way: you'll be slower at convergence so you can shoot with more precision.

If you go up you'll retain less energy (190 is a better diver than climber) and the enemy will increase his distance from you... you'll be faster in the dive after the roll but he can still turn tighter because he will not stay in a level flight awaiting for you.

Instead, again, IMO decreasing the distance in a faster way (down/up yoyo) and going for the snap shot its the better way to score the kill, at least in a 190... In 109 or Spit it's all another matter.

In every case my experience says that a 190 should never tight turn more than 45° in a dogfight... turn radius is a unknown attribute for that plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
04-23-2009, 04:43 PM
I dont really understand the diagram. (yes I am thick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) The attacking plane looks to me like its making a full horizontal turn which the FW190A could never manage when competing in the turn with a Spitfire.

Bremspropeller
04-23-2009, 05:22 PM
No, it's pulling up, barrel-rolling into the defender and then placing it's lift-vector in plane with the defender.

Sounds a bit confusing, but it works like a charm.

slipBall
04-23-2009, 06:11 PM
A lucky charm that is... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

jayhall0315
04-23-2009, 07:12 PM
Yes, this does work. It also seems to be a slight tactical variation from the stall climb I tried before my second pass, and one which brings you onto the tail of the Spit better, I might add. Having said that, you can only make one or two of these types of maneuvers before the Spit with its large wing area become co-E with you. It seems at that point then that any good pilot WOULD HAVE to leave the area with the FW's greater speed and then take a long circle around if he wanted to come back into the fight.

Buzzsaw-
04-23-2009, 08:08 PM
Salute

This particular maneuver was Robert Johnson's favourite tactic versus 109's and 190's.

His description is briefer, but it is clear what he is describing is a 'displacement roll', although I have also heard it described as a 'vector roll'.

In this description, Johnson is overtaking a Messerschmidt 109 from behind.

"...The lead Messerschmidt suddenly stopped smoking. It was complete giveaway; I knew at this instant he'd cut power. I chopped the throttle to prevent overrunning the enemy fighter. I skidded up to my right, half-rolled to my left, wings vertical. He turned sharply to the left; Perfect! Now--Stick hard back, rudder pedals coordinating smoothly. The Thunderbolt whirled around, slicing inside the Messerschmidt. I saw the pilot look up behind him, gaping, as the Thunderbolt loomed inside his turn, both wings flaming with both guns.

This boy had never seen a Thunderbolt really roll; he was convinced I'd turned inside of him. At once the Me-109 straightened out and dove. They never learned! Now I had him dead to rights; I closed rapidly as the ground rushed towards our two planes, squeezing out short bursts. White flashes leaped all over the fuselage and wings. I was scoring; good hits which were cutting up the Messerschmidt. He didn't give up easily, and racked his fighter arond in a wicked left turn. I got another burst into him; some of the slugs tore into his canopy. The fighter belched forth a thick cloud of smoke and seemed almost to stop in the air; then I was overshooting him. I jerked back on the stick, flashing over the smoking airplane. I rolled and looked back; I only saw a flaming mess on the ground."

crucislancer
04-23-2009, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Yes, this does work. It also seems to be a slight tactical variation from the stall climb I tried before my second pass, and one which brings you onto the tail of the Spit better, I might add. Having said that, you can only make one or two of these types of maneuvers before the Spit with its large wing area become co-E with you. It seems at that point then that any good pilot WOULD HAVE to leave the area with the FW's greater speed and then take a long circle around if he wanted to come back into the fight.

I don't know why you would want to do any kind of stall climb in a 190. It seems counterproductive to do that when you should be keeping your speed up at all times.

As far as the displacement roll, if done properly you should have ample E to go around. I don't see it as something you would do so often that you would lose a lot of e in the process. If you miss the first one, you are in the perfect position to dive and extend, come back later. He just got done turning, there isn't a chance in hell he would be able to catch you.

Take a look at page 94 of In Pursuit (http://web.comhem.se/%7Eu85627360/). He talks about the lag displacement roll, and gives some interesting pointers.

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 09:46 PM
become co-E with you

This confuses me. Why won't it work Co-E?

Or do you mean it won't work if you drop the FW190 behind the power curve?

Two different things as the FW-190's V-Speeds are considerably higher than any Spitfire Mk V or IX variant.

Does your game model V-speeds?

I seem to remember when I tried it with Faustnik, the take off experience was less than spectacular. It had none of the feel of a real take off in high performance tail dragger.

I own an 180hp tail dragger with less than half the power to weight ratio of a typical WWII fighter and it flies like a handful of skyrocket. It will put your head against the rest when I firewall the throttle on take off. All tail draggers require a smooth throttle input to maintain directional control at take off.

I just didn’t get the feeling of all that excess thrust at low speed like the real thing.

My IL2 experience wasn't even close to a T-6 Texan either. The speed and acceleration is both noticeable and exhilarating in the real thing. All propeller aircraft will accelerate very rapidly out of the backside of the curve to Dmin. Jets can get stuck on the backside and are slow to accelerate out of it but not props. Props can get stuck in ground effect but that is a different situation.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-23-2009, 09:53 PM
As far as the displacement roll, if done properly you should have ample E to go around. I don't see it as something you would do so often that you would lose a lot of e in the process. If you miss the first one, you are in the perfect position to dive and extend, come back later. He just got done turning, there isn't a chance in hell he would be able to catch you.


Exactly! You should have the classic dissimliar aircombat match up.

You have just neutralized his better turning ability with roll rate. Since the displacement roll is energy neutral, you should be able to disengage if you missed, extend, and come back on better terms.

All the best,

Crumpp

jayhall0315
04-23-2009, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Yes, this does work. It also seems to be a slight tactical variation from the stall climb I tried before my second pass, and one which brings you onto the tail of the Spit better, I might add. Having said that, you can only make one or two of these types of maneuvers before the Spit with its large wing area become co-E with you. It seems at that point then that any good pilot WOULD HAVE to leave the area with the FW's greater speed and then take a long circle around if he wanted to come back into the fight.

I don't know why you would want to do any kind of stall climb in a 190. It seems counterproductive to do that when you should be keeping your speed up at all times.

As far as the displacement roll, if done properly you should have ample E to go around. I don't see it as something you would do so often that you would lose a lot of e in the process. If you miss the first one, you are in the perfect position to dive and extend, come back later. He just got done turning, there isn't a chance in hell he would be able to catch you.

Take a look at page 94 of In Pursuit (http://web.comhem.se/%7Eu85627360/). He talks about the lag displacement roll, and gives some interesting pointers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I think you are right Crucis. I am working on perfecting this move right now. So glad there is always more to learn.

I think that is why I almost never play shooters; they are all the same. I bought Crysis but almost more for its benchmarking ability than for its gameplay. After a few hours I was like.....mehhh. With IL2, even after actively searching out every high level full real pilot I could find on HL, I am still learning.

The only game I had as much fun with before this was Morrowind and that was bc the 'world' was so big. No matter what folks may say about IL2, you have to hand it to Oleg and staff, for a 1999 game engine (with updates) they did a superlative job with the models and aerial physics.

crucislancer
04-23-2009, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
With IL2, even after actively searching out every high level full real pilot I could find on HL, I am still learning.

+1

That is one of the main reason I enjoy this game so much. I learn something new everyday, it seems. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Yeah, I totally agree about the FPS games. Most don't hold my interest past a few months.

Manu-6S
04-24-2009, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
I don't know why you would want to do any kind of stall climb in a 190. It seems counterproductive to do that when you should be keeping your speed up at all times.


Right... with a 109 you have to do this to keep your energy turning only at lower speed thanks to his good attitudes as climber/stall fighter.


Originally posted by crucislancer:
As far as the displacement roll, if done properly you should have ample E to go around. I don't see it as something you would do so often that you would lose a lot of e in the process. If you miss the first one, you are in the perfect position to dive and extend, come back later. He just got done turning, there isn't a chance in hell he would be able to catch you.


Right again...


Originally posted by crucislancer:
Take a look at page 94 of In Pursuit (http://web.comhem.se/%7Eu85627360/). He talks about the lag displacement roll, and gives some interesting pointers.

It's funny when you did't study these tactics but after a pair of years of experience you find yourself using them anytime.

You open the book and say "Oh!.. so this manouvre has a name!"

In any case I don't find the tactics on the book so useful: IMO you should not fight following tactics manouvring step to step... learn how energy works and so manouvres come natural to you.

A smart pilot never do a flat turns...

Xiolablu3
04-24-2009, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
I don't know why you would want to do any kind of stall climb in a 190. It seems counterproductive to do that when you should be keeping your speed up at all times.


Right... with a 109 you have to do this to keep your energy turning only at lower speed thanks to his good attitudes as climber/stall fighter.


Originally posted by crucislancer:
As far as the displacement roll, if done properly you should have ample E to go around. I don't see it as something you would do so often that you would lose a lot of e in the process. If you miss the first one, you are in the perfect position to dive and extend, come back later. He just got done turning, there isn't a chance in hell he would be able to catch you.


Right again...


Originally posted by crucislancer:
Take a look at page 94 of In Pursuit (http://web.comhem.se/%7Eu85627360/). He talks about the lag displacement roll, and gives some interesting pointers.

It's funny when you did't study these tactics but after a pair of years of experience you find yourself using them anytime.

You open the book and say "Oh!.. so this manouvre has a name!"

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember that exact situation with the Split-S. I found I had been using it for ages without knowing what it was called!

K_Freddie
04-24-2009, 05:30 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
I've never, NEVER opened a book on flight manouvers and tactics.. The most I know about Immelman is that we was a pilot in WW1, and that he did some move of sorts.. that put him higher and in the opposite direction.

Online (offline) all I want to do is place my a/c behind the other, and do any 'trick in the book' to get it there.

Tactics... I just avoid being shot down, and shoot the others down asap.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
04-24-2009, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Tactics... I just avoid being shot down, and shoot the others down asap.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Amen my friend!!!

DKoor
04-24-2009, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
I've never, NEVER opened a book on flight manouvers and tactics.. The most I know about Immelman is that we was a pilot in WW1, and that he did some move of sorts.. that put him higher and in the opposite direction.

Online (offline) all I want to do is place my a/c behind the other, and do any 'trick in the book' to get it there.

Tactics... I just avoid being shot down, and shoot the others down asap.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif +1

Never a truer words have been spoken.

CUJO_1970
04-24-2009, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Or do you mean it won't work if you drop the FW190 behind the power curve?

Two different things as the FW-190's V-Speeds are considerably higher than any Spitfire Mk V or IX variant.

Does your game model V-speeds?


Crumpp


No, it does not -

You can't always use the tactics in this sim that you would use in real life in a FW190 against a Spitfire.

Instead, you have to first learn how the game works, and then adapt your tactics to that.

Kettenhunde
04-24-2009, 10:13 AM
No, it does not -



No - it won't work if you drop the FW190 behind the power curve?

Or

No - your game does not model V-Speeds?

All the best,

Crumpp

na85
04-24-2009, 10:22 AM
My understanding is that V-speeds are just "best practices" for aircraft performance and safety.

Any game that models velocity of an aircraft models V-speeds. Aircraft ingame have Vne, Vh, Vf, etc etc etc.

It's whether or not the v-speeds in the game correspond accurately to those in real life that is the question.

I don't know if they're accurate or not.

tagert
04-24-2009, 10:43 AM
Bingo!

tagert
04-24-2009, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Or do you mean it won't work if you drop the FW190 behind the power curve?

Two different things as the FW-190's V-Speeds are considerably higher than any Spitfire Mk V or IX variant.

Does your game model V-speeds?


Crumpp


No, it does not -

You can't always use the tactics in this sim that you would use in real life in a FW190 against a Spitfire.

Instead, you have to first learn how the game works, and then adapt your tactics to that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very True!

One of the Fw190s real world advantage was it's roll rate (RR)..

Sadly IL2 does a poor job of simulating RR..

In the testing I did of several planes, the 190 being one of them..

I found that all the peak RR were TOO HIGH!

And that all the peak RR happened at MUCH LOWER SPEEDS!

Too High and at Too Low of a speed.

Thus you would be hard pressed to use real world tactics in this game wrt RR tactics..

Unless you account for the fact that the peak RR is happening at a much lower speed..

The 190s RR in real life was useful because it's peak RR happened at the speeds they were typically flying at..

FAST!

In essence the 190 was a good BnZ WWII type of plane..

But because it's RR happens at much lower speeds..

The only way you can take advantage of the 190s peak RR is to fly a slow TnB type of fight.

So instead of a fast plane that has the ability to roll quickly at high speeds..

We end up with a twitchy hyper sensitive rolling plane at slow speeds. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

na85
04-24-2009, 12:00 PM
I'd say that the ingame 190 has a usable roll rate advantage over contemporary opponents at almost any speed, so realistically you can still stay true to historical tactics.

CUJO_1970
04-24-2009, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
No - it won't work if you drop the FW190 behind the power curve?

Or

No - your game does not model V-Speeds?

All the best,

Crumpp


The game does not properly represent V-speeds, especially WRT the A-series FW190.

The acceleration and throttle response for the A-series Fockes in this sim is just pathetic. You can see this when performing a takeoff in the Anton in this sim. The acceleration is positively bomber-like.

Dump the throttle in an Anton while sitting on the runway...and the plane just plods along like a schoolbus. It is the same way while flying...the acceleration and energy recovery is just lethargic at best.

I'm reminded of what US fighter pilot Ken Chilstrom said about flying the FW190: -"in the vertical plane the aircraft was nearly unbeatable"

Add to the fact that the FW190 has no discernable roll-rate advantage in the sim...virtually any aircraft in the sim can roll at the same rate or very near the same rate the FW190 does.

Swivet
04-24-2009, 12:38 PM
190 vs Spit= UFO vs UFO

tagert
04-24-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by na85:
I'd say that the ingame 190 has a usable roll rate advantage over contemporary opponents at almost any speed, so realistically you can still stay true to historical tactics.
Than it depends on your definition of contemporary..

But during my testing two planes had higher roll rates than the 190 starting at speeds of 250ias

Flight_boy1990
04-24-2009, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Swivet:
190 vs Spit= UFO vs UFO

Sadly it's not that way.
The way you say it,it should be:
190 versus Spit = UFO versus Star trek Enterprise E http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

K_Freddie
04-24-2009, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Swivet:
190 vs Spit= UFO vs UFO
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
04-24-2009, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Swivet:
190 vs Spit= UFO vs UFO
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, nice one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
04-24-2009, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:

How many times I have taken control of a DF with a target on my six... about 90% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The FW roll rate and rear view, gives you unsurpassed tactical advantage over any attacker, that even a Yak3 would envy.



I would give those opponents about a 3 out of 10 on the skill-scale.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Actually it takes out the best of them, you can easily move that number up to '9'
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
04-24-2009, 09:45 PM
My understanding is that V-speeds are just "best practices" for aircraft performance and safety.


They are best practices for performance and safety because V-speeds are determined by the shape of the L/D curve of the design. Each aircraft has a unique L/D curve and unique V-speeds.

L/Dmax for example is the tangent of the L/D curve to the origin. It is also your best range cruise speed in a propeller aircraft.

Some V-speeds are more tolerant of error than others. Best Range is considered to have a ~5% tolerance. This is due to the shape of the L/D curve. Essentially we divide the curve into two broad categories with the minimum drag point as the dividing line. The region of reverse command is below the Dmin point and the region of normal command is above Dmin. The curve is further subdivided into the region of power stability and the region of speed stability. Best range is within the region of speed stability and our performance is more tolerant to speed changes.

Dmin is the lowest point of the curve and represents both the maximum power available point when full throttle is applied, the best turn, and the Best Endurance cruise point when throttle is pulled back.

V-speeds are extremely important when flying an aircraft.

If V-speeds are not correct, your relative performance is not correct as it will change dramatically the dynamics of how these aircraft can interact.


The game does not properly represent V-speeds,

Has anyone ever tested your game to determine the V-speeds using proper techniques and formulation? Development for IL2 has stopped but I understand there is another game in the works, BoB:SOW.


The acceleration and throttle response for the A-series Fockes in this sim is just pathetic. You can see this when performing a takeoff in the Anton in this sim. The acceleration is positively bomber-like.


