PDA

View Full Version : P51D vs. 109G, SpitV vs 109F: 109 wins, say US citizens



yogy
10-26-2004, 02:24 PM
Believe it or not.. or better have a lok at them:

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

(or do you guys kow this vid?)

EDIT: used the smaller file from mnemeth1

yogy
10-26-2004, 02:24 PM
Believe it or not.. or better have a lok at them:

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

(or do you guys kow this vid?)

EDIT: used the smaller file from mnemeth1

VW-IceFire
10-26-2004, 05:23 PM
Interesting video...a few things stand out for me and make me wonder.

1) It sounds very much like comparative turn radius between the Spitfire and some versions of the 109 is fairly similar. This seems to be generally in line with what most sources (including academic resources) say about the 109/Spitfire matchup. Indeed, I find it this way in the game...but the difference is that the Spitfire's best turns seem to be between 320 and 400 while the 109's best turn is somewhere between 260 and 350. This is from my experience but I KNOW that if I fight a Spitfire, the best thing for me to do if I want to hang with him is cut out a bit of drag (rads, flaps, rudder skid) and pop my nose up to get a shot. Works quite well.

2) Its interesting the comments on the Mustang. That contradicts what other pilots have said and contradicts some of the comments made about the Mustang. Mustang pilots were reported to have been able to get into turns with 109's...but its really hard to say. I'm not for a minute going to dispute what a Mustang pilot has to say but when they contradict its hard to really find a good solid point.

3) The note made by the one fellow on Spitfire's with the "big engines" probably refering to the Griffon engined Spitfires is generally wrong...at least concerning the XII and the XIV. The XIV, according to AFDU reports is equal to the VIII and IX that they were tested against. It has been mentioned that turn ability aside, the XIV is worse in other manuvers (loops and rapid reversals) due to weight which causes "mush" in the manuver. So they may have been not remembering the details that they had looked up or didn't really have much to go on with what they were saying. I'd love to hear from a Spitfire pilot on comparison between V, IX, XIV in terms of turn, roll, and general handling.

In terms of the thread title: Spit V VS 109F...he was using conjecture...he didn't know for sure. Its likely deadly close...which is similar to my online experience.

Abbuzze
10-26-2004, 05:46 PM
For the turningabilities of the different Versions, they were tested vs a 190A.

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.

SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.


SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A
Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it.

I´m not a native english speaker, but I have the impression that the turningablity changed if I read "easyly out-turn" to "In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced".
So it seems like the 109 the Spitfire got heavier and lost manoeuvrability but gains speed and power...


http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

WUAF_Badsight
10-26-2004, 10:14 PM
why am i not surprised by this . . . .

JG77Von_Hess
10-26-2004, 11:19 PM
Thx for sharing this, apriciated alot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VH.

Bearcat99
10-27-2004, 06:11 AM
Nice video.......

Heavy_Weather
10-27-2004, 06:28 AM
yeah it seems the 109's pull harder loops than the P-51 and Spits. i've noticed this while flying in VWF missions. i once got into a loop fight with a 190 and i was flying a CW Spit, he was able to pull harder than i could without spinning and i lost the fight. offline its a different story, even if you setup Ace AI, you can still out perform the computer. it seems the FM is different online than off.

Cajun76
10-27-2004, 06:37 AM
What speed? What alt? Flaps or not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There's little question that the 109 is a better low speed turner than a P-51. High speed is where the P-51 shines. Additionally, I highly doubt those pilots are taking their rides to the limit, high speed (and G) manuevers, reversals and the like. It's entirely possible, based on how thier likely flying these old, valuable warbirds, that the 109 is more manueverable at these speeds than the P-51. However, in a combat situation, things may be quite different if the P-51 is using his superior speed against the 109s better low speed turn and acceleration.

I could use Bud Anderson's oft quoted first chapter of his book to show him describe his engagment with a 109, but it's really not nessasary. Thses guys are talking about their experiances flying old warbirds around airshows. That's fine. A combat engagement with young fighter pilots pushing their machines to the limit because there's no tomorrow is another matter. Both a/c have thier strong pionts, and I'm not slamming the 109, but using these guys observations as proof or vindication of something is stretching it quite a bit, imho. Good vid, though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The190Flyer
10-27-2004, 07:27 AM
Interesting Video, about the Mustangs and the spits vs. 109's I definetly agree about the P-51 IF you can get them in a turn fight with a 109 the 109 will light it up every time, but give the mustang speed and high altitude performance that it has, it will eat the 109 alive IMO. Spit vs. 109 that is a tough one to prove. In game the spit can demolish the 109 at high speeds but lower yes the 109 can take the spit, thats a close comparison there. But for overall performance the 109 is a great warbird. It can turn BnZ, TnB dive climb, its just a good all around aircraft, one of my fav's in the game.

S! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a.k.a. BIFF P-51 PILOT in ubi.com lobbies

VW-IceFire
10-27-2004, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
For the turningabilities of the different Versions, they were tested vs a 190A.

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190. In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced.

SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A
Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles.


SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A
Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it.

I´m not a native english speaker, but I have the impression that the turningablity changed if I read "easyly out-turn" to "In the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so pronounced".
So it seems like the 109 the Spitfire got heavier and lost manoeuvrability but gains speed and power...


http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's AFDU reports that compair the Spitfires so you don't have to use the FW190 as a point of comparison. Here's some of the excerpts:

Comparison of XIV to IX
"Turning Stall
8. The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a similar manner to other Spitfires."

"Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV."

Here's the one piece thats really telling and exemplifies what I think we should see with a XIV in game and probably what these pilots are talking about when comparison Spitfire marks to each other or 109's.

