PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire tactics?



Richardsen
11-26-2005, 04:31 AM
Wich tactics should i use against Me109 and FW190? I want to use my spit to its maximum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

robban75
11-26-2005, 05:12 AM
Turn, climb and dive, it's all good! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Turning is very effective against the 190, but not nearly as effective when your up against a 109. Climb is also very effective when your fighting 190's but not all too effective when your facing 109's. Diving seems to work well against both as the 190 and 109 lack their historical dive acceleration advantage in the game, although this might have been fixed in the latest patches. They do however have a higher maximum dive speed, but you should be able to nail them before they reach those speeds. The Spitfire's roll rate is worse than the 190 and 109, but if you add rudder to it you can roll with both of them no problem.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-26-2005, 05:38 AM
Don't waste your ammo'. Try to line up a good, close burst before you open fire. And pay particular heed to that old chestnut about not flying straight and level in the combat area for too long.

VW-IceFire
11-26-2005, 06:38 AM
Keep your speed around 300kph, fly in a group of Spitfires, use your turn against FW190s and your speed advantage against 109s. If you catch a 109 at higher speeds then he's all yours...but if the fight devolves into a spiral then the 109 could easily reverse due to very good low speed handling.

The Spitfire LF.IX that we've got (all are LF.IX except the HF.IX - the game reports this wrong) is faster or just as fast as Bf109G-6 Late and the FW190A-6 and possibly A-8. Altitude has a determining factor but the Spitfire is generally faster than the opposition during 1943 and some of the opposition in 1944. If you're fighting FW190D-9s (or Bf109G-10's)...you have to work really hard as they are faster and fairly agile to boot.

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 08:06 AM
Best tactic is to kill the others before they kill you.

WOLFMondo
11-26-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

The Spitfire LF.IX that we've got (all are LF.IX except the HF.IX - the game reports this wrong) is faster or just as fast as Bf109G-6 Late and the FW190A-6 and possibly A-8.

I think the A6 is faster below 7km than all the Spitfires we have.

danjama
11-26-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Best tactic is to kill the others before they kill you.

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

VW-IceFire
11-26-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

The Spitfire LF.IX that we've got (all are LF.IX except the HF.IX - the game reports this wrong) is faster or just as fast as Bf109G-6 Late and the FW190A-6 and possibly A-8.

I think the A6 is faster below 7km than all the Spitfires we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure about that...haven't tested but in a highly subjective case I chased one (A-6), caught him, and shot him down in a clipped wing variant Spitfire LF.IXc.

With full boost you can do it...maybe. But there may have been other factors involved. The speeds are close so its doable.

Serpentmaster09
11-26-2005, 11:29 AM
Allot of spit jocks like to trim treetops with get into a stall fight with a 109 while its buddy circling 1000 meters above him can just wait for the right time to pick off the spit. I see this happen all the time while online. I myself, a die hard spit jocky, used ot do this very same thing until i learned better. I do my best not to get tempted into this kind of thing. Sure the spit can turn well but when it comes down to it the 109 usually has allot more tools in his bag to work with. The spit does handle better at high speeds than the 109 and you should do everything you can to keep your speed and energy up. This is hard to do if your busy triming the tree tops. If you want the most out of your spit, make your hard deck about 3000 ft msl and the higher you fly the better.

Pinker15
11-26-2005, 11:56 AM
As i said in other spitfire thread.

For me against 109F series best is Spitfire V. This is really 109 killer. Same as it was in real here in game it is too. All U need is to keep yours speed high, fly on full power all the time, dont do scisors with him. If he doing it just go up and zoom him next. Try to not use flaps in spit because it make U slows down. Remember that great advantage of Spitfire over any 109 is hes energy retention. Try useit wise. Don't do any horizontal turns if U are not in emergency situation. If U do this correctly 109 can run only Big Grin.

ploughman
11-26-2005, 12:00 PM
Totally right Pinker, any manouver in a Spit should have a big vertical element or your energy retention will put you in front of the enemy. With the vertical element in place you can wee all over your opponent and the only thing he can do is dive away. If he bobs back up he's yours. Don't follow him down. No flat turns in Spits.

SeaNorris
11-26-2005, 12:03 PM
Fly in a straight line, and when you see a Fw-190 or Bf-109, relax, throttle down to 50% let them catch up, when you see gunfire, relax, thats just them saying 'Hello' to you, when your wing finally comes off from saying 'Hello' press 'E' or 'Ctrl+E'

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

ploughman
11-26-2005, 12:05 PM
SeaNorris, you work for Blue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

p1ngu666
11-26-2005, 12:42 PM
dont get slow, cos spit sux slow... ingame, not irl

vs 190 use your climb and turn advantage, but it seems reduced this patch

vs 109 just do whatever u can...

oh fire 303 to guage where to aim, then use cannon to kill.

MEGILE
11-26-2005, 01:49 PM
Stay above 7,000 and you can spit on the 109s below you.

Excuse the pun.

SeaNorris
11-26-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
SeaNorris, you work for Blue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

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

This is real life tactic I speak, taken from:

'How not to fly a Spitfire'

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

MEGILE
11-26-2005, 04:03 PM
How not to fly a Spitfire would be to put the kettle on and sit down, or alternatively fly a BF-109.

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 04:04 PM
Whic tactics would be best against the kettle?

MEGILE
11-26-2005, 04:05 PM
un-plug it.

SeaNorris
11-26-2005, 04:10 PM
Put water in it, make a cup of tea, punk.

fighter_966
12-07-2005, 03:47 AM
Kettles are dangerous... try S-splits first and then..
few loops and when you get kettles six a clock ... smash it

mynameisroland
12-07-2005, 07:27 AM
Spitfire IX is an excellent dogfighter, in my opinion it is the best dogfighter in the game.

Its strengths are good firepower, great turn, great climb, good E retention, great speed above 6000m compared to German and Japanese equivalents, and excellent low speed climbing ability.

To utilise these strengths effectively I recommend start every engagement at least at 5000m( if combat is lower you too can lower your initial start altitude ) In the Spitfire altitude is life, it cannot be outfought by any fighter at high altitudes except maybe the Ta 152 and even then you hold manuvering advantage still. Contrary to popular belief the Spitfire is an excellent E fighter. The clipped wing version can out roll a Bf 109 by a large margin and is the only fighter that can match a Fw 190 at slow to medium speeds ( in game Spitfire is actually a better roller at 700km/h IMO! )This enables you to attack fast and manuver enough to get a shot and then to climb back to altitude. The Bf 109 cannot fight at as high a speed as the Spitfire can as its controls solidify faster than those of the Spitfires. The Fw 190 can however manuver at faster speeds, to counter this you need to remember that the Fw 190 cannot climb as steeply or as sharply as the Spitfire without dropping a wing. When attacked by a Fw 190 that has a speed advantage the most effective manuver is to climb sharply in a spiral BEFORE he gets in to gun range, if he trys to follow such a manuver he will bleed energy enough to force him to have to consider disengaging. While he decides to do this you can build up your energy and simply climb.

The Fw 190 is the easiest axis type to shootdown BUT ONLY if you can force the pilot to fight in a dogfight at medium to slow speeds. You can do this by jumping the Fw 190 from a height advantage , by engaging co energy ( here he has little choice but to try to out run you ) or by trying to situate yourself above an attacking Fw 190 so long as you survive the first pass. If the Fw 190 pilot chooses to disengage let him, if you chase him too long you will be shot down by his wingman. If you let him escape while repositioning yourself above him he will have to choose another target as he cannot climb up to you without opening himself up to an attack.

In all cases you must keep your speed up and must be prepared to pull hard Gs to make it impossible for the Fw 190 pilot to get a shot.

Against the Bf 109 the situation is slightly different in my experience the Spitfire can evade a Bf 109 by entering a Spiraling dive. With rudder input you can Spiral tightly enough at speeds as to force the Bf 109 guy to overshoot or disengage and reposition. As soon as you notice this you can turn back in to the bandit and go for a 'Scissors' type situation. Regardless of what people say about the Spitfire vs the Bf 109 if you fly the Spitfire properly you will be able to out turn the Bf 109. I try to keep speed up to around 300kmh in my turns and in combat Im able to get on a Bf 109's six after 3 or 3 1/2 turns. If you are agianst a really good Bf 109 pilot it might be closer than you expect but that comes down to experience levels and all I can do here is describe how I fly. If the pilots are equal skill the spitfire holds a definite turning advantage at all but very slow speeds.