I did notice this. It does not have the thrill you get from the sensation of power and acceleration like a real airplane with a similar power to weight.

This airplane has half the power to weight, is a thrill to fly, and acts like a handful of skyrocket. It will put your head against the seat rest when the throttle is firewalled. If you slam the throttle forward, you will veer off the runway. Like any taildragger, you have to smoothly advance the throttle on take off.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2853/daplane.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=daplane.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

WTE_Ibis
04-25-2009, 12:59 AM
The acceleration and throttle response for the A-series Fockes in this sim is just pathetic. You can see this when performing a takeoff in the Anton in this sim. The acceleration is positively bomber-like.
==============================================

Like a bomber with a full load, the only one with some acceleration is the "D" series.

The 'A's scared the pants off the British on first encounters and that doesn't feel like the "A"s that are in game.
cheers,
Ibis


.

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 01:33 AM
This is the reason hystorical tactics don't work ingame.

Split-S a high speed with the 190? I tried many time in the past but there is no way to escape in only 2 rolls (flip down / flip up)...

Vertical energy tactics with the 190 are really screwed by the poor accelleration (above all under the 320km/h)...

I remember the famous words "Learn to fly it"... they are right because this is not the butcher bird we read on the books. IMO Oleg should have called it with another name in IL2.

If it's a killer on DF server it's because his pilots use squad tactics like DnB (infact you find yourself extending the 90% of the time) and above all are patient. This is that I've wrote in my first post in the thread.

If you give them a pair of P51 these pilots will do well too (at least during my squad training session the P51s win 4/5 of the times against FW190... starting at same altitude with no time for climb). P51 is virtually untouchable if fled correctly... its only problem is the Dora but we know it's another kind of plane.

In a DF server the days of the 190 will end when all Red will start to fly SpitIX in pair at higher altitude than 1000m. FW190s will extend everytime and even if you don't score points (you don't make the kill) you still won the fight (that's something many P51 pilots complain... they don't kill the enemy with the 0.50... but they don't recognize that they still won).

Don't look at the score: if the other guy is diving away you've won.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 02:17 AM
I think you are MAYBE misunderstanding a Split-S, Manu.

It only works in certain situations, and thats when you the enemy has much more energy than you do, and is maybe attacking from above, and it works with any plane vs any other plane. I use it very often in a Fw190 vs attacking Spitfires.

But you MUST be sure that the enemy has much more energy than you and cannot follow, thats the whole point of a SPlit-S, you have less energy and he therefore cannot follow you.

In the Fw190 the initial roll upside down is so much faster than the Spit, that it helps you get away that much faster.

Roll upside down, and pull back on the stick. Its the perfect manouvre for escaping a B&Zer. If you judged it right then his high energy works against him and there is no way he can follow you no matter what aircraft he is in. YOu know he has to pull up and try again, by which time you are racing to your freindlies.

If I am explaining something you already know then sorry, possibly it will help someone else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jamesblonde1979
04-25-2009, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:

I think this was more due to Big Picture tactical doctrine than waste time/fuel/personel with low value targets, In which the Germans were absolutely correct, but the numbers were against them.

To me it seems unlikely that any 20 yo kid would have a sufficient grasp of tactical/strategic doctrine to adhere to it in the heat of battle.

Im going to go with knowledge of performance and squadron level training on this one.

Erkki_M
04-25-2009, 02:26 AM
Indeed, manu!

I dont know how many argues I have had in the HyperLobby on the topic(P51 sucks, FW/109 overmodelled) but they all share the same: people thinking P51 dont even know the basics of flight, have watched too much History Channel or mix a good war plane and good killing plane!

In IL-2 the P51D is the plane I consider by far the best conventional prop plane, Mustang 3, Tempest and FW190D9 following behind. P51 is, in sustained run, equally fast or faster than D9 at all alts except for very deck(also at 2000-3000m faster in top speed as well). It sustains energy better and has nice(though perhaps a bit ineffective, being machine guns after all) laserguns. Its a plane that can stay in air at combat power for hours, too! Correctly flown, and in pairs/groups, you can rather easily just "push" the Jerries down(to be BnZed or eaten alive by Spits...) - in fact its like a Focke(vs Spits) but much better: it can also outmaneuver & outturn its opponents... Not a perfect "killing plane" like Focke, but much, much better as a war plane; for "keeping the pressure up", at all altitudes, all roles, and also much safer to its pilot.

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

D9 vs Spit 25lbs. Fly in pairs, never df with them... Blast the Spit jock's brains out before he can react; run like hell if you miss! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think you are MAYBE misunderstanding a Split-S, Manu.

It only works in certain situations, and thats when you the enemy has much more energy than you do, and is maybe attacking from above, and it works with any plane vs any other plane. I use it very often in a Fw190 vs attacking Spitfires.

But you MUST be sure that the enemy has much more energy than you and cannot follow, thats the whole point of a SPlit-S, you have less energy and he therefore cannot follow you.

In the Fw190 the initial roll upside down is so much faster than the Spit, that it helps you get away that much faster.

Roll upside down, and pull back on the stick. Its the perfect manouvre for escaping a B&Zer. If you judged it right then his high energy works against him and there is no way he can follow you no matter what aircraft he is in. YOu know he has to pull up and try again, by which time you are racing to your freindlies.

If I am explaining something you already know then sorry, possibly it will help someone else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi Xiola!

I think we are talking about two different Split-S: your is surely a valid one.

But when I think at the words "FW190" and "Split-S" my mind goes at theat kind of manouvre that Hellcat did with Zekes too.

I'm not talking about a bounce but a manouvre to do when the 190 is chased a quite similar speed.

Usually in a 190 I'm flying at medium to high speed. If I see a guy over me and I realize that it's a Spit in real life I should try to go faster because the 190's roll rate at high speed "should" be better (as history teaches).

Instead, as tagert says, 190 has not the high speed roll rate advantage over the Spit.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8348/file0001e.jpg

This is usually called Scissor: in every case a Scissor is a Turn followed by a Split-S in the horizontal plane.

So I realize that what I try to do is a vertical Scissor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 03:27 AM
Hi Manu-S

I have seen that same picture in an post war article in the USAF Museum archives. IIRC, it was a Spitfire Mk IX pilot relating exactly how FW-190's fought.

All the best,

Crumpp

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Hi Manu-S

I have seen that same picture in an post war article in the USAF Museum archives. IIRC, it was a Spitfire Mk IX pilot relating exactly how FW-190's fought.

All the best,

Crumpp

Yes Crumpp,

Call it as you will, at last if you try that manouvre in IL2 the Spit will follow you since at high speed thay have similar roll rate.

In the image it's written that the the 190 was better than the SpitV in all aspects but low/medium turn rate.

Instead the 190 could still beat the SpitIX in dive acceleration and turn rate (roll rate???) at high speed (the image is a demostration).

It explains that 190 veteran could dictate the fight on the vertical plane: it's that is happening in Il2?

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 04:22 AM
This is what I tried to do so many times...

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4214/88048002.jpg

EDIT: I changed the image...

@Erkki_M
Wonderful Sig... this is what I do with SpitIX25lbs

HellToupee
04-25-2009, 11:11 AM
Roll rate between fullwing spitfire and 190 at high speed is not at all similar use roll to evade works very well.

VS clipped wing spit well
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mde...es/RollChartClr2.jpg (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg)

For evading with roll to work you need the opponent to be quite close and behind you if they are not right behind you they do not have to match your rolls.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
This is what I tried to do so many times...

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4214/88048002.jpg

EDIT: I changed the image...



HI mate, that 2nd pic is NOT the exact manouvre I mean.

I mean the first pic you posted. This one :-

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8348/file0001e.jpg

The 2nd pic you posted adds an extra twist and roll part at the bottom. I have never used that myself.

The first one works well, but you cannot do it co-energy, it ONLY works if the attacking aircraft more enrgy, otherwise he can just follow you.

If you try it co-e then the Spits greater turning ability will allow him to follow you as you pull back on the stick to go under him.

If he has a lot of energy then it works just like the picture.

Thats whats missing from a lot of SPlit-S diagrams, an explanation of the energy states needed in order for it to be succesfull.

Trust me it DOES work, very well in fact. Just dont try it if you are at similar speeds, and remember that you need around 1000m to be able to pull it off.

Just imagine the manouvre in the pic, but with the SPit at B&Z speed/bouncing speed, and you much slower. He HAs to pull back up becasue he cannot possibley follow your roll and dive, and you end up flying in the opposite direction to him with a large head start. He has to pull up, spot you again, turn around and come back down, all which takes time, and all the while you are building up speed in your dive and 9 times out of 10 escape.

The only stick movements needed to carry off the manouvre I am talking about, are one half roll upside down, and then simply pull back on the stick so that you fly under you opponent.

I would be wary of trying the extra manouvre in the 2nd pic vs a co-e Spit, because as well as roll rate, a lot of elevator turning is needed, which the Spit excells at. This means that during that whole manouvre FW190 beats Spit at the roll, but Spit beats the FW190 at the elevator parts, so they may just cancel each other out.

This clip shows 'my kind' of Split-S from the cockpit :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ext_from=PL&index=29 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxKA9NrGPp0&feature=PlayList&p=48A4247FC1B697C0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=29)

The roll rate of that Aircraft is slow but you get the idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 11:43 AM
The FW190A roll information on this chart is in Indicated Airspeed at 10,000 feet but is a transcription of RAE 1231 which is in Equivalent Airspeed at 10,000 feet. It does not look like the NACA bothered to convert airspeeds.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mde...es/RollChartClr2.jpg (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg)

What am I saying? Something is fishy because EAS is not IAS. IAS at 10,000 feet is very different from EAS and TAS.

Look at the P51B, it does not out roll the FW190 until it reaches 360mph IAS is about ~413mph TAS in NACA 1922 atmosphere.

The P51B does not out roll the FW190 until the FW190 leaves its sustainable envelope.

The FW190 out rolls the clipped wing Spitfire from 230 mph TAS and above. The FW190 peaks at ~302mph TAS.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 11:54 AM
an explanation of the energy states needed in order for it to be succesfull.


If the Spitfire has more velocity, the FW190A should be able to break turn to avoid the attack. He can force the overshoot without giving up any altitude. Velocity is the key component of turn performance.

In the real world, the FW190 could break and maintain best turn speed. It would turn the fight into an exact reverse of the usual Spitfire/FW190A match up as the Spitfire would not be able to match the FW190A's sustained turn ability.

Remember, all aircraft at the same velocity and angle of bank will make exactly the same turn. With the exception of the +25 Merlin 66, all Merlin powered Spitfires must go slower than the FW190A series to sustain a better level turn provided the FW190 stays at its best turn rate velocity.

Because of the Spitfires L/D curve, If the pilot tries to match the FW190A's best rate of turn speed, he must lose airspeed, altitude, or be shot down. Since he probably is not going to let himself be shot down, the fight develops into the classic match up.

All Merlin powered Spitfires had considerably lower V-Speeds than the FW-190A series.

All the best,

Crumpp

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HI mate, that 2nd pic is NOT the exact manouvre I mean.

I mean the first pic you posted. This one :-

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8348/file0001e.jpg

The 2nd pic you posted adds an extra twist and roll part at the bottom. I have never used that myself.

The first one works well, but you cannot do it co-energy, it ONLY works if the attacking aircraft more enrgy, otherwise he can just follow you.

If you try it co-e then the Spits greater turning ability will allow him to follow you as you pull back on the stick to go under him.

If he has a lot of energy then it works just like the picture.

Thats whats missing from a lot of SPlit-S diagrams, an explanation of the energy states needed in order for it to be succesfull.

Trust me it DOES work, very well in fact. Just dont try it if you are at similar speeds, and remember that you need around 1000m to be able to pull it off.

Just imagine the manouvre in the pic, but with the SPit at B&Z speed/bouncing speed, and you much slower. He HAs to pull back up becasue he cannot possibley follow your roll and dive, and you end up flying in the opposite direction to him with a large head start. He has to pull up, spot you again, turn around and come back down, all which takes time, and all the while you are building up speed in your dive and 9 times out of 10 escape.

The only stick movements needed to carry off the manouvre I am talking about, are one half roll upside down, and then simply pull back on the stick so that you fly under you opponent.

I would be wary of trying the extra manouvre in the 2nd pic vs a co-e Spit, because as well as roll rate, a lot of elevator turning is needed, which the Spit excells at. This means that during that whole manouvre FW190 beats Spit at the roll, but Spit beats the FW190 at the elevator parts, so they may just cancel each other out.

This clip shows 'my kind' of Split-S from the cockpit :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ext_from=PL&index=29 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxKA9NrGPp0&feature=PlayList&p=48A4247FC1B697C0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=29)

The roll rate of that Aircraft is slow but you get the idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi Xiola,

Yes I understand what you mean with Split-S: I'm used to do it too then I'm bounced and I have to extend without any other options. Sure it can save your life since the bouncer has much more speed than you.

But I still don't understand why things in the first picture should not work with planes at the same speed.

Sure we don't know the speed of picture's planes, but we know that the 190 has the advantage of roll rate at medium/high speed, while elevator response should be the same (IIRC) (still they seem to dive). The only advantage of the Spit is the turn rate BUT I don't think that it's useful in the manouvres in those pictures (I ask to the expert.. can G forces be a factor in a high speed turn?).

But please look at my second picture.

The difference between both is that in the second picture I roll 90 more degrees to point the nose down (while in the first picture it's turning in horizontal).

I don't think they are so different: on contrary I think that pointing the nose down you will have the benefit of the high dive acceleration of the 190, increasing speed.

At last I wrote the conclusion: working in the vertical plane the 190 should be able to convert a lot of speed in altitude because test keeps saying the diving acceleration (more speed in less space) and high speed climb rate (as before) are the notable advantages of the 190 together with his roll rate and his resistance to G forces because of the seat position.

HellToupee
04-25-2009, 12:22 PM
Whats sustaining a turn at best turn speed going to accomplish? Doing that the chasing plane will always be able cut inside the radius of turn.

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 12:57 PM
Doing that the chasing plane will always be able cut inside the radius of turn.

Absolutely, the Spitfire could do that! However to do that he just lost airspeed because he has to trade airpeed for turn ability.

The fight goes to the traditional Energy vs Angles.

The FW190A can now outzoom the Spitfire and has the E advantage!

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 12:59 PM
can G forces be a factor in a high speed turn?).

Above Va we are limited by the airframe.

Turn performance is either sustainable or not. Angle of bank and G's have a fixed relationship, for example a 60 degree banked turn will always produce a 2 G's not matter what aircraft you are flying or velocity.

If the turn is sustainable then we can choose from a limited angle of bank but can maintain airspeed and altitude.

If the turn is not sustainable then we have unlimited angle of bank to choose from. We just cannot maintain airspeed or altitude to do it. We have to trade one or the other to achieve the bank.

The FW-190A can sustain a higher angle of bank at a higher speed than any Merlin Spitfire Mk IX can match with the exception of the Merlin 66 +25.

The Spitfire can sustain a higher angle of bank at lower speeds than the FW190A can match.

That is what V-speeds do for you.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 01:00 PM
I don't think they are so different: on contrary I think that pointing the nose down you will have the benefit of the high dive acceleration of the 190, increasing speed.

In a dive, a vector of weight converts to thrust.

TS_Sancho
04-25-2009, 01:15 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 Manu-6S:
This is what I tried to do so many times...

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4214/88048002.jpg

EDIT: I changed the image...



HI mate, that 2nd pic is NOT the exact manouvre I mean.

I mean the first pic you posted. This one :-

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8348/file0001e.jpg

The 2nd pic you posted adds an extra twist and roll part at the bottom. I have never used that myself.

The first one works well, but you cannot do it co-energy, it ONLY works if the attacking aircraft more enrgy, otherwise he can just follow you.

If you try it co-e then the Spits greater turning ability will allow him to follow you as you pull back on the stick to go under him.

If he has a lot of energy then it works just like the picture.

Thats whats missing from a lot of SPlit-S diagrams, an explanation of the energy states needed in order for it to be succesfull.

Trust me it DOES work, very well in fact. Just dont try it if you are at similar speeds, and remember that you need around 1000m to be able to pull it off.

Just imagine the manouvre in the pic, but with the SPit at B&Z speed/bouncing speed, and you much slower. He HAs to pull back up becasue he cannot possibley follow your roll and dive, and you end up flying in the opposite direction to him with a large head start. He has to pull up, spot you again, turn around and come back down, all which takes time, and all the while you are building up speed in your dive and 9 times out of 10 escape.

The only stick movements needed to carry off the manouvre I am talking about, are one half roll upside down, and then simply pull back on the stick so that you fly under you opponent.

I would be wary of trying the extra manouvre in the 2nd pic vs a co-e Spit, because as well as roll rate, a lot of elevator turning is needed, which the Spit excells at. This means that during that whole manouvre FW190 beats Spit at the roll, but Spit beats the FW190 at the elevator parts, so they may just cancel each other out.

This clip shows 'my kind' of Split-S from the cockpit :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ext_from=PL&index=29 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxKA9NrGPp0&feature=PlayList&p=48A4247FC1B697C0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=29)

The roll rate of that Aircraft is slow but you get the idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio is spot on, its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage. The only thing I would add/disagree with is the FW's as modeled by Oleg have much more elevator authority at high speed enabling the FW to initially pull the nose along its lift vector quite a few degrees faster than the Spitfire. Of course high G's bleed energy so if the FW holds the turn in lead pursuit as the energy state decreases the spit pulls ahead in the turn
As to the poor acceleration of all the Antons in Olegs IL2 world has anyone mentioned using manual prop pitch rather auto? Both acceleration and climb gain maybe 20% (I dont know the exact number but its substantial)
I feel the bottom line , to quote Crump in a different thread is Kurt Tank took the motto "speed is life" to heart with the FW design. Its an offensive aircraft, an assasin and must be flown as such. Situational awareness is key, only engage any enemy from a superior position. Stalk your target from a distance untill your in a position you want to fight from and when you attack make it count.
Lastly IMHO its not spitfires and P51's that scare me, its P47's that tend to dominate the FW's in their flight envelope.
My two cents, thanks for listening.

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 01:26 PM
its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage.

Exactly, the V-speeds of the aircraft show us that the FW-190A pilot has to work pretty hard to get caught behind the power curve to even get Co-Energy with a Spitfire.

In normal flight at the aircrafts operating speeds, it will always have more energy than the lower V-speed aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage.

HI Sancho, this statement sort of confused me. DId you mistype FW190 where you meant Spitfire?

EDIT I guess not as Crumpp agrees!

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

Maybe I just need to read it properly...it looks a little confusing to me...



Originally posted by TS_Sancho:

Lastly IMHO its not spitfires and P51's that scare me, its P47's that tend to dominate the FW's in their flight envelope.
My two cents, thanks for listening.

Absolutely, although I find P51 and Tempests scarey too when flying Fw190's.

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 01:34 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 TS_Sancho:
its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage.

HI Sancho, this statement sort of confused me. DId you mistype FW190 where you meant Spitfire?

EDIT I guess not as Crumpp agrees!

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

Maybe I just need to read it properly...it looks a little confusing to me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about me... my english is not so good and this statement confused me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage.

HI Sancho, this statement sort of confused me. DId you mistype FW190 where you meant Spitfire?

EDIT I guess not as Crumpp agrees!

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

Maybe I just need to read it properly...it looks a little confusing to me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about me... my english is not so good and this statement confused me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Your English seems perfect, seriously.

TS_Sancho
04-25-2009, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage.

HI Sancho, this statement sort of confused me. DId you mistype FW190 where you meant Spitfire?

EDIT I guess not as Crumpp agrees!

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

Maybe I just need to read it properly...it looks a little confusing to me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about me... my english is not so good and this statement confused me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry Gents, I was simply agreeing with Xio and meant that the aggressor (the FW) needs to have more energy than the defender (in this case the spitfire) for the tactics in question to be effective.

Bremspropeller
04-25-2009, 01:48 PM
Turn performance is either sustainable or not. Angle of bank and G's have a fixed relationship, for example a 60 degree banked turn will always produce a 2 G's not matter what aircraft you are flying or velocity.


Let's add that you have to turn with 2g in order to maintain the same altitude throughout the turn - just for clafication...

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Sorry Gents, I was simply agreeing with Xio and meant that the aggressor (the FW) needs to have more energy than the defender (in this case the spitfire) for the tactics in question to be effective.

Mhm.

But in the tactics above the defender is the 190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

@Xiola, you are too gentle... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
its all about the energy state of the FW being superior for both tactics under discusion to work to the attacking FW's advantage.

HI Sancho, this statement sort of confused me. DId you mistype FW190 where you meant Spitfire?

EDIT I guess not as Crumpp agrees!

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

Maybe I just need to read it properly...it looks a little confusing to me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think about me... my english is not so good and this statement confused me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry Gents, I was simply agreeing with Xio and meant that the aggressor (the FW) needs to have more energy than the defender (in this case the spitfire) for the tactics in question to be effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh thats where we got confused as we were talking about the Spitfire as the agressor and the Fw190 doing the Split-S. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But as you have demonstrated, this tactic works with any plane as the attacker and any as the defender, as its all reliant upon the attacker having more energy than the defender, it is not reliant on aircraft type as with horizontal turns for example....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CUJO_1970
04-25-2009, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In the real world, the FW190 could break and maintain best turn speed. It would turn the fight into an exact reverse of the usual Spitfire/FW190A match up as the Spitfire would not be able to match the FW190A's sustained turn ability.
Crumpp


To say that this is not the case in the sim would be a huge understatement.

The diffreence in roll-rate between the Spitfire and the FW190 in the game does not reflect the results in the NACA chart either. Instead, the normal-wing Spitfire rolls like the clipped does in that chart.

Kette, I'm curious about what you think about energy loss WRT the Spitfire and FW190, because that is where I see one of the biggest problems in the sim.

The FW190A ingame simply bleeds speed and power at an enormous rate. Acceleration, e-retention and power recovery are far behind the Spitfire. It is very easy to lose energy, and when you try to pick it back up, the FW190A just plods along like a fully laden bomber.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 02:04 PM
It bleeds energy badly in harsh manouvres much more than the Spit for example is what Cujo means, I think.

If you are gentle on the stick then the Fw190 keeps its energy well.


The FW190 has a very good instantaneous turn, but not sustained turn when compared to the Spit or Bf109.

Bremspropeller
04-25-2009, 02:10 PM
Well, the 190 should loose some E in sustained turns.

The problem in-game is it's really badly modelled thrust value.
The 190 would initially accelerate away from almost anything - that's in level-flight, as well as in a dive.
It would then be overtaken by a/c with higher top/ terminal speeds.

This is not modelled in-game.

Manu-6S
04-25-2009, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The 190 would initially accelerate away from almost anything - that's in level-flight, as well as in a dive.

Except from P47 and Tempest (SpitXIV???)

Bremspropeller
04-25-2009, 02:15 PM
No, it did out dive them as well - INITIALLY.

They'd catch up or overtake the 190 a couple of seconds later.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 02:32 PM
The Spit had very good acceleration too, compared to most WW2 fighters, it was near the top. I have read.

But the Spitfire V could not compete with the FW190's acceleration. I have seen RAF reports on the subject.

Whther the IX could keep up with the Fw190's acceleration? I am not sure.... It was proabaly close - the IX had a much more powerful engine especially down low than the V.

Possibly the Spit was better at higher alts, and the Fw (Anton) better down low.

Actually the higher boost 1943 Spit V's were quite close to the Antons speed compared to the 1941-42 Spit V's. Boost was pushed higher over the 2 years whereas the Antons didnt really gain a lot.

As far as I remember the FW190 only gained 30-40mph over its life (400 to 440mph with the Dora) , whereas the Spit went from 360mph (V) to 408mph (IX) ro 445mph (XIV)

So in a way, the Spit 'caught up' over time from the situation in 1941 where the FW reigned supreme. I realise of course that top speeds alone are pretty meaningless, and that speeds over the whole height range, climb and dive rates, roll and turn rates are as imporatant. But in general I think that the Spit 'caught up' the Fw190's 'early lead' that it had in 1941/2...

Bremspropeller
04-25-2009, 02:54 PM
You can't compare the Anton to a Griffon-powered Spit.

You'd better take the Doras.
The inital Jumo213 batches had the same power-output as the respective BMW 801D-2s, though the Doras gained in speed and climb (not quite sure about the range).

According to Eric Brown, the Spit IX could somewhat close the gap in dives (but not quite - especially during the initial phase the 190's superriority was still present), had equal speed and accel (depending on alt with better top-speed).
The 190 still climbed a little better.

Generally, the late IX and the 190A-5 onwards were pretty evenly matched - the 190 having a slight edge at low alts while the Spit ruled at higher alts.

Only Griffon-powered Spits could really surpass the Anton in virtually any respect.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 02:56 PM
I wasnt talking about surpassing, mate, just parrying.

I did edit my post a few times too, so apologies if you replied to an earlier version....

Remember that Brown will be tslking about the early merlin 61 MkIX which was rushed in to combat the Fw190 in 1942,

The MkIX LF merlin 66 was a lot better at the FW190's alts and climbed far better than the early IX.

Even some of hte late mkV's could beat the Antons climb rate I believe...But I was sure that the FW190 would dive better than any version of SPitfire, possibly even the XIV..Its large wings work against it...

Bremspropeller
04-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Well, don't forget, Brown was flying a re-converted fighter-bomber and the Luftwaffe did increase boost as well over the time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, the IX proved to be quite good in it's stop-gap role.

Climb-rate is always nice, but the 190 had it's best climb at higher speeds than any Merlin-Spit.
For that matter, it could just fly away at it's best climb-speed, while the Spit had to chose between climbing or trying to chase the 190.


Even some of hte late mkV's could beat the Antons climb rate I believe...

I highly doubt that.
Haven't seen any report to second that.
Maybe they had one of the de-rated 190s with already fouled-up spark-plugs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
04-25-2009, 03:13 PM
Ahhh, a good old Aircraft performance debate thread...I raise my glass to you sir... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I will look up Anton vs late MkV climb rates tomorrow, will be interesting to find out.

IL2's, MkVb 1941 climbs too well but is too slow, I believe..not sure about the later models but the MkV 1943 LF seems light years away in performance terms vs a FW190 to the mkVb IMO. (in game)

DKoor
04-25-2009, 03:45 PM
You guys seem to be debating about climb rates... well, I don't know about real life, that would probably depend heavily on aircraft condition.
But you are welcomed to try to outclimb a Spitfire in contemporary FW.

Just a hint... in game I doubt you could effectively do it in Bf-109http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

CUJO_1970
04-25-2009, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Maybe they had one of the de-rated 190s with already fouled-up spark-plugs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


You mean like that derated Eastern Front bullshirt A-4 we've got?

HellToupee
04-25-2009, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Doing that the chasing plane will always be able cut inside the radius of turn.

Absolutely, the Spitfire could do that! However to do that he just lost airspeed because he has to trade airpeed for turn ability.

The fight goes to the traditional Energy vs Angles.

The FW190A can now outzoom the Spitfire and has the E advantage!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He trades airspeed for turn yes, but the chaser is cutting the corner its flying a shorter distance, also zooming with an aircraft on your six is stupid even with an E advantage, let alone with other aircraft around.

HellToupee
04-25-2009, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
The diffreence in roll-rate between the Spitfire and the FW190 in the game does not reflect the results in the NACA chart either. Instead, the normal-wing Spitfire rolls like the clipped does in that chart.


Yea right...

Theres a huge difference ingame between a clipped spits roll rate at speed and a full wing, a tempest will easily outroll a spit full wing at speed a 190 is even better.

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 09:20 PM
He trades airspeed for turn yes, but the chaser is cutting the corner its flying a shorter distance, also zooming with an aircraft on your six is stupid even with an E advantage, let alone with other aircraft around.

The point is the slower V-speed fighter is now on Energy deficient in the dogfight. The higher V-speed fighter does not have to zoom either as many seem to picture it by going straight up to zero airspeed. He can simply extend as he is best performance speeds are faster. At a safe distance, he can perform a lag displacement roll, chandelle, hammerhead or any number of other maneuvers to reverse direction and maintain energy.

Facts are the higher V-speed fighter should be able to effectively dogfight lower V-speed fighter on different but equal terms.

That is how real airplanes work.


All the best,

Crumpp

CUJO_1970
04-25-2009, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Yea right...

Theres a huge difference ingame between a clipped spits roll rate at speed and a full wing, a tempest will easily outroll a spit full wing at speed a 190 is even better.

Baloney.

There is no "huge" difference between the full-wing and clipped wing Spitfire roll rate in this sim, or in the Tempest for that matter. You obviously haven't really tested it. Unless you consider about 10 degrees per second to be "huge"?

Now, since you were not able to comprehend what I actually wrote in the first place, I'll type this next part real slow for you:

At 372mph/600kph, the FW190 IN GAME has a 15+/- degree per second roll rate advantage over a NORMAL winged Spit IX.

According to the NACA chart, the difference should be more like a 45 degree per second roll rate advantage over a NORMAL winged Spit.

TRANSLATION: The FW190 in the game does NOT have it's historic roll rate advantage over a NORMAL wing Spitfire.

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 09:34 PM
Ahhh, a good old Aircraft performance debate thread

You guys can debate your games performance all day long; I am not really interested in that. I will be happy to help out by explaining what is going on if folks do not understand why or how's. IMHO, your game does a good job of simulating things on a home computer.

I am also working with some players who are performing specific flight regiments designed to produce data for performance analysis. I will help them process it and the methods are applicable to determining any aircraft’s performance.

I am just relating how aircraft work and have no idea how that aligns in your game. What is done with the information is your business and prerogative.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 09:42 PM
TRANSLATION: The FW190 in the game does NOT have it's historic roll rate advantage over a NORMAL wing Spitfire.

That would completely change the dynamics and limit the options for the higher V-Speed aircraft. The higher V-speed fighter is fast but ponderous.

He can't use his agility and maneuverability to over come the slower V-speed performance and equalize the fight.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 10:17 PM
Kette, I'm curious about what you think about energy loss WRT the Spitfire and FW190, because that is where I see one of the biggest problems in the sim.

I am not sure about it but view the instantaneous performance somewhat differently than it seems to be viewed here.

What I am talking about is sustained performance by flying the aircraft by its V-speeds. There is no energy loss as the aircraft has the power required to sustain the performance as long as it has fuel or can generate that power.

The higher V-Speed aircraft sustains performance at a faster velocity than lower V-speed aircraft.

As for instantaneous performance, "bleeding" speed is a good thing if you want to turn. To aircraft performing an instantaneous turn at the same velocity, the one that slows down the quickest will out turn the other one! Higher drag with appropriate design power means the pilot can quickly and precisely control his V-speeds. It is much harder to manage airspeeds in a low drag design. You are limited in your ability to quickly and precisely change from one V-speed to another. Why do you think they put spoilers on a Mooney? The lack of speed control made the aircraft difficult to fly.


When you firewall the throttle on a propeller aircraft from stall speed, it accelerates very fast from the stall to Dmin. It is literally rolling downhill and every bit of forward velocity translates into more excess thrust to further increase the acceleration rate. From Dmin to L/Dmax our acceleration stabilizes and after L/Dmax begins to decrease until top level speed is reached. When you push the throttle, an airplane goes! If you set the manifold pressure and rpm to deliver a specific amount of power, the aircraft quickly moves to that point on the power required curve.


It bleeds energy badly in harsh manouvres much more than the Spit for example is what Cujo means, I think.


The FW-190 should outturn a Spitfire going the same speed in instantaneous performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-25-2009, 10:19 PM
Well, the 190 should loose some E in sustained turns.

I am sure what you are thinking does not reflect what you wrote here.

Obviously, if the performance is sustained, we do not lose energy.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 04:08 AM
Well, obviosly, yes.
Thanks for the clarification.