The Bf 109 as mentioned earlier cant fight at high speeds like the Spitfire can, to demonstrate dive at 700km/h in a Bf 109 and try to evade/attack then try the same in a Spitfire. The Fw 190 is superior still but the Spitfire lies somewhere between the two. In attack and defence ability to fly at higher controllable speeds is a great advantage.

The best way to beat Bf 109's however is to fight them at 4000m and above. Here the speed difference is minimal and the handling characteristics of the Spitfire allows it to exploit its performance better. Vertical manuvers at height quickly build up speed and as soon as you reach 600km/h you can be sure that the Bf 109 is beginning to stiffen up significantly.

Saying all of that low altitude fights in the Spitfire are still very effective. You just need to fly smart and when in trouble disengage by climbing away rather than diving away. This entails exiting combat at a fairly high speed but if you dive or run away level you will be caught. Last weekend I was involved with Bf 109 G6 Lates, most of the combat took place at 1000m. Even at this altitude I found the Spitfire IXe CW with external 30 gal tank fitted was still able to stick with and gradually out turn a Bf 109.

The other main enemy aside from the Bf 109 and Fw 190 seems to be the Ki84b.

Using similar tactics you can outfly this Japanese fighter. Altitude is again important as the Spitfire becomes faster at 4000m and above compared to the Ki 84. However the Spitfire can out turn the Ki 84 at all altitudes. The spitfire also manuvers at speed better than the Ki 84 allowing you to attack or escape very effectively. The break up speed of the Spitfire is marginally higher which can be used to your advantage. Dogfighting the Ki84 is like dogfighting a cross between the Bf 109 and the Fw 190. IMO the KI84 is not as threatening as either of these two aircraft because it is 'jack of all trades' type fighter. It offers neither the high speed capabilities of the Fw or the slow speed capabilities of the Bf series. Nonetheless it is a very dangerous type, I rely on the Ki 84 pilot thinking he can out manuver me in a close in dogfight as the Ki84 out turns and loops all USN fighters of the period. When they encounter a Spitfire VIII they may be caught of guard as they cannot out fight you in a dogfight and the Speed margin between the two types is very minimal.

For late war Zeros the best tactic is to attack with altitude or speed advantage and keep your speed high. You can afford to turn with the Zero but only for a 90deg or 180 deg turn after that you really need to think about taking it to the vertical or extending ( outrunning the Zero) and then returning to finnish him off.

I hope some of these tips are of use, my main two aircraft in IL2 are the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX. In both types I feel like I can only be shot down if I make a mistake but the skills required to pilot them differ greatly. One piece of advice I would give is fly the Spitfire with an understanding of speed and energy and you will do very well. Mastering the Fw 190 over the last 2 years has taught me that. If you apply energy management techniques to a fighter like the Spitfire that naturally maintains energy well and likes to fight in slow close dogfights also then you can become very dangerous.

Cheers!

p1ngu666
12-07-2005, 02:33 PM
nice post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SlickStick
12-08-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
dont get slow, cos spit sux slow... ingame, not irl

vs 190 use your climb and turn advantage, but it seems reduced this patch

vs 109 just do whatever u can...

oh fire 303 to guage where to aim, then use cannon to kill.

Totally agreed about the current slow-speed handling of the Spitfire, especially the Mk. VIII CW. Since when do Spitfires snap stall?!?

Also good reading from Roland. (I must return to it, as I read it fast, but it looked quite complete.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The main thing in-game is to out turn the ones you can and out run the ones you can't. The Spitfires we have, IXs and VIIIs, perform quite well at altitude. The Mk. VIII is awesome up high and even though my dive speed is pretty much maxed at 700km/h and change (don't even think about turning above 720km/h), it is an awesomely effective B and Zer.

The combination of .303s or .50s and 20mm Hispanos make for a great hit and run combo. And just think, if you actually get caught low by a 109 or a FW, you can out turn them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well, except for the fact that slow-speed handling of the 109-G series is over-modelled at this time. Hopefully this "slat" thing will be corrected in a future patch.

p1ngu666
12-08-2005, 12:56 PM
yep...

and too add, against fighters im using one weapon set at a time, and very short bursts, hard to keep on target i find http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

sometimes i think ive missed, day before yesterday i thought that, then i saw the split carcass of a 109 flash past, im flames http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
12-08-2005, 01:08 PM
So, it's the clip-wing versions with cr4ppy handling? I've just flown the regular MkVs and MkIXc online so maybe that is why I can't relate to the poor handling Spitfire complaint?

stathem
12-08-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
dont get slow, cos spit sux slow... ingame, not irl

vs 190 use your climb and turn advantage, but it seems reduced this patch

vs 109 just do whatever u can...

oh fire 303 to guage where to aim, then use cannon to kill.

Totally agreed about the current slow-speed handling of the Spitfire, especially the Mk. VIII CW. Since when do Spitfires snap stall?!?

Also good reading from Roland. (I must return to it, as I read it fast, but it looked quite complete.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The main thing in-game is to out turn the ones you can and out run the ones you can't. The Spitfires we have, IXs and VIIIs, perform quite well at altitude. The Mk. VIII is awesome up high and even though my dive speed is pretty much maxed at 700km/h and change (don't even think about turning above 720km/h), it is an awesomely effective B and Zer.

The combination of .303s or .50s and 20mm Hispanos make for a great hit and run combo. And just think, if you actually get caught low by a 109 or a FW, you can out turn them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well, except for the fact that slow-speed handling of the 109-G series is over-modelled at this time. Hopefully this "slat" thing will be corrected in a future patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I pulled a clippy VIII out of a dive at 510mph IAS whilst practising the other night, without losing anything. With trim, natch. And gently.

JtD
12-08-2005, 01:44 PM
I'd like to add two cents to make the $ complete:

Don't turnfight A6M's or Ki-43's. They are better at this game. Be aware of Germans doing barrel rolls forcing an overshoot. Both types are capable of doing so and if you overshoot, they'll kill you. Watch out for their wingmen, they pose the biggest threat. Imho the VIII is better than the IX. Overall the CW verions should be the better option. Against late 109's use horizontal maneuvers, not E-fighting.

Viper2005_
12-08-2005, 01:53 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">Fly High.</span>

As an Fw-190 driver I eat Spitfires for breakfast on the deck. At altitude I run away because the Spitfire holds all the cards.

Know your engine, and know your aircraft. Turn the WEP on and climb whilst watching the boost indicator. When the boost starts to fall off, note your altitude. Keep climbing. The red light on the dashboard will start to burn. You're now in FS gear and you'll have full boost again. Keep climbing. Note the altitude when the boost starts to fall off.

The first altitude you noted was your Full Throttle Height in MS gear. If you're going to fight down low, try to fight close to here.

The second altitude you noted was your Full Throttle Height in FS gear. If you're going to fight high, try to fight at this height or higher.

This will maximise your performance. Even L.F. Spitfires like to fly far higher than most people think. If you spend most of your time in MS gear (ie without the red light shining) you're probably better off in a clipped wing Spitfire.

On no account fly an H.F. Spitfire unless you mean it. H.F. Spitfires on the deck are target drones. You need to be operating above about 25,000 feet (7500 m) for the H.F. Spitfire to be superior to the L.F. Spitfire.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Fly Fast</span>

You've got good elevator authority at high speed - use it. Bounce your bandits from on-high, then zoom back into the stratosphere where you belong.

When fighting Fw-190s, spiral climb and try to catch them between supercharger gearchanges.

When fighting Bf-109s, fly fast and exploit their heavy elevators.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Shoot to kill</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Remember that the objective of air combat is to kill your enemy or destroy his aeroplane, not to fight him.</span>

Whenever possible avoid getting yourself into dogfights by killing your unsuspecting enemy in the first pass from a well planned high-speed bounce.