So as a conclusion, the 190 out-turns the Spit due to better thrust/ drag ratio.
BUT (very big one!) that only happens at high speeds (relatively seen) as the 190's Va is at higher speeds. (pls correct me if I'm wrong - still looks pretty simplified to me)

So E-bleed only plays a role in instantanous-turns.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ahhh, a good old Aircraft performance debate thread

You guys can debate your games performance all day long; I am not really interested in that. I will be happy to help out by explaining what is going on if folks do not understand why or how's. IMHO, your game does a good job of simulating things on a home computer.

I am also working with some players who are performing specific flight regiments designed to produce data for performance analysis. I will help them process it and the methods are applicable to determining any aircraft’s performance.

I am just relating how aircraft work and have no idea how that aligns in your game. What is done with the information is your business and prerogative.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An aircraft performance debate is debating the real performance of WW2 fighters relative to each other. (which could outroll, outurn, outdive the other etc)

Real aircraft have performance advantages over other aircraft and thats what we are talking about.

Of course people are going to be interested in 'our' game however as this is the game forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fw190 in game as an extrememly fast roll rate. I think its the fastest of any aircraft in the game. The Spit loses its roll rate quickly at med-high speeds, and it was fast to start with. The SPit has excellent elevators however.

Maybe someone who has aircraft viewer could post the comparison in roll rates between the fw190A and the Spit IX full wing.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 04:59 AM
So as a conclusion, the 190 out-turns the Spit due to better thrust/ drag ratio.


Yes the FW190A can sustain a higher load factor at its best turn rate speed just as the Spitfire out turns the FW-190A at it's Best rate of turn speed.

The FW190A can force the Spitfire to reduce velocity.

The FW-190A's best rate of turn velocity is ~270mph while all of the Merlin series Spitfires reach best rate of turn ~160 mph.

It is a pretty good sized difference.

IIRC, these aircraft actually have a very similar L/Dmax of 16:1. The Spitfires Dmin point occurs at 160mph IAS while the FW-190A's occurs at 270mph IAS.


BUT (very big one!) that only happens at high speeds (relatively seen) as the 190's Va is at higher speeds. (pls correct me if I'm wrong - still looks pretty simplified to me)


You got it.

Unless the Spitfire pilot is suicidal, it is not useful for angle fighting. It is only useful for forcing the Spitfire to drop down to his best performance numbers.

It is then useful for the FW190A to maintain a velocity advantage.

The FW190A can then use roll rate to neutralize the sustained turn advantage of the Spitfire.

As long as the FW-190 stays in the vertical at its best rate of turn speed and uses its agility advantage, it is an even match in a dogfight.


So E-bleed only plays a role in instantanous-turns.


That is correct. The aircraft that slows down the fastest wins the turn performance race in instantaneous performance turns.

There is no "E-bleed" involved in this as it all within both aircraft sustained envelope. As long as the engine can supply power, these aircraft can dogfight on equal terms and things will develop as above if the pilots do not make any mistakes.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 05:01 AM
BTW I should just note that none of the moderators here have anything to do with the game development...(My comment 'our' game was just a response to Crumpp calling it 'your' game')

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 05:17 AM
An aircraft performance debate is debating the real performance of WW2 fighters relative to each other. (which could outroll, outurn, outdive the other etc)

I am just letting you know that I am not here to beat up Oleg Maddox or the IL2 Sturmovik series of games.

Additionally, most of these aircraft really do not have performance gaps large enough to be considered significant.

It is fun to dissect them with a calculator and see the possibilities.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 05:19 AM
My comment 'our' game was just a response to Crumpp calling it 'your' game'

I am confused, it is your game, right? If I am striking a nerve, it is not my intention and I apologize.

JZG_Thiem
04-26-2009, 06:27 AM
The FW-190A's best rate of turn velocity is ~270mph while all of the Merlin series Spitfires reach best rate of turn ~160 mph.

A question to Kettenhunde, but first the data:

in game the best "rate of turn velocity" (corner speed?)is:

190A4-9: 220mph-240mph
190D9: 255mph
Spit MkV: 180mph-190mph
Spit MkIX: 195mph

Would you consider that a minor or major impact compared to real life?
What would that impact be on tactics available to the plane/pilot?

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 07:05 AM
Would you consider that a minor or major impact compared to real life?


Those speeds have the basic relative line up. In RL it was a somewhat larger gap.

There seems to be some confusion on the different V-Speeds. There are actually quite a few of them.

Best turn rate is NOT maneuver speed.

Va is maneuver speed. Above that speed we cannot use full control deflection as we can break the airplane.

Best rate of turn speed equals Best Range speed. It can be found at L/Dmax or Dmin for an aircraft.

This is the fastest an aircraft will make a complete circle.

Minimum radius of turn is found at Prmin which is also our maximum power available point. It represents the smallest circle our aircraft can fly. It does not mean this is our best rate of turn.

Minimum radius turns are very important for things like mountain flying.

Don't get confused about his pilot math in determining Vbr and Vmd. You do not have headwinds.

http://www.auf.asn.au/groundsc...umodule2.html#vspeed (http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule2.html#vspeed)

Here is the Pr curve that determines our V-Speeds.

http://www.auf.asn.au/groundsc...e1b.html#power_curve (http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule1b.html#power_curve)


in game the best "rate of turn velocity" (corner speed?)is:


Those speeds look close. IIRC, I got the 160mph from the Spitfire POH and the 270mph from a Focke Wulf report on the best range of the aircraft.

You can compare the POH listed speeds for best range and endurance. Best endurance will also sometimes be listed as the minimum fuel consumption airspeed. Make sure you properly convert your speeds and account for altitude effects. I would just use EAS to compare.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My comment 'our' game was just a response to Crumpp calling it 'your' game'

I am confused, it is your game, right? If I am striking a nerve, it is not my intention and I apologize. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I was just making it clear that I was not a developer.

Not striking a nerve at all, its not 'my' game but everyones game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
04-26-2009, 09:19 AM
The FW-190A's best rate of turn velocity is ~270mph

I'd just like to point out this is Crumpp's opinion, not shared by many (not me, people far more knowledgeable). It provoked an 8 page thread over on Olivier's board.

As I understand, Crumpp derived this figure from a chart showing a best range cruise speed for the 190.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 11:17 AM
not shared by many

Baloney.

Those, such as yourself that made post's about how engine design dictates cruise performance did not agree. I certainly would not call them knowledgeable in aerodynamics.



Crumpp derived this figure from a chart showing a best range cruise speed for the 190.

The Spitfire, all the POH's list a simliar IAS as L/D ratio is tied to design. Converting it to EAS is pretty simple.

Using incompressible flow theory with a standard compressibilty correction:

170mph IAS + PEC (+2) = 172 MPH CAS

Since our speed is below 200 mph the compressibility correction is zero.

172 mph EAS for Best rate of turn speed for the Spitfire Mk IX.

The FW190A8 Flugzeug Handbuch list 440kph TAS at 300 meters. We can just remove the density effects to arrive at our EAS speed!

440kph TAS = 237.5KTAS * .9854 <SQRT of the density ratio at ~1000 feet> = 234KEAS

234KEAS * 1.15 = 269 mph EAS

Spitfire Mk IX POH:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4502/spit20.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spit20.jpg)


FW190 POH and range test:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2439/cruisetesting.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cruisetesting.jpg)

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7180/crusieengiinesettings.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crusieengiinesettings.jpg)

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9715/crusieflight.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crusieflight.jpg)

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9527/crusieflight2.jpg (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crusieflight2.jpg)

We now have EAS speeds to compare:

269EAS - 172EAS = 97 mph EAS difference in V speeds.

At best rate of turn speed, the Spitfire is ~100mph slower than the FW190A series.


All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 12:05 PM
But that doesnt mean anything with regards to radius of turn surely.

Even if the FW190 tries to outturn the Spit at its 'best turn speed' the Spit will still turn inside the FW190 for a solution if hes already in range.

All this 'best turn speed' seems only useful if you are out of guns range. I cant see it being very useful if a Spit is chasing you, or you engage it in a turning dogfight. It will always turn inside the FW190 regardless of airspeed as far as I can see...

The SPit can simply pull a tighter turn, whereas when the situtaion is reversed, the Fw190 cannot pull lead to get a deflection shot in a turn fight, whereas the Spitfire can easily on the Fw190.

The tight turning ability of the Spit is very usefull when trying to get a deflection shot, and if the enemy has seen you then 99% of shooting is deflection shooting in Air combat, as he is turning to try and avoid you.

Yes the SPit may burn more energy if he pulls harder to get a gun solution, but if he gets that solution (and it usually does vs a Fw190 in a turning fight) the Fw190 will be dead. SO it seems like you are relying on the SPit being a bad shot if you try this manouvre.

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Even if the FW190 tries to outturn the Spit at its 'best turn speed' the Spit will still turn inside the FW190 for a solution if hes already in range.

No, in order to pull lead on the other guy, you need a higher turn-rate, i.e. more degrees per second (less time per 360 degrees turn).
It's an angle-game, not a radius-game.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if the FW190 tries to outturn the Spit at its 'best turn speed' the Spit will still turn inside the FW190 for a solution if hes already in range.

No, in order to pull lead on the other guy, you need a higher turn-rate, i.e. more degrees per second (less time per 360 degrees turn).
It's an angle-game, not a radius-game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ANd seeing as the Spit can pull a tighter turn in less time surely the SPit will easily get a solution?

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 12:13 PM
It can only turn at a higher rate at low speeds, as we've found out above.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 12:25 PM
Hmm, I'm not sure that the difference would be enough to make any difference in a dogfight, the Spit had good elevator control at speeds once metal airlerons where added on the MkV, it was the ailerons which got heavy with speed (roll rate)

The problem I see it :-

The SPit is just far too good at turning at mid to low speeds for the Fw190 to try a turning battle.

At high speeds the Fw190 is just 'not better enough' than the SPit to enage in a turning fight either.

Everything I have read/seen about SPit vs FW190 says that Horizontal turn is the one area where the Spit mkV had the Fw190 beat easily.

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 12:34 PM
Look, you obviously haven't understood the issue:

The Spit's best turnrate (sustained) is at speeds well below the 190's.

With higher speeds, turn-performance decreases, as drag rises (remember, for a sustainded turn, we need an equilibrium of thrust and drag).
Now as the Spit has to operate ABOVE it's best turning-speed, it can't match (sustain) the 190's turnrate - it just doesn't have enough thrust to do so.

Thus, the only way to turn inside the 190 would be pulling hard on the stick, making it an instantaneous turn (with E-bleed) and therefore not maintainable.
The Spit would have to lower it's nose to regain speed or try to fight at it's best turning-speed in the first place.

This would lead to the classic angles- vs. energy-fighter game.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2009, 01:12 PM
Absolutely spot on, Bremspropeller!!

He is correct Xio, listen to the man.

All the best,

Crumpp

Manu-6S
04-26-2009, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Thus, the only way to turn inside the 190 would be pulling hard on the stick, making it an instantaneous turn (with E-bleed) and therefore not maintainable.
The Spit would have to lower it's nose to regain speed or try to fight at it's best turning-speed in the first place.


And how does this work in IL2?

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Absolutely spot on, Bremspropeller!!

He is correct Xio, listen to the man.

All the best,

Crumpp

I think you both misunderstood what I wrote. I wasnt saying it was wrong, I was saying I doubt how useful it is (turning at any speed as a defensive manouvre in a FW190 vs a Spit) I just dont htink the Fw190's advantage at higher speeds over the Spit is enough to make a difference in a turning battle at ANY speed.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Thus, the only way to turn inside the 190 would be pulling hard on the stick, making it an instantaneous turn (with E-bleed) and therefore not maintainable.
The Spit would have to lower it's nose to regain speed or try to fight at it's best turning-speed in the first place.


And how does this work in IL2? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what they are saying is quite simply 'stay fast in a FW190' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 02:09 PM
It obvoiously doesn't work in-game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


BTW: there is no "classic" turning-battle IRL.
Pointing the lift-vector on the other fighter and looking who can turn tighter/ quicker is a good way of getting killed by a third guy in the game.

La7_brook
04-26-2009, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Hmm you shold have done vertical rolling scissors and exploit the roll rate of the Dora since the spitfire when using ailerons slows down enormously plus the spit25lb is very bad above 5.5k meters. First smart post , Roll 190 dont turn it

FatCat_99
04-26-2009, 03:06 PM
For FW190A in RL speed for best turn rate is in 320-340Kmh range. For Spit that speed is somewhat lower but not dramatically and even when not turning at its best rate Spit can still out turn FW until relatively high speeds. Only after ~450Kmh FW can start to out turn Spit.

That's how the game works too, what is problem for FW in game is Spitfire's ability to fly at full power all the time. On the other hand FW will overheat and player will have to reduce power(speed) and lose advantage.

Things are same in case of Dora and Spit25lb, Dora have limited ability to stay in fight although Dora is very good turning plane and under certain circumstances it can surprise Spits. For sustained turns combat flaps are must for any FW in game.

FC

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by FatCat_99:
For FW190A in RL speed for best turn rate is in 320-340Kmh range. For Spit that speed is somewhat lower but not dramatically and even when not turning at its best rate Spit can still out turn FW until relatively high speeds.


This is exactly what I meant. I just dont think that turning is an valuable option for the FW190 vs SPit, even at the Fw190's best turn speed.

Obviously I turn in combat when flying the FW190, but I would never use turning alone as a way of defeating a Spit-at any speed. It must be combined with other manouvres in order to win

NOTE : I am not saying that the Spit is the superior plane, the Fw190 is probably my favourite fighter, and used correctly its absolutely awesome in game.

I am purely talking about the horizontal turn not being useful as a defensive and sometime offensive manouvre while in the Wurger.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2009, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:


BTW: there is no "classic" turning-battle IRL.
.

Of course there was. Just one example :-

S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa

"Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at
high speed, and as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He also
obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled into a
screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was a big
mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. It
took only a few minutes to get on his tail and a short burst with cannon
and machine-guns produced much smoke, glycol, and large chunks falling
off. The pilot immediately pulled up and bailed out, but we were still
close to the ground, and although his parachute appeared to stream, it
did not open before the poor beggar hit the ground."

Bremspropeller
04-26-2009, 03:40 PM
I doubt they level-turned for minutes.

DKoor
04-26-2009, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Obviously I turn in combat when flying the FW190, but I would never use turning alone as a way of defeating a Spit-at any speed. It must be combined with other manouvres in order to win Just as in all aircraft it is best option to just bounce someone.
He has to have double the aircraft you have in order to escape or defeat you.
Not to mention that he has to see you coming on him in the first place.

Flat turning or turning of any kind when offensive should take place only when we are sure that we have a kill in our hands and no other hostile near... if that two conditions aren't met, then turning is about as poorest decision as one can make.

Consequently I would never try to beat a FW in a Spitfire by outturning him... unless I have first two conditions (a rare thing).
Can't count how many times I've been "picked up" by a bandit that I never saw and killed, and it doesn't really matter if I won the turning contest.

This game will after some time teach most people mostly not to turn either offensively or defensively, because energy is life.
Aircraft type is irrelevant.

That is at least what I learned by playing this game for a long time.

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 03:09 AM
For FW190A in RL speed for best turn rate is in 320-340Kmh range.

My own calculations come pretty close to this on the FW-190A series, btw. However with the exception of the Merlin 66 +25, it definitely still shows the same comparative relationship. The Spitfire cannot outturn the FW190 if it tries to match Best turn speeds.

So it is kind of a mystery and one I haven’t been devoting much effort to solve. I need to get off my behind and copy off the microfilm reel the 500 page performance calculations done by Focke Wulf Gmbh on the FW190. Maybe that has some answers.

My thrust plots very much agree with Focke Wulfs figures for 237.5KEAS. Subsonic incompressible flow theory power plots returns the 320-340kph range. In higher order theory, thrust is often used just like in jets but again, that kind of stuff is well beyond our resources.

If Focke Wulf used such theory and confirmed it with flight testing I tend to put my faith in their numbers for their own design.

If we look at the fact the TAS data is printed in all the FW190A series publications such as the Kennblatt that were used by the pilots for planning purposes, I highly doubt Focke Wulf would publish if it was not true. It seems very pointy tin-foil hat and awfully arrogant to chuck it out based on some simple math and second guesses.

What it means is there were quite a few Luftwaffe pilots running out of gas as their planning charts were all wrong!

That is kind of big deal and one which would be tough to cover up.

I tend to think they know more about the details of their design than we do.

This is also why investigations into design points in the middle of curve are very useful.

The Spitfire data lines up perfectly.

All the best,

Crumpp

FatCat_99
04-27-2009, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

My thrust plots very much agree with Focke Wulfs figures for 237.5KEAS. Subsonic incompressible flow theory power plots returns the 320-340kph range. In higher order theory, thrust is often used just like in jets but again, that kind of stuff is well beyond our resources.

There is no need to mystify things, you have made simple error in your assumptions and that's all.



If Focke Wulf used such theory and confirmed it with flight testing I tend to put my faith in their numbers for their own design.

If we look at the fact the TAS data is printed in all the FW190A series publications such as the Kennblatt that were used by the pilots for planning purposes, I highly doubt Focke Wulf would publish if it was not true.

In documents you posted I don't see where they say that 440Kmh is speed for maximum range. It is just your assumption and if you calculate drag for FW at 440Kmh at SL you will see that L/D is not that big ( Quick and dirty calculation for FW190A5 gives ~1000lb Drag at 440Kmh TAS at SL)something like 8,5.

When you make calculations right than you will get 320-340 Kmh as speed for best range and your L/D will be 12-13 which fits in the same range as other WWII fighters.

I agree that people at FW knew they job, if you multiply 330 with 1,316 you will get 434Kmh, almost the same number as from FW handbook.

That is so called Carson's speed which is defined as Optimum cruising speed. FW people knew it ~40 years before Carson http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FC

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 08:12 AM
There is no need to mystify things, you have made simple error in your assumptions and that's all.

Duh! That is why it lines up with the tangent of thrust required. Good eye, Fatcat.

That is pretty neat, I would have never put the two together linking at a 60 year old design firm to Carson’s speed. Dr Carson’s theories are still considered very new and not mainstream yet. I would have never thought that Kurt Tank was on the same line of thinking!

I looked up his original paper in the AAIA library. It is pretty neat, he lines up everything from a man walking, to a submarine, to a skyrocket:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1899/carson.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=carson.jpg)


Crumpp says:

calculations come pretty close to this on the FW-190A series, btw. However with the exception of the Merlin 66 +25, it definitely still shows the same comparative relationship. The Spitfire cannot outturn the FW190 if it tries to match Best turn speeds.

I will have to change my statement as I thought Focke Wulf was predicting L/Dmax occurring at a higher velocity. It is obvious they were using Carson’s theory long before he devised it!

I concede that it does not occur at L/Dmax for the FW-190 and very relieved to confirm the incompressible flow predictions give very good results.

That does not change the basic alignment of why the FW-190 can force the Spitfire into the classic angle vs energy. The calculations only show performance at 1st Gear FTH for both aircraft and below in EAS.

Here is the Velocity and Sustained load factors. You can see than in the vicinity of Focke Wulf’s listed Optimum cruise, the FW190 can sustain a higher load factor than the Spitfire Merlin 66 (+18).

The changeover occurs around 210KEAS.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3522/sustaineloadfactors.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sustaineloadfactors.jpg)

Spitfire sustained envelope:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/129/spitfiremerlin6618.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spitfiremerlin6618.jpg)

FW190 sustained envelope:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7273/fw190a8turnperformance.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fw190a8turnperformance.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

CUJO_1970
04-27-2009, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by FatCat_99:
That's how the game works too, what is problem for FW in game is Spitfire's ability to fly at full power all the time. On the other hand FW will overheat and player will have to reduce power(speed) and lose advantage.
FC

Yep, correct that the Spitfire can run firewalled pretty much indefinitely.

Wonder what it's real life limitations were?

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 09:17 AM
According to the Operating Instructions, the Merlin 66 in the Spitfire Mk IX was limited to Take Off rating at Best Rate of climb to 1000 feet.

Combat rating was limited to 5 min.

The BMW801 was limited to 3 minutes at Take Off rating. Climb rating was limited to 30 minutes at best rate of climb. Special Emergency Power was limited 10 minutes in the FW190A8 fighter.

The other boost systems used by the BMW801 had other limitations.

All the best,

Crumpp

CUJO_1970
04-27-2009, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
According to the Operating Instructions, the Merlin 66 in the Spitfire Mk IX was limited to Take Off rating at Best Rate of climb to 1000 feet.

Combat rating was limited to 5 min.



In-game, you can firewall the Spitfire and then pretty much forget about it.

I would like to see some in-game tests on the Spitfire to see how long the engine will go balls out before it actually gets damage, and then compare those to the real life limitations.

Bremspropeller
04-27-2009, 12:00 PM
Well, according to Crumpp's figures, the 190 starts to turn (sustained) tighter than the Spit at 210 kts.

hop2002
04-27-2009, 12:29 PM
Crumpp,

told you so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Well, according to Crumpp's figures, the 190 starts to turn (sustained) tighter than the Spit at 210 kts.

But how is that going to help against the Spit?

If the Spit is on the tail of the 190, which starts pulling say 3g at 250, the Spitfire simply drops down to say 220 at 3g.

Here's a chart from Fighter Combat Tactics and Manoeuvring by Shaw (my scanner isn't working but I found the image on the net):
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/218/turnrateradiusshaw.jpg

Read the results off the chart. The 190 will be flying a larger circle, with a slightly lower turn rate. The Spitfire will be inside it, turning a smaller circle at a higher rate.

Bremspropeller
04-27-2009, 12:54 PM
But the 190 will fly at a higher speed and can exit at will.

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 01:04 PM
But how is that going to help against the Spit?

If the Spit is on the tail of the 190, which starts pulling say 3g at 250, the Spitfire simply drops down to say 220 at 3g.


250KEAS - 220KEAS = 30KEAS

30KEAS * 1.15 = 35mph

Characteristics of our theoretical aircraft:

Weight 9000lbs
Thrust in lbs = 1000lbs
Drag in lbs = 500

Zoom climb from 300mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

300mph = 441fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 150mph = 220.5fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

9000lbs * sin 45 = 6364lbs
1000lbs – 500lbs – 6364lbs = 5864lbs

a = F/m

m = 9000lbs/32.2 = 279.5 lb-s^2/ft
a= 5864lb/279.5lb-s^2/ft
a = 20.98 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (441^2 – 220.5^2)/(2 * 20.98ft/s^2) = 3476.18 ft

3476.18 ft * sin 45 = 2458 ft


Characteristics of our theoretical aircraft:

Weight 9000lbs
Thrust in lbs = 1000lbs
Drag in lbs = 500

Zoom climb from 330mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

335mph = 566fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 150mph = 220.5fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

9000lbs * sin 45 = 6364lbs
1000lbs – 500lbs – 6364lbs = 5864lbs

a = F/m

m = 9000lbs/32.2 = 279.5 lb-s^2/ft
a= 5864lb/279.5lb-s^2/ft
a = 20.98 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 – V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (566^2 – 220.5^2)/(2 * 20.98ft/s^2) = 6476 ft

6476 ft * sin 45 = 4579ft

4579 ft - 2458 ft = 2121 ft

That 30 mph difference translates to a 2121 ft difference in zoom height.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
04-27-2009, 01:09 PM
Crumpp, can you tell me why the Spitfire IX in you load factor chart maxes out at about 265 knots?


Yep, correct that the Spitfire can run firewalled pretty much indefinitely.

Wonder what it's real life limitations were?

The Merlin was limited to 5 minutes at 9 lbs boost in the Spitfire II. When the Spitfire V went up to 16 lbs boost the limit remained at 5 minutes. Boost then increased to 18 lbs in the Spitfire IX, again limited to 5 minutes, and then 25 lbs, still 5 mins.

The Griffon Spitfires also had limits of 5 minutes. So did the Sabre in the Typhoon and the Tempest.

In other words, the RAF simply applied a 5 minute limit to fighters using maximum power.

Of course pilots often ignored that. One of the RAF's "Pilot Prune" instructions tells Spitfire V pilots, recently cleared for 16lbs boost:

a: When hard pressed you can fly 16 lbs boost, 3000 rpm without any danger of blowing up, but:

b: your consumption will be 150 gallons an hour.

It then goes on to say:

but when in the vicinity of Huns, fly maximum everything and in good time

The RAF trials of the Spitfire IX at 25 lbs boost notes that the aircraft spent 1 hour 10 minutes in total at 25 lbs boost, and over 2 hours at over 18 lbs. That wasn't all at the same time, of course, but it's no more stressful on the engine running sustained high power than short bursts, indeed in many ways less stressful. Of course, the cooling has to be up to the job, if the aircraft overheats due to the high power output the engine won't last long.

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 01:09 PM
But the 190 will fly at a higher speed and can exit at will.

Exactly.

He can come back on his terms and execute displacement rolls or roll the vector of lift below the horizon to neutralize that turn rate advantage.

An fighter like the P47 or the P51 could do the same thing against its better turning but less agile opponents.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 01:10 PM
Crumpp, can you tell me why the Spitfire IX in you load factor chart maxes out at about 265 knots?

Yep. That is the EAS of the FTH in MS gear at 10800 feet, IIRC! The biggest problem in performance calculations is finding relaible power data. I took the most reliable data I had for speed and power at FTH and converted it to EAS so we can compare the airplanes.

The Spitfire data represents its maximum power available in MS Gear.

The analysis only holds true from sea level to the FW190's 1st Gear FTH as it is lower than the Spitfires. This isn't a "one size" fits all assumption. Aircraft performance does not work that way.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 01:22 PM
In other words, the RAF simply applied a 5 minute limit to fighters using maximum power.


No the manufacturer changed the limits, not the RAF.

In this case Rolls Royce applied the limit to the percentage exceeding maximum continuous the engineering margins allowed. With each of these boost increases came engineering developments that allowed them to do that.

For example, higher octane fuel raises the knock limited performance. That means less heat and strain on the engine at the higher boost. If the crank, pistons, and casing are stressed for it, then the limits can be raised. It also means higher operating pressures.

That is why generally speaking, a increase in power was accompanied by other design changes such as new pistons or gearing.

It is not a "generic" time and it is a time you exceed at your own risk as a pilot.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
04-27-2009, 01:27 PM
Yep. That is the EAS of the FTH in MS gear at 10800 feet, IIRC!

FTH of BS543 was 10,800 ft, TAS was 384 mph (that's at 18 lbs)

FTH of JL 165 was 2,800 ft at 25 lbs, TAS 364 mph.

The data sheet for the Spitfire LF IX at 18 lbs gives FTH at 10,500 ft, TAS 384 mph.

Could you rework the chart to one of the correct figures?

Also, what altitude does the 190 chart show?

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 01:40 PM
EAS not TAS....


269KEAS/SQRT sigma <.8457> = 318TAS * 1.15 = 366mph

I think my data came from Shacklady and Morgan as it seem to represent the average performance. You can see from your data that even with hundreds of horsepower added, Spitfire data is all over the map.

The FW190A data is from Focke Wulf's reported averages and a lower altitude so I did not want to give unfair advantage by picking data.

The prediction does not show specific performance either, it shows relative trends.

For example, the changeover exists and it occurs shortly after L/Dmax and before Carson's Speed. You can't really say, at 210KEAS it changes over and I should have said that as it is misleading.

I should have said "in the prediction" the changeover occurs at 210KEAS. The calculations predict trends over a swath of the aircrafts envelope. In this case, at the FW-190's 1st gear FTH and below.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 01:46 PM
Could you rework the chart to one of the correct figures?

I would be happy to rework with whatever data you think is appropriate.

I have to ask though after your snotty entrance into this thread...

Why should I?

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
04-27-2009, 02:05 PM
Why should I?

Because you are putting yourself across as an authority.

I wasn't aware my entrance to the thread was "snotty", I was merely pointing out the information you were posting was your opinion, whereas you were presenting it as fact. That you have now revised that opinion rather vindicates my "snotty" intervention.


269KEAS/SQRT sigma <.8457> = 318TAS * 1.15 = 366mph

Which tested Spitfire IX had a FTH of 10,800ft, and a speed of 366?

I've given some results above, but there's also

MA648 FTH 9,400ft, 379 mph (fitted with fuel pump instead of carb)

BS310 FTH 8,000 ft, 372 mph


The FW190A data is from Focke Wulf's reported averages and a lower altitude so I did not want to give unfair advantage by picking data.

If you are using FW's reported averages, then I'd have thought the Spitfire data sheet would be the best source to compare against.

What height was the 190 at? Don't you think for a better comparison they should be at the same height?

EDIT: JL 165 did 364 TAS at 2,800 ft. As the chart is labelled 25 lbs, and that's the only 25 lbs figure we have, why not use that?

na85
04-27-2009, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:

I wasn't aware my entrance to the thread was "snotty"

It was.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2009, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Crumpp, can you tell me why the Spitfire IX in you load factor chart maxes out at about 265 knots?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yep, correct that the Spitfire can run firewalled pretty much indefinitely.

Wonder what it's real life limitations were?

The Merlin was limited to 5 minutes at 9 lbs boost in the Spitfire II. When the Spitfire V went up to 16 lbs boost the limit remained at 5 minutes. Boost then increased to 18 lbs in the Spitfire IX, again limited to 5 minutes, and then 25 lbs, still 5 mins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, when the Spitfire Mk V was cleared for +16 lbs boost, the limit was decreased to 3 mins - probably because of cooling problems.

Buzzsaw-
04-27-2009, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

I think my data came from Shacklady and Morgan as it seem to represent the average performance. You can see from your data that even with hundreds of horsepower added, Spitfire data is all over the map.

The FW190A data is from Focke Wulf's reported averages and a lower altitude so I did not want to give unfair advantage by picking data.

FW190D data is '...all over the map..." too if you look at the actual tests. In fact I think if you look at the below page and the linked tests, the figures you quote seem to be cherry picked.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...190/fw190d9test.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html)

Note most of the results come from aircraft with special rubber seals closing gaps between engine compartment sheet metal and fuselage, seals which were not present in production aircraft.

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 08:21 PM
FW190D data is '...all over the map..." too if you look at the actual tests

Most Airplane data is all over the map. Manufacturers data is a percentage range over a mean average. It only applies to an "as delivered condition" as well.

Generally speaking, an aircraft begins losing performance the moment you begin flying it.


Which tested Spitfire IX had a FTH of 10,800ft, and a speed of 366?


You mean which one posted on "Spitfireperformance.com"?

I did not use any of them in this case. I will be happy to redo the analysis. It is on a spreadsheet I built and only takes a few minutes to change it. The sheet was built to analyze sustained performance differences for a wide number of variants of the same aircraft.

It has been very useful in this purpose.


I did not have good engine data and I couldn't get things to line up with some of the middle of the curve data as listed in the POH. I even asked Neil for help or more data that would align. He had none to offer.

Shacklady and Morgan's "Spitfire: The History" is the source of the performance data because that lined up with everything else.

I told you aircraft performance is a percentage range over a mean average. I looked for the average and not one example. I used data points from the POH in the middle of the curve to confirm my predictions. If the whole curve did not line up with the published instruction for operating the aircraft, I essentially disregard the data.

As I said though, pick your data, which ever you feel is appropriate and I will be glad to provide you with your own custom results.

The middle of the curve points for the FW190 has been a stickler because none of the points lined up with published data using conventional wisdom. That is because it is obvious Kurt Tank's design team developed similar beliefs as Dr. B.H. Carson. Tank's team must have looked at cruise performance in terms of looking for the "least wasteful way of wasting fuel".

BH Carson's work is based of some theories Kármán devised in the 1950's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n)


I can see some of the connection in Focke Wulf's design work. Tank was obviously aware of Kármán and actually reworked a few things using Kármán-Tsien ideas. To me, that is the neat part of this thread that this was in practice long before it was published. It is very unconventional thinking.


Because you are putting yourself across as an authority.


No. You are projecting that upon me. Just because the discussion gets technical does not mean I am "holding myself out as an authority". Much of this is not even "higher concepts", it is just basic physics and aircraft performance.

In fact I try to keep things rather generic when discussing aircraft performance. It is not an exact science dissecting old airplanes!