Finally:

<span class="ev_code_RED">Bellycheck</span>

The easiest way to kill a Spitfire (or indeed almost anything else) is to gain a speed advantage and advance from its low 6 blindspot. A very large percentage of my kills are scored against those who fail to bellycheck.

Spitfires are especially vulnerable to this tactic because they tend to be flown more slowly than most other Allied aircraft in the late war period. But I kill Mustang IIIs the same way.

p1ngu666
12-08-2005, 03:07 PM
nice advice viper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Viper2005_
12-08-2005, 03:46 PM
Thanks. Many Vipers died to bring you this information http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SlickStick
12-08-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
dont get slow, cos spit sux slow... ingame, not irl

vs 190 use your climb and turn advantage, but it seems reduced this patch

vs 109 just do whatever u can...

oh fire 303 to guage where to aim, then use cannon to kill.

Totally agreed about the current slow-speed handling of the Spitfire, especially the Mk. VIII CW. Since when do Spitfires snap stall?!?

Also good reading from Roland. (I must return to it, as I read it fast, but it looked quite complete.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The main thing in-game is to out turn the ones you can and out run the ones you can't. The Spitfires we have, IXs and VIIIs, perform quite well at altitude. The Mk. VIII is awesome up high and even though my dive speed is pretty much maxed at 700km/h and change (don't even think about turning above 720km/h), it is an awesomely effective B and Zer.

The combination of .303s or .50s and 20mm Hispanos make for a great hit and run combo. And just think, if you actually get caught low by a 109 or a FW, you can out turn them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well, except for the fact that slow-speed handling of the 109-G series is over-modelled at this time. Hopefully this "slat" thing will be corrected in a future patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I pulled a clippy VIII out of a dive at 510mph IAS whilst practising the other night, without losing anything. With trim, natch. And gently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Copy that. I use trim as well to pull out of steep dives, but I really start to worry when she gets going over 720km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

@ faustnik - Yes, the clipped versions are much more unstable than the regular wings, especially the Mk. VIII CW. Add a little nose-down elevator trim to help this issue.

@ JtD - Yes, the Mk. VIII is the better turner, but the IX is a bit faster at altitude.

Good advice, Viper.

Stachl
12-08-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
dont get slow, cos spit sux slow... ingame, not irl

vs 190 use your climb and turn advantage, but it seems reduced this patch

vs 109 just do whatever u can...

oh fire 303 to guage where to aim, then use cannon to kill.

Totally agreed about the current slow-speed handling of the Spitfire, especially the Mk. VIII CW. Since when do Spitfires snap stall?!?

Also good reading from Roland. (I must return to it, as I read it fast, but it looked quite complete.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The main thing in-game is to out turn the ones you can and out run the ones you can't. The Spitfires we have, IXs and VIIIs, perform quite well at altitude. The Mk. VIII is awesome up high and even though my dive speed is pretty much maxed at 700km/h and change (don't even think about turning above 720km/h), it is an awesomely effective B and Zer.

The combination of .303s or .50s and 20mm Hispanos make for a great hit and run combo. And just think, if you actually get caught low by a 109 or a FW, you can out turn them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well, except for the fact that slow-speed handling of the 109-G series is over-modelled at this time. Hopefully this "slat" thing will be corrected in a future patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then what will you spit pilots have left to complain about? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You guys are something else!

SlickStick
12-08-2005, 06:07 PM
Bah, I rarely complain and am only pointing out the obvious. If the 109-G2 was this good in RL, they would not have needed to make any further models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Kuna15
12-08-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Fly High.</span>

As an Fw-190 driver I eat Spitfires for breakfast on the deck. At altitude I run away because the Spitfire holds all the cards.

Know your engine, and know your aircraft. Turn the WEP on and climb whilst watching the boost indicator. When the boost starts to fall off, note your altitude. Keep climbing. The red light on the dashboard will start to burn. You're now in FS gear and you'll have full boost again. Keep climbing. Note the altitude when the boost starts to fall off.

The first altitude you noted was your Full Throttle Height in MS gear. If you're going to fight down low, try to fight close to here.

The second altitude you noted was your Full Throttle Height in FS gear. If you're going to fight high, try to fight at this height or higher.

This will maximise your performance. Even L.F. Spitfires like to fly far higher than most people think. If you spend most of your time in MS gear (ie without the red light shining) you're probably better off in a clipped wing Spitfire.

On no account fly an H.F. Spitfire unless you mean it. H.F. Spitfires on the deck are target drones. You need to be operating above about 25,000 feet (7500 m) for the H.F. Spitfire to be superior to the L.F. Spitfire.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Fly Fast</span>

You've got good elevator authority at high speed - use it. Bounce your bandits from on-high, then zoom back into the stratosphere where you belong.

When fighting Fw-190s, spiral climb and try to catch them between supercharger gearchanges.

When fighting Bf-109s, fly fast and exploit their heavy elevators.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Shoot to kill</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Remember that the objective of air combat is to kill your enemy or destroy his aeroplane, not to fight him.</span>

Whenever possible avoid getting yourself into dogfights by killing your unsuspecting enemy in the first pass from a well planned high-speed bounce.

Finally:

<span class="ev_code_RED">Bellycheck</span>

The easiest way to kill a Spitfire (or indeed almost anything else) is to gain a speed advantage and advance from its low 6 blindspot. A very large percentage of my kills are scored against those who fail to bellycheck.

Spitfires are especially vulnerable to this tactic because they tend to be flown more slowly than most other Allied aircraft in the late war period. But I kill Mustang IIIs the same way.

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

mynameisroland
12-08-2005, 06:48 PM
Good post Viper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Estocade85
12-08-2005, 10:05 PM
Nice!

JtD
12-09-2005, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
@ JtD - Yes, the Mk. VIII is the better turner, but the IX is a bit faster at altitude.


This is not quite true, unless you talk about the HF model.

TooCooL34
12-09-2005, 12:33 AM
Fly it with Fw-190 tactics in advantage.
Use it like zero fighter in disadvantage.
It can do anything.
Spit IXe is the king of fighters.
Contrary to many beliefs, spit is not that good in climbing so don't use climb tactic against 109 when you have low E.
Over all above, it is blessed with best gunsight and proper firepower.

Genie-
12-09-2005, 12:38 AM
There are few tactics:

1. Yank the stick (to the left)
2. Yank the stick (to the right)
3. Pull the stick (insert here loops how ever many you want)
4. Use you laser MG very very much, and preferably between 400 and 700 meters
5. Don't use wingman because he will only steal your kills
6. Don't worry about energy bleed.. just yank all the way

there are few more.. but these ones are advanced ones so they will do

ploughman
12-09-2005, 03:34 AM
Interesting nobody's really recommending a spiral climb if you've got good a good energy state and a 109 behind you. It's put some distance between you and a co-alt attacker whilst denying him an easy shot. A 109 might try and follow you, in which case he'd bleed energy badly and get in a bind, if he tried a straight climb you could probably get behind him, if he extends, you'd be in a tactically superior position, only a shallow dive would really work for him but it would only result in a tactically neutral outcome.

p1ngu666
12-09-2005, 03:56 AM
depends what 109 ploughman
any with alchol addiction, u shouldnt try and outclimb them

JtD
12-09-2005, 03:58 AM
G-2 will also be good enough to get a shot off. Climbing vs. 109 imho only works gainst G-6 and G-6 Late, and even that is risky thanks to Mr. 108.

ploughman
12-09-2005, 04:29 AM
I, like butter, shall clarify . A zoom climb turn of 180 degrees or more, not a sustained climbing turn.

SlickStick
12-09-2005, 09:12 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 SlickStick:
@ JtD - Yes, the Mk. VIII is the better turner, but the IX is a bit faster at altitude.


This is not quite true, unless you talk about the HF model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, last time I checked I could swear that the IXe was faster at 3000-5000m than the Mk.VIII, but I can't remember what patch I checked this at. As I'm too lazy to test again, I also may be confusing which Spitfires I was comparing.

So, I shall default to your statement that the VIII may be faster at the altitude I mention above. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JtD
12-09-2005, 09:48 AM
Actually I meant to say the VIII is as fast as a IX. The differences are really minor.

faustnik
12-09-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Bah, I rarely complain and am only pointing out the obvious. If the 109-G2 was this good in RL, they would not have needed to make any further models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Firepower was increased to fight USAAF heavies.

p1ngu666
12-09-2005, 11:36 AM
g2 to g6 mg guns upgraded to 12.7 or whatever

there was also the gunpods, 20mm only, mk108 pods seem not tobe used...

mk108 in the nose later

so 1mk108, two 50~cals, and two 20mm would be the heaviest armament ud come across

SlickStick
12-09-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Bah, I rarely complain and am only pointing out the obvious. If the 109-G2 was this good in RL, they would not have needed to make any further models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Firepower was increased to fight USAAF heavies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were other increases though, too, right? Like MW-50 boost and bigger engines, right?

It's just that the 109-G2 seems to be climbing like a K4 and turning like an F4. Maybe I'm entering the "bag and drag" part too early or allowing the 109-G2 to gain too much speed below my Mk. VIII.

I'll have to re-assess, but I'm amazed at how much E the 109-G2 holds, how fast it climbs and it's ability to out turn the F4 and E series of 109s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

faustnik
12-09-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
Bah, I rarely complain and am only pointing out the obvious. If the 109-G2 was this good in RL, they would not have needed to make any further models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Firepower was increased to fight USAAF heavies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were other increases though, too, right? Like MW-50 boost and bigger engines, right?

It's just that the 109-G2 seems to be climbing like a K4 and turning like an F4. Maybe I'm entering the "bag and drag" part too early or allowing the 109-G2 to gain too much speed below my Mk. VIII.

I'll have to re-assess, but I'm amazed at how much E the 109-G2 holds, how fast it climbs and it's ability to out turn the F4 and E series of 109s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the later Bf109 models had increased power and MW50.

The G2 is certainly modeled with great climb, I don't know about E-retention though. Of course, the Spitfires are modeled with great climb and E-retention too. Both types were great climbers.

p1ngu666
12-09-2005, 12:45 PM
slick, why u change sig to fancy shiny rocking chair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

SlickStick
12-09-2005, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
slick, why u change sig to fancy shiny rocking chair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I am now apprentice to the great Poniated One's prophet, Mo-Zus. I cannot deny it's war-winning status any longer and I wish to fly in the light that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif MUSTANG!

(I have been told that it is still OK to fly the glorious Spitfire, one of the Poniated One's heralded angels, since the Spitfire has been blessed by his Mustangishness.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jugent
12-09-2005, 05:37 PM
The spit is a germ, dont get overconfident. The only time LW-can kill you is by surprise or numerical superiority.
If you meet a lot of FW and Me together, spiralclimb and hope that no one has hight advantage.
Two good spitpilot can take out six ordinary Me

Monty_Thrud
12-09-2005, 05:40 PM
God bless the rightous way of life...u scumsuckers

Sorry i meant crum suckers

p1ngu666
12-09-2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
God bless the rightous way of life...u scumsuckers

Sorry i meant crum suckers

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

Viper2005_
12-09-2005, 11:54 PM
?

Genie-
12-10-2005, 02:17 AM
!

MEGILE
12-10-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
God bless the rightous way of life...u scumsuckers

Sorry i meant crum suckers

que?

SeaNorris
12-10-2005, 12:51 PM
If truth be told no one should fly Spitfires



P.11 for the win!

ploughman
12-10-2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by SeaNorris:
If truth be told no one should fly Spitfires



P.11 for the win!

Wright Flyer and an M1911A if you want to be sure.

SeaNorris
12-10-2005, 02:59 PM
I have proof that the P.11 is better than a Spit.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/IL-2SeaNorris/ach.jpg

ploughman
12-10-2005, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by SeaNorris:
I have proof that the P.11 is better than a Spit.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/IL-2SeaNorris/ach.jpg

Holy shcittz. Actual combat footage! P-11 P0wnZ all Spitz!

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaNorris:
I have proof that the P.11 is better than a Spit.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/IL-2SeaNorris/ach.jpg

Holy shcittz. Actual combat footage! P-11 P0wnZ all Spitz! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What the heck of guns that thing uses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

danjama
12-10-2005, 03:16 PM
Pure Propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

SeaNorris
12-10-2005, 03:30 PM
You have no proof, this was taken from the P.11's wing commander.

ploughman
12-10-2005, 03:34 PM
Looks kosher to me. The P-11's 150mm wing guns did for the Spitty no problem despite the Spitfire being much more aesthetically pleasing.

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Looks kosher to me. The P-11's 150mm wing guns did for the Spitty no problem despite the Spitfire being much more aesthetically pleasing.
You are right No smoke from Spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kuna15
12-10-2005, 04:51 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/Sig3.jpg

It's OT I know but this is most scary sig I saw recently (pirsch has nasty one too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
By far http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

marc_hawkins
12-10-2005, 04:55 PM
Well i'm shocked. That does seem to be ****ing evidence. Still, there's something nagging me about that photo, but can't put my finger on it....

Bremspropeller
12-10-2005, 05:02 PM
In contrast to other pilots whose tactics may be Boom n'Zoom or Hit n'Run or even Sray'nPray, mine is Crash n'Burn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

SeaNorris
12-10-2005, 05:22 PM
More proof:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/IL-2SeaNorris/uberproof.jpg

marc_hawkins
12-10-2005, 08:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Right, that's it, i'm throwing all my history books away.

Humm... it censored d a m n. how strange.

Skoshi Tiger
02-27-2008, 09:05 PM
Bump!

Now a few years down the tracks,

Any new or useful tips for driving the Spitfire? How have the latest patches effected her?

Always looking for good advice!

Is the P11 still as good as she was in 2005?

MOH_MADMAN
02-28-2008, 01:42 AM
nose up a bit, stall, and personal service is on its way...

MEGILE
02-28-2008, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by SeaNorris:
I have proof that the P.11 is better than a Spit.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/IL-2SeaNorris/ach.jpg

I call PS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

BGs_Ricky
02-28-2008, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaNorris:
I have proof that the P.11 is better than a Spit.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a308/IL-2SeaNorris/ach.jpg

I call PS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd call the german spell checker !!

Manu-6S
02-28-2008, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
Bah, I rarely complain and am only pointing out the obvious. If the 109-G2 was this good in RL, they would not have needed to make any further models. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The main changes from G2 to G6 were the new heavy MG and the new gear...

Probably the G2 was this good, but since you can't escape from a faster plane it's obvious that the new model were built for speed...

In fact why was the SpitXIV built?

My 2 cents...

In RL there was no dogfight like someboy here are used to fight.
The 90% (IMO) of the times the fight would ended in a pair of minutes, above all against FW190s.

The turn is only a defensive manouvre and din't win dogfight at all!

PS: Oleg's spits are cheats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
02-28-2008, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

The turn is only a defensive manouvre and din't win dogfight at all!



I strongly hope that the above statement is a joke...

S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa,
commented on a 3 April 1943 combat:

'We were just taking off from Paddington for a diversionary sweep when
the airfield was attacked without any warning whatsoever by a gaggle of
bomb-carrying Focke Wulf 190s. Half a dozen of us were airborne, but the
rest were still on the runway when the bombs fell, but fortunately they
did not do any serious damage. I was about to land back again with a
duff engine, but when I saw the bombs fall I immediately set off in hot
pursuit of the invaders. I did not have much hope of catching them as
the 190s had the legs on us at ground level and they had a head start
from their dive, not to mention my duff engine. I chased them up the
Beja road towards Tabarka, but the further we went the further they got
ahead, so I eventually gave up the attempt and turned back for home.
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. Almost at the same
time I heard a yell over the R/T from Paul Hagger announcing that he too
had also just knocked down another 109.'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Falkland_Gray

Manu-6S
02-29-2008, 12:54 AM
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:

The turn is only a defensive manouvre and din't win dogfight at all!


I strongly hope that the above statement is a joke...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Johnnie Johnson said something very similar (at home I will search for the real statement) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
02-29-2008, 01:37 AM
The point is that both the screaming defensive turn and the roll, dive and run for home are BOTH defensive manouvres to help you survive a hostile enemy with surprise, postion or both.

Neither win dogfights unless the other guy does something stupid, as with all aircombat.