I am just an aircraft owner, pilot, and hold a degree in Aeronautical Sciences but I do not hold myself out as an expert. I work with WWII Aircraft as a hobby and sit on the Board of Directors for a Museum and Restoration Company. One day I would like to do it full time.

All the best,

Crumpp

tagert
04-27-2009, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Because you are putting yourself across as an authority.

I wasn't aware my entrance to the thread was "snotty", I was merely pointing out the information you were posting was your opinion, whereas you were presenting it as fact. That you have now revised that opinion rather vindicates my "snotty" intervention.
Been there done and seen that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 09:31 PM
That you have now revised that opinion

You should probably read what is written, Hop. No conclusions have been changed..

Only some behavior that departs from convention has been explained. That only confirms the overall conclusions of the relative performance in the original predictions.

The changeover point is still the same, the term for it has changed is all. It is still sustained performance and I know my math is correct now.

Interestingly enough as another testament to the skill of Tanks design team, (Va), maximum roll rate, and Carson's Speed all occur at the same point.

I don't like using "Optimal Cruise Performance" because that term is debatable which is why Carson's work is not found in most conventional text's.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-27-2009, 11:46 PM
Here is the analysis using Spitfire Mk IX BS 543 as tested by the RAE.

This represents a 13% reduction in parasitic drag over the median data. This can be easily attributed to the sealed gun ports, internal armor, lack of rearview mirror, and finish. Some of this is due to BS 543 being some 250lbs heavier than the median data used in the original calculation.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html

Comparing BS 543 results with Focke Wulf's median data puts the changeover point at 220KEAS instead of the original 210KEAS.

The Spitfire data is within limits but shifts the L/D point 5 KEAS forward to optimistic from the POH data.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3549/hopsfigures.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hopsfigures.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Gadje
04-28-2009, 04:34 AM
Hope those charts make it clear Jay http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What you did as described in your first post was correct (if you want to be aggresive!)

With 400m advantage getting two shooting passes is pretty good, then get away. If he looks like he knows what he is doing then thats your best option...use your speed to disengage.

If you were in the Spit think about what you do and don't want the Dora to do.
From best to worst:-

1. Dora starts to hard maneuver fight losing E. If he carries on with this you will get him. If he does this with a vertical dive element he has a chance but otherwise not.

2. Dora dives straight for the deck and keeps going. Ok let him go.

3. Dora extends right past maintaining alt and heads towards his lines. This is tricky. If you chase him, unless he makes a mistake he is safe. You on the otherhand are deep in blue territory in a slower plane. Let him go and he will be sure to be back. In the Spit after he passed I'd regroup and climb nearer my base watching my 6 for his return.

4. Dora engages me using his initial advantage firing shots. When co-E he spiral dives rolling to reverse direction of spiral with me on his 6 maintaining high speed. If I follow I'm likely to black-out but I want revenge! If I stay on him he runs to home low and now so am I. I'm screwed. A sitting duck for his teammates. (This is normal Spit pilot behaviorhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) If I don't dive after him I've already lost height and speed in the initial skirmish and need to climb. The Dora if he chooses can zoom climb up at me again.

Hope this explains how meeting a well flown Dora is never a nice thing even for a 25Ib Spit. The Dora calls the shots against a Spit and if you are not smart he will lead you in your Spit to your death.
You need to fly the Dora like playing chess, think about the end result.

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 06:47 AM
Hope this explains how meeting a well flown Dora is never a nice thing even for a 25Ib Spit. The Dora calls the shots against a Spit and if you are not smart he will lead you in your Spit to your death.
You need to fly the Dora like playing chess, think about the end result.

That is my impression from what I know of the FW190 and Spitfire match up.

Generally speaking, both pilots should be worried because aircraft performance will not decide the dogfight. The airplanes are evenly matched dogfighters that can sustain their advantage over each other.

It is agility and speed vs sustained turn capability, classic angles vs energy.

It is also a matter of being smart and flying your plane by its best performance numbers and strengths.

If you game does that, then it is a damn good simulation.

I hope you guys enjoy it.

All the best,

Crumpp

arthursmedley
04-28-2009, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Gadje:

You need to fly the Dora like playing chess, think about the end result.


Sums it up perfectly IMO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

hop2002
04-28-2009, 09:31 AM
Edit in progress.

hop2002
04-28-2009, 09:56 AM
You should probably read what is written, Hop. No conclusions have been changed..

I'm sorry, I thought you'd backed off from claiming "The FW-190A's best rate of turn velocity is ~270mph" down to 210 mph or so. Isn't that the case? I confess half the terms you and FatBat are using are beyond me, but I thought that was the gist of it.



Shacklady and Morgan's "Spitfire: The History" is the source of the performance data because that lined up with everything else.

Can I ask what page? I can't find those figures anywhere, in fact they seem worse than any I can find in the book for the Merlin 66 Spitfire IX.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I said though, pick your data, which ever you feel is appropriate and I will be glad to provide you with your own custom results.

JL 165. 264 TAS at 2,800 ft. It was, after all, running at 25 lbs boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as the discussion was about the 25 lbs Spitfire, then the results for JL 165 are surely the appropriate ones. 264 TAS at 2,800 ft.


Because you are putting yourself across as an authority.



No. You are projecting that upon me.

Let's just agree to say that you are regarded as an authority by many on this thread.

Can I ask again what altitude the 190 figures are for?

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 10:34 AM
I confess half the terms you and FatBat are using are beyond me,

Well, I am trying to help you but you make it awfully hard.

It is FatCAT BTW if you are having trouble seeing.

If you are looking for some magic calculations that will tell down to the precise number for performance that applies to all conditions, you won't find it. This is an aircraft performance discussion and airplanes do not work that way.

Everything is a median over a percentage range. Our math predicts trends not specific numbers. Frankly, to claim something as the end all specific performance would be silly. Our data and formulation is just not that accurate.

That is just how it works.


Can I ask again what altitude the 190 figures are for?

IIRC it is about ~4000feet is where the FW190 data is found.

It is Equivalent Airspeed and predicts performance trends over a band of altitude up to the FW190's 1st Gear FTH.

Go back and read the thread. You question about the Merlin 66 +25 is already addressed for the Antons. I could compare the Dora’s if people would like?


All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
04-28-2009, 10:44 AM
Well, I am trying to help you but you make it awfully hard.

It is awfully hard when you won't answer the questions.


"The FW-190A's best rate of turn velocity is ~270mph"

Do you still maintain that?


Go back and read the thread. You question about the Merlin 66 +25 is already addressed for the Antons.

Is it? You seem to have compared the A8 at 4,000 ft (it's best height in low gear) with a Spitfire at 10,800 ft, which hardly seems a fair comparison.

As you offered, could you do the Spitfire at 25 lbs boost, as the FTH heights are much closer with the 190s.

hop2002
04-28-2009, 11:32 AM
On the subject of engine limits:


Actually, when the Spitfire Mk V was cleared for +16 lbs boost, the limit was decreased to 3 mins - probably because of cooling problems.



Possible, because the Spitfire V did have inadequate cooling in some situations. But I suspect the 3 mins is simply a mistake, probably due to the similarity between 3 and 5 in some old typewriter fonts.

Whilst the test of AA878 says in several places the limit was for 3 minutes, the pilot manual clearly says 5 minutes. The later LF Vs ran at 18 lbs for 5 minutes.


No the manufacturer changed the limits, not the RAF.

In this case Rolls Royce applied the limit to the percentage exceeding maximum continuous the engineering margins allowed. With each of these boost increases came engineering developments that allowed them to do that.

Every RAF fighter I can find from the period had a 5 minute limit for maximum power, no matter who made the engines.

For example:

Merlin Spitfires - 5 minutes (with the possible exception noted by Kurfurst)

Griffon Spitfires - 5 minutes.

Hawker Typhoon, Napier Sabre engine - 5 minutes
Hawker Tempest, Napier Sabre - 5 minutes
Hawker Sea Fury, Bristol Centaurus - 5 minutes

Westland Whirlwind, RR Peregine engiens - 5 minutes

Even the Gloster Meteor, the RAF's first jet fighter, had a 5 minute combat limit.

Woke_Up_Dead
04-28-2009, 11:48 AM
Generally speaking, both pilots should be worried because aircraft performance will not decide the dogfight.
Crumpp

Says Crumpp after posting five pages comparing the two airplanes' performances, haha.

Good post Gadje, I wish there was a little more tactics and a little less performance discussion on threads like these.

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 11:48 AM
Every RAF fighter I can find from the period had a 5 minute limit for maximum power, no matter who made the engines.


I think you are confused by what I said. Your thinking the time limit and I am explaining that the RAF does not increase boost settings.

The RAF established the original specifications when the firms competed for the contract.

That specification probably said, "Must be able to run at emergency power for 5 minutes".

However, the RAF does not determine the timeline for engine development; the engine manufacturer does that based on engineering results.

The manufacturer cannot increase that boost pressure for whatever limit until certain engineering realities align. Once that happens they tell the RAF the engine limits can be raised.

All the best,

Crumpp`

Kurfurst__
04-28-2009, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
On the subject of engine limits:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, when the Spitfire Mk V was cleared for +16 lbs boost, the limit was decreased to 3 mins - probably because of cooling problems.



Possible, because the Spitfire V did have inadequate cooling in some situations. But I suspect the 3 mins is simply a mistake, probably due to the similarity between 3 and 5 in some old typewriter fonts.

Whilst the test of AA878 says in several places the limit was for 3 minutes, the pilot manual clearly says 5 minutes. The later LF Vs ran at 18 lbs for 5 minutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea as to the why and when, maybe it was cleared for 5 minutes later. As it is, there are not too many Mk V manuals around (I mean issued at different dates), so its always a bit of a guesswork. Not to mention plenty of these manuals simply have glaring errors and typos in them - one DB power graph gives rammed power output for 1200 kg per square centimeter ram pressure - WOW. I guess its for a 8 gigaMach dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
04-28-2009, 10:06 PM
Says Crumpp after posting five pages comparing the two airplanes' performances, haha.


Gimme a break….

It took that many pages to dispel the myth that you need an altitude advantage to fight in the energy fighter.

Do you really think that anyone playing these games would have believed that statement in and of it-self? No it required mathematical proof to back it up.

It took several pages just to get the concept of agility being able to defeat superior level turn ability across and even longer to establish the fact the Excess Power Curve extends both ways..

All aircraft are flown by their V-speeds and if you operate the airplane as intended by those speeds then generally speaking you can prevail in a co-altitude dogfight. The energy fighter can neutralize the angle fighter’s advantages just as the angle fighter can do the same.

All the best,

Crumpp

glvaca
04-29-2009, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Says Crumpp after posting five pages comparing the two airplanes' performances, haha.


Gimme a break….

It took that many pages to dispel the myth that you need an altitude advantage to fight in the energy fighter.

Do you really think that anyone playing these games would have believed that statement in and of it-self? No it required mathematical proof to back it up.

It took several pages just to get the concept of agility being able to defeat superior level turn ability across and even longer to establish the fact the Excess Power Curve extends both ways..

All aircraft are flown by their V-speeds and if you operate the airplane as intended by those speeds then generally speaking you can prevail in a co-altitude dogfight. The energy fighter can neutralize the angle fighter’s advantages just as the angle fighter can do the same.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, give the guy a break.
I, for one, appreciate the time you took to explain a few concepts that were not clear to me. If you don't believe the guy, try reading the "bible" by Shaw. He explains the exact same concepts in the energy vs angles fighters co-E.

Bottom line: if you're a FW190 pilot stay fast and at best sustained turn rate. The Spit won't be able to match your turn at that speed and will have to pull harder and thus lose speed to gain angles. If he does that long enough, and you don't get shot, you will have a substatial E advantage which you can then use to zoom climb at best climb speed, do a chandelle, or pull over the top or anything else that will get you an altitude advantage and conserves E, and than pounce the succer.

In fact, IIRC, in the bible, Shaw explains an example where the E fighter uses a simple horizontal sissors to bleed the angles fighters speed while conserving his and then zoom up. A guns defense jinks at every crossing is essential obviously!

What altitude and/or speed at which altitude find that out for yourself and let's not nitpick about 210 or 220 please. that is completely beside the point.

Kettenhunde, thanks for the time you spent at typing this all out and explaining us real energy fighting.

CUJO_1970
04-29-2009, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Every RAF fighter I can find from the period had a 5 minute limit for maximum power, no matter who made the engines.



Then I wonder why some Spitfires can run almost indefinitely at maximum power in the sim?

Oleg, care to comment on this?

Xiolablu3
04-29-2009, 06:01 AM
Well the 5 minute power limit was so that the Spit would be able to fight again the next sortie.

The engine didnt blow up if they exceeded this, but it needed a whole check and dismantle.

DOnt forget this doesnt matter in the game. If you do exceeed this there is no penalty for your force next sortie, you get another brand new plane.

hop2002
04-29-2009, 06:45 AM
Then I wonder why some Spitfires can run almost indefinitely at maximum power in the sim?


Because the 5 minute limit is imposed for maintenance reasons.

I've got something here on the use of a new higher boost rating in the Bristol Centaurus for the Tempest II, from mid 1944. It says the life of the engine will be:


until a total of 5 hours has been aggregated at the Special Category Combat Flight conditions, exclusive of the hours run at normal flight conditions

If the pilot routinely ran 30 minutes at maximum power every flight, then the engine will only last 10 flights, and that gets expensive.

The document also goes on to request testing at an even higher boost rating:


Further, Major Ross asked us to run, during the next few weeks, if possible, an approval test for a combat rating using 100/150 grade fuel with methanol water injection, the approval test to be run on the following lines:-

i. Full rating curves
ii. 5 hours at normal cruising in M gear
iii. 5 hours at normal cruising in S gear
iv. 10 hours in S gear at a gross horsepower equal to that obtained in flight (with ram) in M gear at combat conditions
v. 5 hours in S gear at combat conditions
vi. Repeat rating curves


That's 15 hours spent at maximum power, 10 of those spent in top supercharger gear developing as much power as in M gear, ie more than the engine would actually develop in flight.

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 07:44 AM
Well the 5 minute power limit was so that the Spit would be able to fight again the next sortie.

The engine didnt blow up if they exceeded this, but it needed a whole check and dismantle.



Because the 5 minute limit is imposed for maintenance reasons.


This applies to any aircraft.

All manufacturers’ endurance test their engines for much longer than installation limits.

While it might not seem to be a big deal to gamers, real pilots understand that airplanes have very narrow safety margins and the POH instructions are printed for a reason, to allow the pilot to safely extract maximum performance from his aircraft.

Why are engines checked and the amount of time logged in the engine logs when using high boost? Engines loose power and while it may not fail this time it is weakened and could very well fail at much lower stress levels the next time. Reduced power production also means you could not have power needed for a climb out, go around, or take off the next time you need it.

IMHO, the fact a vey small number of pilots cheated the odds and lived to tell about it is not a good basis for arguing POH limits should not be adhered too.


Kettenhunde, thanks for the time you spent at typing this all out and explaining us real energy fighting.

You are more than welcome.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 07:47 AM
That's 15 hours spent at maximum power, 10 of those spent in top supercharger gear developing as much power as in M gear, ie more than the engine would actually develop in flight.

BMW did ~37 hours of flight testing at Erhohte Notleistung for the BMW801 series.

It was limited to 10 minutes at that rating in the POH too.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
04-29-2009, 08:15 AM
IMHO, the fact a vey small number of pilots cheated the odds and lived to tell about it

I don't think that's the case. I doubt there's a measurably greater risk of the engine failing after 10 minutes at maximum power than there is after 5 minutes, providing temperatures remain in range.

The "pilot Prune" RAF instructions I mentioned earlier have the following to say about running at maximum power:


Spitfires are now modified to give +16 emergency boost. It must be impressed on pilots that this gives a great increase of speed under 21,500 feet and 18,250 feet for Merlin 46 and 45 engines respectively, and that if used for combat only, there is no risk of engine failure.

There's no mention of time limits in the document. They caution a couple of times about fuel consumption, but end up with:


when in the vicinity of Huns, fly maximum everything and in good time

Games rarely model random engine failure, for obvious reasons. The increased risk of failure from running 10 or even 20 minutes at combat power is probably less than the chance of random failure in the cruise.