Whilst neither one is more effective than the other, the turn at least leaves you in the same part of the sky, which is good if defending that part of the sky is important, but bad if there are more bandits with good postition close by.

Uncle_Stranger
02-29-2008, 02:21 AM
I wonder why did the RAF stop using the Spitfires... Were they banned from use because of their complete superiority over F-22 and all other modern jets?

Manu-6S
02-29-2008, 03:48 PM
"Tight turns were more a defensive than an offensive tactic and did not win air battles."
Air Vice-Marshal J. E. "Johnnie" Johnson, RAF

Source: Fighter Combat - TACTICS AND MANEUVERING

Xiolablu3
02-29-2008, 04:05 PM
That doesnt mean that they were not used in an offensive manner.

if your plane turns better than the enemy, then it makes perfect sense to try and draw him into a turning fight.

The combat report I posted is just one single example of where turning and dogfighting were used in a Spitfire to shoot down a Bf109.

To say turning was NEVER used in air to air WW2 fighting is completely wrong.

It all depends what teh capabilities of your aircraft are, and what the enemy pilot does.

'Mr Sea Harrier' Sharkey Ward who shot down a number of enemy planes in the Falkands Conflict in his Harrier believes that horizontal turning is the most important manouvre in air combat, and is 2nd only to speed in all aspects of air combat.

If you can outturn the enemy, then you have another advantage to use in your inventory. Adolf Galland hated to be tied to close bomber support in the BOB because the SPitfire and Hurricanes were more manouvreable than the Bf109's, and therefore he was at a disadvantage.

I could go on giving example, but I think its quite obvious that hundreds of enemy planes were shot down in WW2 after turning battles/ie 'close-in dogfighting'.

anarchy52
02-29-2008, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'Mr Sea Harrier' Sharkey Ward who shot down a number of enemy planes in the Falkands Conflict in his Harrier believes that horizontal turning is the most important manouvre in air combat, and is 2nd only to speed in all aspects of air combat.

Actually, if we were to judge the most important aspect by the Falklands conflict it would be - the one that has missiles (or more advanced missiles) wins. Hint: Sidewinder ftw.

And since I decided to write, I might as well write something on topic.

IMHO the only way to lose a dogfight in a Spit (against a German plane at least) is to make a mistake. Most common are:
a) not checking your 6
b) getting into a fight with 3 or more enemy fighters
c) trying to reverse the turn with 190 on your 6
d) trying to run away from a 190
e) chasing a 190 until you get shot down by his wingman
f) doing an unnecessary loop and get picked off on top of it where you're too slow to maneuver


109 is an easy prey for a Spit, even the dreaded G2, which is, contrary to popular myth, modeled correctly regarding the turn performance. Spit can easily out turn the 109 at any speed. Yes, any speed. Even at very low speed Spit can use its superior e-retention for a yoyo to cut into 109's turn. At high speed and/or high altitude 109 is helpless against the Spit.

190 is a bit harder to fight, primarily because an experienced 190 pilot will not get into a fight without e advantage or a wingman. Secondly, no experienced 190 pilot will allow you to get close for a shot if he can help it.
However, 190 has a very slim margin of error (despite it's advantage in top speed it's castrated regarding turn, dive and acceleration). A good spit driver should aim to get the 190 to bleed e, and once they get co-e, 190 is toast.

Also, lets not forget that Spit is less prone to degradation of performance when hit compared to both 109 and the 190 and doesn't overheat as much on full power (or at all, depending on the model).

All in all, I find that Spit has several weaknesses:
a) guns placement is terrible, widely spaced guns are devastating around convergence, but close in or further then convergence, you're just wasting ammo. IMHO, one should set the guns convergence at a value less then MG convergence, use the MGs to cripple the enemy (190 will lose the speed advantage with 1-2 MG hits on the wing), and cannons for the kill

b) Its top speed doesn't allow it to run down it's opponents quickly enough (or at all), nor disengage by running away

c) It superior characteristics in 1 on 1 situation lead to overconfidence and less cooperation with friendlies

Xiolablu3
02-29-2008, 05:18 PM
ABout SHarkey Ward, I am just re-writing what he wrote in his book, in the appendix, where he talks about dogfighting.

The main point about Air to air fighting is that you should always use your own planes advantages over the enemies, whther it be turn, climb, roll, dive etc.

The FW190 is the perfect example. The Luftwaffe pilots used their dive, roll and top speed against the Spit mkV's in '41/42. They made sure they didnt get into close-in dogfights too often unless absolutely necesary.

RAF pilot tell time and again how the tacttics the LW used suited their planes. They attacked from on high and used energy tactics, whereas the Spitfire pilots tried to draw them into a turn fight, where their own mounts were superior.

As we all know from this sim, if a pilot uses energy tactics properly, in a plane which has a higher top speed, then he is a very very tough target (if hes really really disciplined I would even say almost impossible)

However manouverable planes also have their uses, they make very good escort fighters, and are very good defensivley.

I am not disputing Manus quote, I am only disputing the fact that he said that turning was NEVER used in combat, which is not true, there are lots of instances of where turning was very useful, and led to victories.

HuninMunin
02-29-2008, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Adolf Galland hated to be tied to close bomber support in the BOB because the SPitfire and Hurricanes were more manouvreable than the Bf109's, and therefore he was at a disadvantage.


He hated it because it meant going in at rediculously low cruise speed and therefor blocking any vertical option for a plane that excelled in and was build for superior vertical performence.
The term manouvreability is missused here from my point of view.
A high turnrate does not make a fighter manouvreable.
The 190 was seen as a very manouvreable fighter aswell.
You get the idea.

Xiolablu3
02-29-2008, 05:36 PM
He said it becasue the Spitfire was more manouverable than the Bf109, he says exactly that in the 'First and the Last', and in this interview :-


Goering :-.........."What do you want?"

Galland :- .........."I can't even slow down to the bomber speed, without sacrificing all my mobility."

Goering :- .........."What? You have the best fighter in the world!"

Galland :- 'And this was the occasion that, when Goering asked Moelders and myself what he could do to improve the capability of our wings, Moelders wanted his wing equipped with the DB 601N, and I said I wanted a wing of Spitfires. Of course, that was the end of the discussion.

Caldwell: Why, exactly, did you say that?

Galland: Why? He said we had the best fighter in the world. I said that the Spitfire was better able to slow down, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at lower speeds. Our advantage was not in turning, but in flying straight ahead, diving, and climbing. Our turns were not tight enough. So when he said, "We have the best fighter in the world! Don't blame me!" I tried to tell him otherwise.'



Galland :- 'I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the SPitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manouverable.'

I used the term 'manouverable', because thats the term the Head of the Luftwaffe, who had experience in both the Bf109 and the Spitfire, has used.

HuninMunin
02-29-2008, 06:01 PM
Marvelous how you achive to evade his statement about offensive and defensive capabilities in your conclusion.

And what has the way Galland expressed himself in a book aimed at a more casual audience to do with the discussion at hand here?

Turning dogfights where the small minority of WW2 airbattles and with that fact in mind I don't see a problem in calling horizontal turning a foremost defensive method.
If you really think Galland talks about the Spitfire beeing the superior combat aircraft overall you have to read the book again.

M_Gunz
02-29-2008, 09:18 PM
There is a big difference between Sustained Flat Turn Performance and Turns Allowing Speed Loss.

There is similar a difference between Sustained Climb and Zoom Climb.

The term used by modern fighter pilots is Trading Energy for Angles.

Best way to find out is to be significantly slower than an opponent who can shoot and not get
suckered into a turnfight.

mbfRoy
02-29-2008, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Marvelous how you achive to evade his statement about offensive and defensive capabilities in your conclusion.

And what has the way Galland expressed himself in a book aimed at a more casual audience to do with the discussion at hand here?