The biggest problem for WW2 aircraft exceeding engine limits is the cooling system.

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 10:09 AM
I doubt there's a measurably greater risk of the engine failing after 10 minutes at maximum power than there is after 5 minutes, providing temperatures remain in range.

You can’t take instructions from one aircraft and apply to another one. The engineering is different.

These instructions you quote say absolutely nothing about violating the POH instructions for using the combat rating for more than the time listed.



Spitfires are now modified to give +16 emergency boost. It must be impressed on pilots that this gives a great increase of speed under 21,500 feet and 18,250 feet for Merlin 46 and 45 engines respectively, and that if used for combat only, there is no risk of engine failure.



It says save your limited motor capability for when you need it.

Each time you use it, it weakens the engine and it might fail. If a pilot used it on the ingress to a mission, it might fail on him the second time when he needed it for the fight.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
04-29-2009, 12:04 PM
What I don't see in IL2 is hot engines making reduced power over time.
If this would happen then a lot of the engine misuse in game would be newbs-only.

Woke_Up_Dead
04-29-2009, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by glvaca:
<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"> Says Crumpp after posting five pages comparing the two airplanes' performances, haha.


Gimme a break….

It took that many pages to dispel the myth that you need an altitude advantage to fight in the energy fighter.

Do you really think that anyone playing these games would have believed that statement in and of it-self? No it required mathematical proof to back it up.

It took several pages just to get the concept of agility being able to defeat superior level turn ability across and even longer to establish the fact the Excess Power Curve extends both ways..

All aircraft are flown by their V-speeds and if you operate the airplane as intended by those speeds then generally speaking you can prevail in a co-altitude dogfight. The energy fighter can neutralize the angle fighter’s advantages just as the angle fighter can do the same.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, give the guy a break.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I'm just teasing him a bit. I simply prefer discussions of tactics over discussions of aircraft performance because like Crumpp himself said, "aircraft performance will not decide the dogfight."

na85
04-29-2009, 05:40 PM
It helps, though. If you know your aircraft's strengths and weaknesses you will perform better.

tagert
04-29-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Well the 5 minute power limit was so that the Spit would be able to fight again the next sortie.

The engine didnt blow up if they exceeded this, but it needed a whole check and dismantle.

DOnt forget this doesnt matter in the game. If you do exceeed this there is no penalty for your force next sortie, you get another brand new plane. Agreed 100%

tagert
04-29-2009, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What I don't see in IL2 is hot engines making reduced power over time.
If this would happen then a lot of the engine misuse in game would be newbs-only.
Well it does happen..

The way IL2 addresses this is by simply damaging the engine if you run them too hot for too long..

And the damaged engine does provide less power..

But even knowing that alot of peeps still push it to that point..

So it is not a newbs-only thing as much as a guy would rather burn up an engine to the point of damage than loose the fight he is in.

Wurkeri
04-29-2009, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by glvaca:

Bottom line: if you're a FW190 pilot stay fast and at best sustained turn rate. The Spit won't be able to match your turn at that speed and will have to pull harder and thus lose speed to gain angles. If he does that long enough, and you don't get shot, you will have a substatial E advantage which you can then use to zoom climb at best climb speed, do a chandelle, or pull over the top or anything else that will get you an altitude advantage and conserves E, and than pounce the succer.

Ok, now just log on to HyperLobby and test the bottom line in practice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Serioysly, it's good to read Shaw etc. but if you really want unbiased information on in game performance and improve your skills against various opponents, get the Il2 Compare:

http://war.by-airforce.com/dow...il2compare-4.07.html (http://war.by-airforce.com/downloads/il2compare-4.07.html)

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8536/capture30042009064613.jpg

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 10:10 PM
Read the whole thread Wurkeri.

M_Gunz
04-29-2009, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What I don't see in IL2 is hot engines making reduced power over time.
If this would happen then a lot of the engine misuse in game would be newbs-only.
Well it does happen..

The way IL2 addresses this is by simply damaging the engine if you run them too hot for too long..

And the damaged engine does provide less power..

But even knowing that alot of peeps still push it to that point..

So it is not a newbs-only thing as much as a guy would rather burn up an engine to the point of damage than loose the fight he is in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I can accept that.

M_Gunz
04-29-2009, 10:45 PM
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8536/capture30042009064613.jpg

Note the turn plots are down at 1 km alt. At 6+ km I would venture to say that the FW would be less the loser in turn.

Yes, the Spit IX 25 lb boost is a monster but compare it to FW-190D-9 and things are not so one sided at all.
Graphing it with the extra-armored bomber buster... what can I say? All Spit IX's stand well to the A-8!

Wurkeri
04-29-2009, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Note the turn plots are down at 1 km alt. At 6+ km I would venture to say that the FW would be less the loser in turn.

Yes, the Spit IX 25 lb boost is a monster but compare it to FW-190D-9 and things are not so one sided at all.
Graphing it with the extra-armored bomber buster... what can I say? All Spit IX's stand well to the A-8!

My point was not aircraft specific and the particular screenshot was chosen to underline the point; changing the plane for comparison takes just a clik on the Il2 Compare... so just download it and leave nonsense to the Zoo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
04-29-2009, 11:06 PM
My point was not aircraft specific and the particular screenshot was chosen to underline the point; changing the plane for comparison takes just a clik on the Il2 Compare...

Well that is a valid point and you probably should have just made it.

Instead of you made cryptic references and implications that Shaw or the results demonstrated in this thread are biased.


Serioysly, it's good to read Shaw etc. but if you really want unbiased information on in game performance and improve your skills against various opponents, get the Il2 Compare:


So I don't think playing the wounded and misunderstood party becomes you.


All the best,

Crumpp

glvaca
04-30-2009, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glvaca:

Bottom line: if you're a FW190 pilot stay fast and at best sustained turn rate. The Spit won't be able to match your turn at that speed and will have to pull harder and thus lose speed to gain angles. If he does that long enough, and you don't get shot, you will have a substatial E advantage which you can then use to zoom climb at best climb speed, do a chandelle, or pull over the top or anything else that will get you an altitude advantage and conserves E, and than pounce the succer.

Ok, now just log on to HyperLobby and test the bottom line in practice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Serioysly, it's good to read Shaw etc. but if you really want unbiased information on in game performance and improve your skills against various opponents, get the Il2 Compare:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think anyone here said it is easy and neither does Shaw, on the contrary, E-fighting is much more difficult to do then T&B. Which is why most people to better in T&B'ers; like Spit's, than in E-fighters like FW190's. However, it can be done also on HL, especially when having an E-advantage to begin with, which is another cardinal rule in an E-fighter. If you broke it you already gave away a huge advantage.

Anyway, I know IL2 compare and like Gunz said you did pick a bad matchup... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
04-30-2009, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by glvaca:
which is another cardinal rule in an E-fighter.


If you have a energy fighter what's the point to be in E-advantage position at every engage?

I mean: being with E-advantage it's more like a tactical advantage... it works with every plane (even with Cr42s and Hurricanes).

An energy fighter could fight even at par energy... You can fight with Hurricanes in your Emil even if you are slower or at lower altitude... you only need to be patient, energy fighting until the advantage is in your hands.

Wurkeri
04-30-2009, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by glvaca:

I don't think anyone here said it is easy and neither does Shaw, on the contrary, E-fighting is much more difficult to do then T&B. Which is why most people to better in T&B'ers; like Spit's, than in E-fighters like FW190's. However, it can be done also on HL, especially when having an E-advantage to begin with, which is another cardinal rule in an E-fighter. If you broke it you already gave away a huge advantage.

Anyway, I know IL2 compare and like Gunz said you did pick a bad matchup... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, if you consider +25lbs Spit vs 1,65ata Fw as a bad matchup (?) lets choose the D-9Late vs +25lbs Spit as in the title of this thread. What happens if you turn the D-9 at the best sustained rate:

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4386/capture30042009154958.jpg

Kettenhunde
04-30-2009, 07:45 AM
My own calculations come pretty close to this on the FW-190A series, btw. However with the exception of the Merlin 66 +25, it definitely still shows the same comparative relationship. The Spitfire cannot outturn the FW190 if it tries to match Best turn speeds.



http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...261059257#7261059257 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1701049157?r=7261059257#7261059257)


I wonder how your game compares to other much more common variants of the Spitfire Mk IX series or against uncommon variants of the FW-190D9?

That is why my spreadsheet was built, to compare different variants and configurations for the same type.

All the best,

Crumpp

glvaca
04-30-2009, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glvaca:
which is another cardinal rule in an E-fighter.


If you have a energy fighter what's the point to be in E-advantage position at every engage?

I mean: being with E-advantage it's more like a tactical advantage... it works with every plane (even with Cr42s and Hurricanes).

An energy fighter could fight even at par energy... You can fight with Hurricanes in your Emil even if you are slower or at lower altitude... you only need to be patient, energy fighting until the advantage is in your hands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not the expert on this but the way I understand it, it has to do with the nature of your plane, high wingload, low wingloaded, high thrust to weight ratio, low T/W. When your plane has certain of these characteristics, you will either turn well or not, be fast or not, etc...

So in the case of a FW190, who has a top speed advantage, roll advantage, dive advantage AND slight climb and turn advantage from 500Km/h upwards at 1000m (probably better up high) your best bet is to start the fight fast and higher i.e. more E, if you start co-E, you need to be fast to begin with. If you're down low and slow and co-E it will be very hard.
Now, as I understand it, the spit will be able to pull harder and reduce his turn radius by going slower and will be able to cut inside you. However, he will lose speed in doing so. In effect trading angels for speed. If he does this enough, ther FW190 will have a speed advantage which he can use to zoom climb.

Also, when going into a fast flat sissors, the goal is not to have the other guy overshoot or going slow, the goal is to feed him just enough angles that he will pull hard for that snapshot but not enough so he will gain to much and in doing so build up an energy margin. However, as you noted, that is very difficult. So, it is always better to start with an E-margine all together if you are in the lesser angles fighter.

Obviously, you always fight with E in mind regardless of plane. However, with the spit you have a way greater tollerance because of it's great turn rate. While with the FW190 you have no option but to keep fast and preferably higher so you either are above your enemy or have altitude to trade for speed and get away.

I hope this makes sense... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
04-30-2009, 09:52 AM
"My chart says that my plane is better..."
Come you lot, there is a chart sticky.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
04-30-2009, 09:54 AM
However, with the spit you have a way greater tollerance because of it's great turn rate.

That is not true. Being behind the power curve affects both aircraft equally for all practical purposes.

The largest difference is the point at which they get behind the power curve occurs at a slower velocity in the Spitfire.

You have to work hard in a real airplane to get behind the power curve. If it was easy, then everyone would master such speed control and nail landing on the first try.

You are going to have a very hard time getting behind the power curve just from turning circles in a real airplane!

If you want to get behind the power curve you have to reduce throttle and put the aircraft at high angle of attack flight.


your best bet is to start the fight fast and higher i.e. more E, if you start co-E, you need to be fast to begin with. If you're down low and slow and co-E it will be very hard.


The FW190A will be faster naturally as its V-speeds are higher than the Spitfires.

Aircraft do not fly around at Maximum continuous and certainly not at WEP for very long periods.

Most European philosophy style fighters like the Spitfire and the FW190 series would be out of fuel in a very short period of time if they did fly at high ratings.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-30-2009, 10:08 AM
However, with the spit you have a way greater tollerance because of it's great turn rate.

That is not true. Being behind the power curve affects both aircraft equally for all practical purposes.

The largest difference is the point at which they get behind the power curve occurs at a slower velocity in the Spitfire.

You have to work hard in a real airplane to get behind the power curve. If it was easy, then everyone would master such speed control and nail landing on the first try.

You are going to have a very hard time getting behind the power curve just from turning circles in a real airplane!

If you want to get behind the power curve you have to reduce throttle and put the aircraft at high angle of attack flight.


your best bet is to start the fight fast and higher i.e. more E, if you start co-E, you need to be fast to begin with. If you're down low and slow and co-E it will be very hard.


The FW190A will be faster naturally as its V-speeds are higher than the Spitfires.

Aircraft do not fly around at Maximum continuous and certainly not at WEP for very long periods. The spend 99% of their time in the middle of the L/D curve. That is where they like to be.

Most European philosophy style fighters like the Spitfire and the FW190 series would be out of fuel in a very short period of time if they did fly at high ratings.

All the best,

Crumpp

glvaca
04-30-2009, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> However, with the spit you have a way greater tollerance because of it's great turn rate.

That is not true. Being behind the power curve affects both aircraft equally for all practical purposes.

The largest difference is the point at which they get behind the power curve occurs at a slower velocity in the Spitfire.

You have to work hard in a real airplane to get behind the power curve. If it was easy, then everyone would master such speed control and nail landing on the first try.

You are going to have a very hard time getting behind the power curve just from turning circles in a real airplane!

If you want to get behind the power curve you have to reduce throttle and put the aircraft at high angle of attack flight.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I meant to say was that with a spit against a FW190 you have certain characteristics and advantages that you have a better chance of correcting when you screw up. If forced to maneuvre defensively you can always go for maximum break turn and exploit your tightler turn radius at lower speeds where the FW190 will not be able or, if he's sensible, won't follow you. B&Z-ing against a very good turner is always very difficult especially so if the turner uses rudder to down or upslip his turn. If the spit goes for a maximum break turn at the correct moment, it will be almost impossible to get a clear shot. This option is seldom avalable for the FW190 as per definition, a break turn will cost speed, and once below 500kmh (according IL2 compare and @ 1000m) the spit can easily turn inside you.

Obviously, if the spit continues to turn very tightly and drops below his V curve completely, he will have a hard time to maneuvre defensively, but that was not what I meant.

Again I'm not the expert, so my definitions could be off. Please correct if I'm wrong but that is how I understand it not having any real world experience and only based on flying this sim... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
04-30-2009, 10:30 AM
What I meant to say was that with a spit against a FW190 you have certain characteristics and advantages that you have a better chance of correcting when you screw up.

Why do you think that? Major difference is just the speeds at which specific performance occurs.


This option is seldom avalable for the FW190 as per definition, a break turn will cost speed, and once below 500kmh (according IL2 compare and @ 1000m) the spit can easily turn inside you.


In RL, it does not matter what airplane you are flying, you need energy. An effective angle fighter must conserve his energy as well. A break turn is good defensive move but it significantly reduces your energy level.

Do a displacement roll, it is an energy neutral maneuver so you will not lose and energy. It is also an extremely effective defensive maneuver against a less agile opponent.


All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-30-2009, 10:35 AM
Obviously, if the spit continues to turn very tightly and drops below his V curve completely, he will have a hard time to maneuvre defensively, but that was not what I meant.

That is what you want him to do! Break turn hard to drop behind the power curve while you do an energy neutral reversal like a lag displacement roll to nail him.

As you close to the stall, your radius of turn gets smaller but your rate of turn gets really bad. You can't sustain a very large angle of bank at all.

Like I said, you will practice minimum radius turns for mountain flying.

If your not comfortable with doing a reversal then should be able to just zoom to Vx when he does a hard break turn.

Remember a small velocity advantage means a large zoom advantage.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gadje
04-30-2009, 02:34 PM
In the end you haven't the time to be thinking in a dogfight. It has to be intuative deciding what you need to do because the time it takes you to think about it you just lost the fight. Only practice will improve intuative flying. Call it understanding.

I use charts like IL-2 compare to tell me where my aircraft has an advantage if at all. Once I see that chart I might use it to drag my opponent higher or lower depending on what the charts tell me but only if my opponent flies with the same intuative understanding I look for. If he doesn't I'll see a mistake and thats it game over, whether it be outside of my advantage on the charts or not.

Intellectual understanding of advantage means nothing unless you can fly. Thats something only achievable by fighting the best pilots you can find should you choose to.
Charts are a good tool in the right hands but thats all.
I saw a video tape once by music academics describing the blues. You can imagine how near they got. Root to fourth to root to fifth to fourth to root to fifth. Thats the blues apparently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifIt is but its not if you understand my meaning.

JtD
04-30-2009, 02:53 PM
I think a lot while fighting and am pretty successful doing so. I don't think of me as a great pilot, so you have a point, but it's rarely me who goes down in flames.