Turning dogfights where the small minority of WW2 airbattles and with that fact in mind I don't see a problem in calling horizontal turning a foremost defensive method.
If you really think Galland talks about the Spitfire beeing the superior combat aircraft overall you have to read the book again.
Right or wrong, "flying straight ahead, diving, and climbing" doesn't sound like a lot of maneuvering. If you couple that with the fact that the 109 elevator was kinda stiff at high speeds and its roll rate wasn't marvelous either, I would say that it was not AS MANEOUVERABLE as the Spitfire. You could say that it dove faster, fair enough; you cannot say however that it would pull up faster from a dive, because it couldn't! Roll rate? "similar" to the Spitfire at high speeds (that could mean 20+ pages easily). Negative G maneuvers? Yeah, the 109 won hands down against MkI spits. Did that make it more maeuverable?... Maybe in 50 pages you'd come to a conclussion, most likely not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. IMO it didn't, since its strongest point was in speed and obviously starting with E advantage.
On the other hand, the 190 was very maneouverable because it had a SWEET roll rate at pretty much all speeds.

VW-IceFire
02-29-2008, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Marvelous how you achive to evade his statement about offensive and defensive capabilities in your conclusion.

And what has the way Galland expressed himself in a book aimed at a more casual audience to do with the discussion at hand here?

Turning dogfights where the small minority of WW2 airbattles and with that fact in mind I don't see a problem in calling horizontal turning a foremost defensive method.
If you really think Galland talks about the Spitfire beeing the superior combat aircraft overall you have to read the book again.
I think Galland is making the point that the 109E, with poorer low speed turning, is not the superior aircraft when facing off against Spitfires while flying slowly to escort the bombers. Certainly I think Galland felt the 109E to be better than the Spitfire...his correctness in this matter is the subject of much debate of course...but this is more a matter of tactics. Had he some Spitfires the escort job would have been slightly easier although it wouldn't have changed anything as the Spitfires range is effectively as bad as the 109s.

The 109s caused the most havoc when they were free to engage at will. Once tied to the bombers they were far less mobile and effective and if you start at a speed disadvantage and your enemy is better at turning at slow speeds you really are in a tight squeeze.

When Oleg releases Storm of War: Battle of Britain the battles will likely be different online as the Luftwaffe pilots won't likely be tied to bombers and will be much more effectively engaging the RAF fighters in free hunts. Thats where the 109 reigns supreme.

Xiolablu3
03-01-2008, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Marvelous how you achive to evade his statement about offensive and defensive capabilities in your conclusion.

And what has the way Galland expressed himself in a book aimed at a more casual audience to do with the discussion at hand here?

Turning dogfights where the small minority of WW2 airbattles and with that fact in mind I don't see a problem in calling horizontal turning a foremost defensive method.
If you really think Galland talks about the Spitfire beeing the superior combat aircraft overall you have to read the book again.

WHERE did I say anything of the sort about the SPitfire being the 'superior combat aircraft?'

And what 'statement did I avoid?'?!?!'

You are reading things into my posts that I havent written!

The whole point was about 'The SPitfire being more manouverable', and that being more manouverable helped it in a lot of situations, thats all I was trying to put across. We were on the subject of manouverablility and if it was EVER useful in combat. Galland obviously thought that in some situations (such as bomber escort) manouverability was extrememly useful.

Von_Rat
03-01-2008, 01:13 AM
the spit was more manuverable than the 109, and that doesnt refer to flat turning.

the fw was more manuverable than the spit.

jeez,,his isnt rocket science folks.

some people mix up real life terms with gaming stuff.

M_Gunz
03-01-2008, 01:21 AM
Erik Schilling on maneuverability:


But first of all, one must know the definition of maneuverability
so here's Webster's.

1. To perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order
to secure an advantage.
2. An intended and controlled variation from a straight and
level flight path in the operation of an aircraft.
3. To make a series of changes in direction and position for
a specific purpose.
4. Evasive movement or shift of tactics.
5. To manage into or out of a position or condition.
6. To bring about or secure as a result of skillful management.

As you can see, a comparison of roll is the most important
attribute an airplane must posses in being more maneuverable than
another one. Turning in a tight turn has absolutely nothing to do
concerning maneuverability.

Von_Rat
03-01-2008, 01:25 AM
bingo gunz.

Manu-6S
03-01-2008, 04:17 AM
Max:
Excellent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

@Anarchy52
Your is a WONDERFUL post.

@Xiola
Sure I didn't mean that turning is useless at all... only that speed, roll and vertical mobility make a great warbird, not turning ability (above all sustained).

If the enemy is smart a slower but better turner plane can't win.

stathem
03-01-2008, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

If the enemy is smart a slower but better turner plane can't win.

IF the enemy is smart a faster but worse turning plane can't win.

If the enemy is smart...the opponent can't win...period.

Manu-6S
03-01-2008, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by stathem:

IF the enemy is smart a faster but worse turning plane can't win.

If the enemy is smart...the opponent can't win...period.
I disagree.

Extending (speed) you are retaining energy.
But turning you are losing energy.

The first gives more guarantees of life then the second one.

Ratsack
03-01-2008, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Richardsen:
Wich tactics should i use against Me109 and FW190? I want to use my spit to its maximum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pull stick. Push throttle.

Pull trigger.

Ratsack

Ruy Horta
03-01-2008, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:

For me against 109F series best is Spitfire V. This is really 109 killer. Same as it was in real here in game it is too.

Pinker, no offense intended, but Bf 109 killer is a bit much for the Mk.V. Yes it was an improvement, but the Bf 109F was at least a match and in RL (read the 1941 campaign) it proofed more of a Spitfire killer than vice versa. Of course performance isn't everything in the combat equation.

Still the 1941 campaign doesn't present the Mk V as a 109 killer and that's all I wanted to say.

Although you could tickle me to death before I remember the title, but in some Jagdwaffe memoir I read the G-1/2 was described as a Spitfire killer. ironic isn't it.

Ruy Horta
03-01-2008, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:

If the enemy is smart a slower but better turner plane can't win.

IF the enemy is smart a faster but worse turning plane can't win.

If the enemy is smart...the opponent can't win...period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luck and aggressiveness go a long way.

VW-IceFire
03-01-2008, 10:40 AM
I never count on luck...always goes badly for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
03-03-2008, 06:49 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 stathem:

IF the enemy is smart a faster but worse turning plane can't win.

If the enemy is smart...the opponent can't win...period.
I disagree.

Extending (speed) you are retaining energy.
But turning you are losing energy.

The first gives more guarantees of life then the second one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have specified a smart opponent...a smart opponent isn't going to blithely follow you at a non-ideal climb speed whilst you extend away. A clever opponent is going to climb away at his best climb speed at an angle off to retain visual.

You are equating extension with an energy burning break turn. The allegory to the break turn to remove yourself from someone in guns range is to roll and dive to a speed which is high enough to leave your aggressor behind. In most cases that is going to be beyond your maximum level speed, at which point your ˜extension' is burning energy just as much as a break turn.

The ˜turner' doesn't always have to burn energy. A turn at corner or a climbing turn to corner isn't losing energy, it is retaining it as surely as your extension.

Your clever opponent is going to be spiral climbing, gaining energy whilst you extend. At some point you are both going to come back into a merge, most probably still in a very similar energy state. The exact energy difference at this point will depend on your relative states to begin with, and the relative climb performance of the two aircraft both at their best climb rates.

M_Gunz
03-03-2008, 09:11 AM
Let the turner slow down in the hard flat turn and yoyo all over him. If you drop and turn
the G's of the turn is lessened by the action of dropping. As long as he stays in the flat
your 20% slower flat turning plane can still bring you to a guns solution with deflection from
below and behind.
Of course if the turn fighter unloads and uses the vertical too then run make sure it's not
the clipped wing.

All Spit IX's have ferocious power to weight, good speed and great turn -- to me they are the
Fokker DVII's of WWII.

bluedragon1950
03-04-2008, 11:12 AM
M-Gunz,

I have a question for you so please check your private message folder.

TY

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 01:33 PM
Whilst I agree with Manus comments that a Faster, worse turning plane can hold all the cards when in an advantageous position, Stathem also makes some excellent points that, just because a guy is in a better-turning dogfighter, doesnt mean he is a bad pilot, and can also win.

It all depends on how it plays out. We always seem to make the assumption that the guy in the better turning plane is a bad pilot, but of course this is rubbish.

A better turning plane is not ALWAYS slower. The SPitfire, for example, is very close in top speed to the worse turning German prop fighters.

We get used to the SPitfire V, because its the most common version in game. The real SPitfire V was faster than the version we have in game. Also, the Spitfire V was the worst SPitfire when compared to the contemporary opposition, so its not really a good comparison, although it is valid for 1941-42.

The Spitfire combines excellent flight charactersitics (because of its large eliptical wing) with a very fast speed (because of its brute force high power engine and low drag main body). Which is why it has such good, forgiving performance and is very easy to fly.

Anyway, my point is that you dont have to have a plane which turns well OR goes fast, you can have both.

However, as Stathem points out, tactics can win out over planes of ANY performance. After 1941 when the Luftwaffe attacked RUssia and put England on the back burner, they mainly went onto the defensive on the Western front, hoping for peace with England. This meant that they had the advantage that the Brits had in the BOB, any damaged Brit fighter was a kill (even one bullet through a fuel line), any damaged German fighter could be recovered easily. Excellent tactics, and being over their own lines meant that the Germans won out over the British planes in 1941-42.

MB_Avro_UK
03-04-2008, 05:04 PM
Hi all,

Performance figures and graphs are valid if opposing aircraft meet each other at the same altitude and are aware of their opponants position.

And assumes all pilots have equal capability.

And assumes of course that they have equal numbers.

In real life this was not the situation.

For instance, three Gladiators spot three 109s flying below. The 109s are at cruising speed. The 109s don't see the Gladiators. The Gladiators convert their altitude to speed and bounce.

I think that we tend to forget the above.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Fork-N-spoon
03-04-2008, 08:30 PM
I have never used a Spitfire because my ego tells me that I'm too manly to use such a Nancy boy craft, but I'll pass on the tactics that I've seen thus far.

While flying in warclouds, I noticed that most Spitfire pilots will buzz about each other in an angry swarm consisting of at least six other Spitfires. Once a lone enemy aircraft is spied, the entire group pounces, forms a Congo train, and begins spraying their entire ammunition load at said lone enemy craft. As they shoot over each other's shoulders, they try and jockey for the lead position, cutting each other off along the way. I would watch patiently as they picked the poor enemy aircraft apart, but before one could claim victory, the entire mob would collide and explode in a huge fireball. Then I would usually swoop down, plug the blue craft, and be on my merry way with one victory.

There is however another alternative to this. Those pesky blue players would use the lone aircraft as bait to lure the group of angry swarming Spitfires to a wolf pack of low flying Bf-109s and highflying Fw-190s. While the Fw-190s would boom and zoom, the Bf-109s would pick off individual Spitfires from the rabble.

The above described have been the tactics that I've seen Spitfire pilots employ.

Good luck!
bolillo_loco

Manu-6S
03-05-2008, 01:25 AM
For a direct comparison IMO we should leave out tactics, like MB_Avro_UK said.

I like the stathem's post, but he doesn't respond to the question: "Why did engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability?"

Without using tactics IMO a faster plane can always disengage while a better turning plane can't use his ability to chase it. The first pilot has better chances to survive.
But can the slower-better turner plane disengage at will?

If then we start to thinking at 2vs2 fights (woth not particular tactics if not the leader-wingman's one) who's the prey?

Then..

I must admin that I have not great admiration for IL2 spit's flyers, at least until I don't find them at 7km... above all when they volountary spin a 300m and autorecover (like the Tempests do).

I think in another way for pilots who fly American's planes... all my respect to them.

stathem
03-05-2008, 07:19 AM
:Originally posted by MANU6S
For a direct comparison IMO we should leave out tactics, like MB_Avro_UK said.

I like the stathem's post, but he doesn't respond to the question: "Why did engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability?"

That's because you didn't ask that. You're moving the goalposts. You said the faster worse turning plane can prevent the slower plane from winning. I agree.

I said the slower better turning plane can prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Do you agree yet?

And in any case:

Engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability to shoot down bombers. That is, after all, what a fighter is for.


:Originally posted by MANU6S
Without using tactics IMO a faster plane can always disengage while a better turning plane can't use his ability to chase it. The first pilot has better chances to survive.
But can the slower-better turner plane disengage at will?

Without using tactics? Seriously? All air to air combat is tactics.

I didn't say that the slower plane can disengage at will. I said (given a smart pilot as you specified) it could prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Can we think of any examples, say, Me-262 vs P-51, real world?

The better climbing plane, can however, disengage. A plane may be slower in a straight line but climb faster. Ironically the ability to climb quickly often goes hand in hand with turning abililty.



:Originally posted by MANU6S

If then we start to thinking at 2vs2 fights (woth not particular tactics if not the leader-wingman's one) who's the prey?

Again with pilots who are smart? The ones that make the first mistake, as always.



:Originally posted by MANU6S
Then..

I must admin that I have not great admiration for IL2 spit's flyers, at least until I don't find them at 7km... above all when they volountary spin a 300m and autorecover (like the Tempests do).

I think in another way for pilots who fly American's planes... all my respect to them.

I don't have admiration for people who dismiss a group of people because of their own prejuidices.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2008, 10:49 AM
Manu hates SPitfires because they shoot him down a lot...

And he respects American flyers because the planes arent as good dogfighters and are easier to kill for him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its funny, on the servers I play on its not Spitfires, but FW190 pilots who are not respected, because the plane is so good and has big cannons.

'Dont pick a Fw190 its boring' is a common complaint.

Personally I love them all, SPitfires, 109's FW190's and so on..

1942 in particluar is very hard for Spitfires in the sim, so if you want a good challenge try fighting FW190A4s and Me109F4's in this year. I am sure you will change your mind about the Spitfire.

In fact I remember me and Manu getting about 10 kills each with no deaths in Bf109F4's over SPitfire V's not too long ago.

mbfRoy
03-05-2008, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:Originally posted by MANU6S
For a direct comparison IMO we should leave out tactics, like MB_Avro_UK said.

I like the stathem's post, but he doesn't respond to the question: "Why did engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability?"

That's because you didn't ask that. You're moving the goalposts. You said the faster worse turning plane can prevent the slower plane from winning. I agree.

I said the slower better turning plane can prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Do you agree yet?

And in any case:

Engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability to shoot down bombers. That is, after all, what a fighter is for.


:Originally posted by MANU6S
Without using tactics IMO a faster plane can always disengage while a better turning plane can't use his ability to chase it. The first pilot has better chances to survive.
But can the slower-better turner plane disengage at will?

Without using tactics? Seriously? All air to air combat is tactics.

I didn't say that the slower plane can disengage at will. I said (given a smart pilot as you specified) it could prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Can we think of any examples, say, Me-262 vs P-51, real world?

The better climbing plane, can however, disengage. A plane may be slower in a straight line but climb faster. Ironically the ability to climb quickly often goes hand in hand with turning abililty.



:Originally posted by MANU6S

If then we start to thinking at 2vs2 fights (woth not particular tactics if not the leader-wingman's one) who's the prey?

Again with pilots who are smart? The ones that make the first mistake, as always.



:Originally posted by MANU6S
Then..

I must admin that I have not great admiration for IL2 spit's flyers, at least until I don't find them at 7km... above all when they volountary spin a 300m and autorecover (like the Tempests do).

I think in another way for pilots who fly American's planes... all my respect to them.

I don't have admiration for people who dismiss a group of people because of their own prejuidices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Overall I agree in all the points you posted; but then Manu's post was midly ******ed

Manu-6S
03-05-2008, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Manu hates SPitfires because they shoot him down a lot...

And he respects American flyers because the planes arent as good dogfighters and are easier to kill for him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Come on Xiola, you know it's not true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I explained many times in this forum that I'm not used to been killed by Spit (except the other night in warcloud when my IL2 was stuttering after I changed on Vista 64, who seems don't agree with Water=4..., 2 kia for me by 2 spits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ).

But P51s and mostly P47s are the real danger because they are faster than me and retains energy better (P51s are wonderful in BnZ).

I hate IL2's spitfire, not the real (and not yet the SoW's ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) because they are really killers in hands of average pilots. Because it's too easy IMO to be successful in them without the need to learning to fly: you can just recognize an above average pilots in a Spit if he work in vertical... but how many spits work in vertical in the server? the great part is chasing faster planes to be killed from death 6.