M_Gunz
04-30-2009, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glvaca:

I don't think anyone here said it is easy and neither does Shaw, on the contrary, E-fighting is much more difficult to do then T&B. Which is why most people to better in T&B'ers; like Spit's, than in E-fighters like FW190's. However, it can be done also on HL, especially when having an E-advantage to begin with, which is another cardinal rule in an E-fighter. If you broke it you already gave away a huge advantage.

Anyway, I know IL2 compare and like Gunz said you did pick a bad matchup... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, if you consider +25lbs Spit vs 1,65ata Fw as a bad matchup (?) lets choose the D-9Late vs +25lbs Spit as in the title of this thread. What happens if you turn the D-9 at the best sustained rate:

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4386/capture30042009154958.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Level turn? Do that at 1 km alt and you have f***ed-up.
Read the chart and at 1 km alt you both need to be going 500+ kph to turn as well or better than the more-tired Spit.
It looks like between 3 km and 5 or 6 km alt you'd have more margin at high IAS as well.

Dora main strengths are in speed and roll, both of which favor the vertical and energy tactics.

The thing with the Spits is that they can do level 3G turn at speeds they can also loop in.
That makes it pretty easy for a Spit pilot to point anywhere in 20 seconds or less which isn't
an insurmountable problem but can be a real killer. It's almost as if those Brits had designed it that way.

ADD: BTW, not that boost is the true measure of performance but 25 lbs boost is something like 2.7 ATA to compare to that 1.65.

Wurkeri
04-30-2009, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Level turn? Do that at 1 km alt and you have f***ed-up.

Yep, even the slowest of the in game Spit IXs (1943 versions) turn about as well as the both ingame D-9s in Doras best turn rate speed. All the ingame Fw 190As are out turned by the all ingame IXs at Fws best turn rate speeds. And even the ingame Spit VB out turns the ingame Fw 190A-4 at same conditions.

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 12:57 AM
Yep, even the slowest of the in game Spit IXs (1943 versions) turn about as well as the both ingame D-9s in Doras best turn rate speed. All the ingame Fw 190As are out turned by the all ingame IXs at Fws best turn rate speeds. And even the ingame Spit VB out turns the ingame Fw 190A-4 at same conditions.

If you calculate your own comparisons, you will see the answer is it very much depends on which variant and where in the percentage performance variation over a median the input data is located.

Using manufacturer’s reported median data is probably a better bet than selecting performance data on the fringes of that range.

We can see the details of our aircraft’s configuration, fit, and finish, when we calculate our own comparison. There are not any unknowns or anything taken on faith.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 02:21 AM
Do you guys think the Merlin 66 +25 is the most representative RAF Spitfire variant in 1944/45?

As I understand the history of 100/150 grade use in the Merlin 66 Spitfires, we have two squadrons used in during service trials as part of the ADGB approved in May 1944. The fuel was withdraw from use when the anti-diver campaign was concluded.


Early in March, 1944 Service Trials with Spitfire IX L.F aircraft operating at + 25 lbs./sq.in boost and using 150 grade fuel were commenced at Milfield.


In view of the success of the trials at Milfield, Wittering and Southend, the trials were extended on the 3rd may 1944, to include all aircraft in No.1 and 165 squadrons, at Predannack.


The fuel was still undergoing trials unil August 1944.


All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 3

in September 1944 it was withdrawn from ADGB use.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

So it was in service trials for quite some time due to maintenance difficulties without general operational approval.

It next was in operational use in the 2nd TAF in February 1945 but was again withdrawn from service in April 1945 after a series of fatal accidents.


Senior Intelligence Officer of 126 (RCAF) Spitfire Wing, 2 TAF, noted in his daily operational summary on 20 April 1945 after the crashes of two Spitfires; "The incidents followed a number of engine problems that were attributed to the introduction of 150-grade fuel in early February. Pilots mistrusted it, and were no doubt relieved when the AF brass decided to revert to 130-grade. The vast majority of pilots, I'm sure, were beginning to wonder if the additional seven pounds of boost they got from 150-grade fuel were worth the price being paid."[11]


-Berger, Monty and Street, Brian Jeffrey.Invasion Without Tears. Toronto, Canada: Random House, 1994 (1st ed) ISBN 0-394-22277-6

In summary, the fuel had a few airplanes undergoing service trials with operational use limited to 3 months in the 2nd TAF only.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
05-01-2009, 02:40 AM
The planes of the 2nd TF were very active at the time they used the 150 grade fuel, and their fighters to my knowledge flew more sorties over central Europe than the rest of the RAF's fighters.

At least one can be certain that 25lbs boost was not rare in the period of early 1945.

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 02:47 AM
Ok, so during those 3 months the 2nd TAF was very active.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
05-01-2009, 02:49 AM
AFAIK this discussion is game related and the +25lbs Spit is a member of 1944 plane set. I prefer early and mid war planes and have not flown much on the late war servers but AFAIK +25lbs Spit is a very common plane there.

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 03:09 AM
AFAIK this discussion is game related and the +25lbs Spit is a member of 1944 plane set. I prefer early and mid war planes and have not flown much on the late war servers but AFAIK +25lbs Spit is a very common plane there.

I am sorry, I did not know it was listed as a 1944 airplane in your game.

You should make it very common on all the servers for your game. It looks like it would be blast to fly around "pwn'ing" all your virtual opponents in!

All the best,

Crumpp

uppurrz
05-01-2009, 03:23 AM
What happened to the 114,919,000gal of 150 fuel produced by the British between Feb 1944 and March 1945?

Was it known that the war would end soon? No, but the writing was on the wall that it soon would. Sounds like a prudent action to take especially when the pilots were not familiar with some of the operating quirks of 150 fuel. The crashes were caused by fouled spark plugs.

From the link:

Into Service with the Royal Air Force

Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. 29 In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations. Air Defense Great Britain (A.D.G.B.) shared a report, dated 16th June 1944 with A.E.A.F. summarizing the RAF's experience with using 150 Grade Fuel in Merlin 66 engines. All pilots reported most favorably on the value of the high boost pressures obtainable with 150 Grade Fuel, however, Technical Staff felt that before the fuel was introduced on a large scale that the causes of backfires must be established and that at least 12 engines should complete 200 hours each. 30 Eventually the backfire problem was sorted out, see: Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 27 July, 1944 and Backfire trouble resulting from use of 150 grade fuel. 12 August, 1944 31, 32

The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows: 33

130 Grade 150 Grade
Spitfire IX 335 mph 358 mph +25 lb
Spitfire XIV 359 mph 366 mph +21 lb
Tempest V 372 mph 386 mph +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3) 360 mph 390 mph +25 lb

The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) reported in Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) that a Mustang III (Merlin V-1650-7), flying at +25 lb./sq.in. as received from Squadron, obtained 382 mph at sea level. 404 mph was obtained at sea level after "cleaning up" the aircraft by removing the bomb racks and aerial bracket, repainting the wing's leading edge and rubbing down the aircraft. 316 Squadron was one of the Mustang units to convert to 150 grade fuel, their Operations Record Book stating for 1.7.44 "18 A/C test after modification to +25 lbs boost". 610 Squadron uprated their Spitfire XIVs on 18 July, the ORB stating "the modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues". These squadrons did more that just chase divers as 315 Squadron demonstrated when they shot down 6 Me 109's, 1 Me 110 and 1 Fw 190 while escorting Beaufighters to Norway on 30 July 1944. By mid August the Buzz Bomb threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. 316 Squadron flying their Mustangs downed 3 Me 109’s and a Fw 190 five miles N. of Chalom on 14 August. 315 Squadron met with remarkable success on 18 August, claiming 16 Fw 190’s shot down near Beauvais with their boosted Mustang III’s (II./JG 26 recorded 8 killed and 2 wounded). The Spitfire XIV squadrons quickly got into the swing of it with 350 Squadron scoring on 19 August by shooting down a Ju 88 on the outskirts of Brussels. And so it went - so much for divers.

On 18 September 1944 A.D.G.B. very positively summarized the experience gained to date using 100/150 grade fuel. However, due primarily to logistical difficulties, such as the interchange of squadrons between A.D.G.B. and 2nd T.A.F., it was decided that UK based fighter squadrons should revert to the use of 130 grade fuel. 34 Its unclear as to the degree to which this decision was carried out <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">as of November 1944 Fighter Command was apparently still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month</span>. 35 Combat Reports show that the the UK based Mustangs of ADBG were in fact still running high boost, only made possible through the use of 150 grade fuel, on operations over the continent and Germany in 1945. 36, 37

2000 tons is ~115,000 gals
That is a awful lot of fuel being consumed for being 'with drawn from use'.

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 04:09 AM
as of November 1944 Fighter Command was apparently still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month.

I would imagine they used it in reserve stockpiles, engine development experimentation, and the trials they conducted. The obviously did not adopt it operationally with the exception of those 3 months in the 2nd TAF.

Just to get an idea:

A typical P51B/C could carry ~269 gallons of fuel. 115,000 / 469 = 428 airplanes with full tanks a month.

12 airplanes with one sortie a day for a month = 360 sorties. The point is not trying to prove a specific number of Mustangs. It is just to illustrate there was quite a bit of testing going on and this is not that much fuel.

Airplanes are thirsty beast's and I don’t think this is as much fuel as you might think when you see 2000tons. It sounds like a awful lot especially when you say, "two thousand tons..."


as of November 1944 Fighter Command was apparently still using 2,000 tons of 150 grade fuel per month.

It looks like just enough to do some testing on a few airplanes, engines development experiments, and put a little in reserve.

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

That is just speculation. It isn't all that much fuel and they very well might have put it all into reserves.

I only know what the RAF documents say for service adoption of 100/150grade.

All the best,


Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-01-2009, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Level turn? Do that at 1 km alt and you have f***ed-up.

Yep, even the slowest of the in game Spit IXs (1943 versions) turn about as well as the both ingame D-9s in Doras best turn rate speed. All the ingame Fw 190As are out turned by the all ingame IXs at Fws best turn rate speeds. And even the ingame Spit VB out turns the ingame Fw 190A-4 at same conditions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhhh, looking at IL2C I see that at 1 km alt and speed 375 kph they match in turn and going faster the 190 is the winner.
In sea level rate of climb by speed the A-4 owns the graph from just over 200 kph on up and is faster at all altitudes.
It's easy to see why the Spit V's were losing against the FW's. The Spit VB "41" we have is really a mid-42 Spit VB,
according to Oleg they made an error in naming the model. It's got a much better engine than the previous versions.

We both know that the FW's were not known for ability to do level turns. The way to change heading in a FW is to go up
or down and roll onto the desired heading and then pull onto that. Turning that way is faster than the Spit turns level,
faster than the Spit can go vertical and vector-roll but it requires the FW pilot to keep the speed up. A slow FW is not
a problem of the plane but rather one of the pilot. FW design is not good for low speed fight except low speed and far
above the enemy maneuvering for the plunge perhaps. I would much rather have speed and roll than great turn near stall.

Still I see the Spits when they got the big engines and what FW can beat them but the Doras with the same change. They
BOTH got engines from bombers and they both benefited highly. That the Spit IX's were able to close the gap so well is
a matter of history, regardless of just how modeled in IL2.

The thing is that the faster plane has the initiative and with a good pilot who understands what to do should be able
to control the speed of the fight. If the slower plane refuses to go faster then he loses on the vertical. What can he
do then? Run?

Often it seems to me that players complain when they don't have unbeatable margins they think they should. Play always
you in the best 1945 against average or less 1942 should take care of that and still the ones who fly the wrong style
or the right style but poorly will lose and complain. That's been internet fare since the first years of online sims
on Compuserv except by tradition it has been Spitfire-choosers that cried because they picked the winner plane and lost.

In WWII Pacific, one pilot in a DAUNTLESS held off against 3 ZEROS at once and even shot 2 down. Imagine that happening
on a server, what accusations would fly! Yet it did happen and was real. Take it from there, pilot is more than a margin.

uppurrz
05-01-2009, 04:26 AM
That is 115,000 IMP gals. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1 Imperial gallon = 1.2 US gallons

1.2 x 115,000 = 138,000 US gal.

The British produced 19,384 tons of 150 fuel in Nov. 1944. They had lots in reserve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
05-01-2009, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's easy to see why the Spit V's were losing against the FW's. The Spit VB "41" we have is really a mid-42 Spit VB, according to Oleg they made an error in naming the model. It's got a much better engine than the previous versions.

It got the 1942 engine but the 1941 speed. The SpitV we have is a fantasy plane and has far too good low speed performance when compared to a properly modeled version, for instance the correct SpitVbLF. This one has more power at the same weight and should not be out turned by the standard SpitV under any conditions.

jamesblonde1979
05-01-2009, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The SpitV we have is a fantasy plane

Hardly, what's the matter? Getting pwned?

M_Gunz
05-01-2009, 04:40 AM
2000 tons of gas comes to about 660,000 gallons.
That comes to almost 2,500 full 269 gallon tanks... a month.
Say 200 12 plane sorties without wing tanks, a month.
Figure 6-7 12 plane sorties a day on average.
Test?

M_Gunz
05-01-2009, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's easy to see why the Spit V's were losing against the FW's. The Spit VB "41" we have is really a mid-42 Spit VB, according to Oleg they made an error in naming the model. It's got a much better engine than the previous versions.

It got the 1942 engine but the 1941 speed. The SpitV we have is a fantasy plane and has far too good low speed performance when compared to a properly modeled version, for instance the correct SpitVbLF. This one has more power at the same weight and should not be out turned by the standard SpitV under any conditions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or we have an undermodeled August 1942 Spit VB.

Are you saying that there is any FW that should out-turn that Spitfire at all speeds and altitudes? I hope not!

M_Gunz
05-01-2009, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by uppurrz:
That is 115,000 IMP gals. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1 Imperial gallon = 1.2 US gallons

1.2 x 115,000 = 138,000 US gal.

The British produced 19,384 tons of 150 fuel in Nov. 1944. They had lots in reserve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, then they didn't use it all.

JtD
05-01-2009, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The SpitV we have is a fantasy plane

Hardly, what's the matter? Getting pwned? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look up the meaning of fantasy. I wasn't even aware that there are grown up folks around who don't know the word. Thanks for pointing that out.

JtD
05-01-2009, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Or we have an undermodeled August 1942 Spit VB.

No, we have a too slow and too well performing at slow speeds SpitV1942. Just fire up il2 compare and hold it next to the LF Spit V. The LF should outturn it by a good margin at all speeds.


Are you saying that there is any FW that should out-turn that Spitfire at all speeds and altitudes? I hope not!

I didn't say Fw anywhere in my post.

Kettenhunde
05-01-2009, 05:10 AM
The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows: 33



To say the fuel was in not adopted in 1944 is an error though. The service trials were concluded satisfactorily on 12 August 1944. The fuel was withdrawn on 18 September. So for a few weeks in 1944, it was adopted for service.

The story is pretty clearly laid out on Mike Williams site, which is in fact what I quote in my first post on this subject.

It is a good piece of research with the only the minor omission of withdrawal in April of the fuel from 2nd TAF service.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

It is the source of my conclusion:


In summary, the fuel had a few airplanes undergoing service trials with operational use limited to 3 months in the 2nd TAF only.



All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
05-01-2009, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Or we have an undermodeled August 1942 Spit VB.

No, we have a too slow and too well performing at slow speeds SpitV1942. Just fire up il2 compare and hold it next to the LF Spit V. The LF should outturn it by a good margin at all speeds.


Are you saying that there is any FW that should out-turn that Spitfire at all speeds and altitudes? I hope not!

I didn't say Fw anywhere in my post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. However the LF Spit in IL2C shows 2981.13 kg while the VB shows 2958.05 kg.
The LF has best turn at 294 kph while the VB shows best turn at 266 kph.

The LF being faster, was rigged to run faster by any chance? Or was the only change a cropped impeller?
I'm not so sure as you since I don't know all the exact details so this is my last post on the subject.

JtD
05-01-2009, 07:18 AM
The planes are identical with the exception of the cropped charger on the engine of the LF. This gave better low altitude performance at the cost of high altitude performance. The wings, the fuselage etc., all this remained the same.