You need only 3-4 Spit at 5km to have total air superiority, not speaking about 8km, where FatCat99 was fighting againt me, one of my mate and another pilot whos been killed by him... FatCat didn't risk one single time attacking us, and we couldn't do nothing (I was out of fuel at last): imagine a wing of Spit at that alt!!!

FatCat, Fenrir and other pilots I know are great pilot and I respect all of them.

On the other side there are pilots who take Spits (usually the noseless Vc4) to accumulate kills and feel "great killers", flying at 500m with SpitIX(HF)... then, I'm witness, they take a Wildcat and try to turn flat against a Zero: but if you look at their stats the seems to be great killers, even all their kill are made flying Spit!!!

Probably Spits at 8km would not get kills but they should have total control of that part of the sky. Speaking of tactics...

In this thread you can find a great post from anarchy52 what describe the IL2 spits themself.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its funny, on the servers I play on its not Spitfires, but FW190 pilots who are not respected, because the plane is so good and has big cannons.

'Dont pick a Fw190 its boring' is a common complaint.


190s are boring in F6 server, where tactics doesn't count... Hunting at 6km in enemy territory searching for the bounce or at clouds level is another thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Destroying a SpitVIII with your A5 at 800km/h is wonderful, when you know that if the first pass is not good you are death if not with the help of your wingmen.

You know, I had not admiration for G2 pilots too before the latest patch... I try to not let them been fled by my cadets on my squad... and if I find them flying Spit I kick them.

Peace.

Manu-6S
03-05-2008, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
That's because you didn't ask that. You're moving the goalposts. You said the faster worse turning plane can prevent the slower plane from winning. I agree.

I said the slower better turning plane can prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Do you agree yet?


You are talking about smart pilots.. take 2 average pilots... is easier to DIE in a faster plane (where if you make a mistake you can dive and build speed) or in better turner plane (where you can still turn and turn remaining still in the center of the fight)?


Originally posted by stathem:
And in any case:

Engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability to shoot down bombers. That is, after all, what a fighter is for.

Really?

I didn't know P51 where built for take down bombers (except rockets maybe). I was thinking that FASTER is BETTER because FASTER is SAFER.


Originally posted by stathem:
Without using tactics? Seriously? All air to air combat is tactics.


I know very well, I'm talking about bounce ect... I want 2 planes a co-alt and fully aware of the enemy.


Originally posted by stathem:
I didn't say that the slower plane can disengage at will. I said (given a smart pilot as you specified) it could prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Can we think of any examples, say, Me-262 vs P-51, real world?


Two average pilots? Look above.


Originally posted by stathem:
The better climbing plane, can however, disengage. A plane may be slower in a straight line but climb faster. Ironically the ability to climb quickly often goes hand in hand with turning abililty.


Watchout, a better turning plane can have a better sustained climb... at which speed? Very slow I think = a potential prey for other planes.


Originally posted by stathem:
I don't have admiration for people who dismiss a group of people because of their own prejuidices.

My fault... I shouldn't have posted it but of course my meaning wasn't of total disrespect of them as men... I got friends that fly exclusively Spits but we are good friends

Btw it isn't a my prejuidice: it's my experience.

TheGozr
03-05-2008, 12:28 PM
The best tactics for Spitfire is to just wank the sticks around that would do.. the rest is automatic.
Spit doesn't need tactic... what for?

No41Sqn_Banks
03-05-2008, 01:51 PM
IMHO the Spitfire is not the best plane in the Sim, but it's the best allrounder - a jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none.

Imagine you are in Fw 190 down low, because of mission order or you just did takeoff. If you got bounced from above in this situation, you are a sitting duck without any chance.

You can now say "Uhhh idiot, never be lower as your enemy in a Fw 190" But sometimes you can't because of mission order, ect.

Now same situation in a Spitfire ... you are a sitting duck too, but you at least have a chance.

So for Spitfire tactics, keep that in mind.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2008, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
The best tactics for Spitfire is to just wank the sticks around that would do.. the rest is automatic.
Spit doesn't need tactic... what for?

If you dont use tactics in ANY plane, you will not last long. How long do you think a SPitfire Vb would last vs a FW190A4, or a Spit IX vs FW190D9 if he did not use tactics?

You should know this, you are an old timer here.

No41Sqn_Banks
03-05-2008, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Spit doesn't need tactic... what for?

To be immortal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
03-05-2008, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:


I hate IL2's spitfire, not the real (and not yet the SoW's ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) because they are really killers in hands of average pilots.

I was only joking before, however have you read much about the real SPitfire?

It is very well known to be the easiest of the high powered fighters to fly, and very 'noob friendly'.

A German report said the Spitfire was 'childishly simple' to fly.

'Any idiot can fly a Spitfire' was a common saying amongst RAF pilots.


Israeli PIlot Jack Cohen Commented :-

'Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly.'



I cannot understand how you can say you hate IL2's SPitfire, but not the real thing, and list those reasons as it being 'easy to fly'. The real SPitfire was well known for having just the characteristics it has in IL2. A Tiger Moth is a benine trainer aircraft btw.

mbfRoy
03-05-2008, 04:38 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 stathem:
That's because you didn't ask that. You're moving the goalposts. You said the faster worse turning plane can prevent the slower plane from winning. I agree.

I said the slower better turning plane can prevent the faster plane from winning. That is all. Do you agree yet?


You are talking about smart pilots.. take 2 average pilots... is easier to DIE in a faster plane (where if you make a mistake you can dive and build speed) or in better turner plane (where you can still turn and turn remaining still in the center of the fight)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From my experience average pilots tend to die WAY FASTER in a plane that favors speed over a plane that favors turning. Take 2 average pilots and both will start turning like crazy, the difference being that the better turning plane will own the other one, which in return will ***** about how his plane is porked beyond belief.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
And in any case:

Engineers built planes for a higher speed at the cost of turning capability to shoot down bombers. That is, after all, what a fighter is for.

Really?

I didn't know P51 where built for take down bombers (except rockets maybe). I was thinking that FASTER is BETTER because FASTER is SAFER. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought P51s were built as long range escorts?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Without using tactics? Seriously? All air to air combat is tactics.


I know very well, I'm talking about bounce ect... I want 2 planes a co-alt and fully aware of the enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
co-alt, co-speed, which one has greater odds of winning both pilots being average? as stathem said in his post, the one that screws up first.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
The better climbing plane, can however, disengage. A plane may be slower in a straight line but climb faster. Ironically the ability to climb quickly often goes hand in hand with turning abililty.


Watchout, a better turning plane can have a better sustained climb... at which speed? Very slow I think = a potential prey for other planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not in your particular case that has 2 planes fighting...

Xiolablu3
03-05-2008, 05:06 PM
The P51 was built for teh RAF as a 'better P40'. The RAF wanted NA to build P40's for them, as they loved the Kittyhawks for their versatility. NA told the RAF that they could build a better plane than the P40 if they wanted, so the RAF told them 'yes please'.

The P51 wasnt built AS an escort fighter, it just turned up at the right time to fulfill that job, just as the USAAF were high losses in their daylight bombing offensive.


A large eliptical wing like the Spitfire's, favours climbing, turning and nice handling due to a low wing loading.


Squadron Leader I.F. Kennedy DFC & Bar in his new Spitfire IX, June 1943 :-

'I had the throttle open and I rolled over and headed on a course to
cut the angle toward the 109s, which had separated a little. I wound on
nose-heavy trim so essential to keep the aircraft in a high-speed dive.
The Spit responded eagerly as I dove more steeply than the 109s, with
Red Two and Three no doubt following, although I could not see them. The
controls got very heavy as the airspeed needle moved far right at 480
mph. (Corrected for altitude, true airspeed approached 600 mph.)

I could see that I was gaining on the nearest Me 109. That was something new. We
were already half-way to Sicily; that was no problem. We knew from years
of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of
Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially
faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily
in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and
turn. One couldn't have it both ways. In any case, I was closing on this
Me 109, which I recognised as a G. Perhaps he wasn't using full
throttle.'

mbfRoy
03-05-2008, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The P51 wasnt built AS an escort fighter, it just turned up at the right time to fulfill that job, just as the USAAF were high losses in their daylight bombing offensive.
My bad, you are right!