"Conclusions- Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity. "

So, we can see that turns are identical, slightly different from port to starboard (definately torque related), less indication of stall (requiring more pilot skill to hold it in a turn), so when you compair a XIV to a 109F...I'd say the 109F pilot has the advantage in the ability to quickly change his planes orientation and use various manuvers in quick succession. The XIV is going to hold all of the other cards...but if the XIV pilot wants to hold him in a turn it should be a tight race. Then you ask teh question: Why even bother? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NN_EnigmuS
10-27-2004, 08:18 AM
hum afdu is english people flying british plane designed for british people will they said that mk14 is worst than 9 and 9 worst than 5 in turn time

if you follow the afdu test you will see that spit mk1 to 14 turn the same but it isn't that way british pilot felt when they had it in hand,

and it is well known that spit mk9 was not welcome by some pilot because of his lack of manoeuvraibility vs mk5 but pilot apreciated gain of speed,like german pilot with g6 mouahah

anyway pleased to hear that it will be very close in substained turn and as the guy said spit with big engine(late model) turn not that good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

anyway nice vid does oleg Download it,some interesting stuff here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

never understand why F so bad in turning comparing to g2 lol

RedDeth
10-27-2004, 08:21 AM
MUSTANG WON THE WAR

NN_EnigmuS
10-27-2004, 08:39 AM
adding these about yak3 and **** you have a different game for sure

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=4661062232&p=1

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 09:10 AM
Please use this link

video is smaller and easier on meh host

EAA Interviews (http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/movies/EAA_Interviews_Low.wmv)

-Wound

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yogy:
Believe it or not.. or better have a lok at them:

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

(or do you guys kow this vid?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In light of it not being mentioned one should know that most if not all of these WWII aircraft are not configured as they were in WWII. For example most have had...

The weapons (guns) have been removed
The ammo has been removed
The ammo feeds have been removed
The super chargers and or turbos have been removed
etc...

And alot of the P51 have been converted into tour ride types of planes where a 2nd seat added behind the pilot.

Thus a REAL different aircraft.. You might be able to draw get some useful static info from them.. ie top speed at such and such setting minus a super charger.. But the dynamic stuff would be way Way WAY different due to mass (moment) and likly cg changes.

And I have not even begun to point out the FACT that these guys dont push them as hard, and Ill bet that they hardly ever take them up to 30kft where the fight was at for the P51.

In short, like all pilot comments, they are thin on details and thick on bias... Thus neat and all but pretty useless to drawn any conclusions from.

horseback
10-27-2004, 12:11 PM
There's always a bit of a difference in how a test/veteran pilot will appraise a plane's abilities vs what the hobby/rookie pilot thinks.

A clinical approach says the Spit XIV does turn as well as the Mk V/VIII/IX (pick one). However, the XIV is a 'brute' in comparison to the lighter, sweeter handling models. In real life, that translates into the pilot being more willing to push the lighter aircraft to its limits, and being more cautious with the 'brute', at least until he gains full confidence in it. Even so, he may never be convinced that it turns as tightly as the Mk V, because it takes more work to do so.

Most accounts of the 109's flying characteristics say that it was a sweet aircraft once airborne, but that if pushed to its limits at high speeds and/or altitude, it could be much less forgiving. Even so, the takeoff/landing/ground handling qualities were said to be its real drawback, and as it's weight and horsepower increased, so did these problems.

These last mentioned qualities probably 'colored' the younger pilots' perceptions of the 109, and made them less trusting of their mounts in combat.

Mustangs and Spits, while requiring some respect for their torque and long noses, had more benign reputations than the 109, and this may have helped their pilots accept and master them more quickly (as if their many more hours of training didn't already put them well ahead of their LW counterparts from the second half of 1944 onwards).

The interview was revealing only of a couple of pilots' opinions of aircraft they never flew in combat, or from what I heard, tested in any organized, comprehensive way in factory fresh condition.

cheers

horseback

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 12:57 PM
Skip is a veteran test/race pilot

Pulling a max sustained turn in a refurbished warbird will produce the exact same results as if you did in one that was factory fresh. If engine output, weight, and aerodynamic shape are identical, the turn will be identical.

Pulling a max sustained turn is in no way "pushing" an aircraft and you don't need to be in combat to pull one.

G loading in a max sustained turn is faaaar less than what the airframe is designed to handle and its done routinely in these birds.

As for wieght, yes the planes are lighter, BOTH planes are lighter. That means they both would have seen a similar small gain in turn performance. But not by much, a non-functional guns package was installed on the 109 in question.

speed = max throttle
alt = below critical super charger level
flaps = no flaps, clearly described per video the settings

speed bleeds off in a max sustained turn to a given rate. max sustained turn is not the same as a turn done a max corner velocity.

The idea of a max sustained turn is to see who can turn the tightest circle at the slowest speed.

LStarosta
10-27-2004, 01:22 PM
Wow, he says 20mm is more effective than 7.8 mm... You don't say...

And yeah.. the Spit 5 and 9 are the same airplane.

What a bunch of bull.

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
Skip is a veteran test/race pilot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So? Does not chage the fact that the questions put to him were tailored, and that his replys lacked enough information to recreate the senario to test the sim to see if it is or isnt correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
Pulling a max sustained turn in a refurbished warbird will produce the exact same results as if you did in one that was factory fresh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ever heard of metal fatige? I think even the average pilot would know that you would not expect a 50+ year old airframe with 1000s of hours on it to be in the same state as it was when it rolled off the assembly line 50+ years ago. New paint and rebuilding the motor does not put the aircrart into a time machine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
If engine output, weight, and aerodynamic shape are identical, the turn will be identical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is a BIG IF in light of the FACT that most WWII aircraft that are still flying are configured very Very VERY different from thier WWII counterparts. Take engine output for example.. MOST if not ALL of the aircraft at CHINO have had thier blowers and or turbos removed. Thus high alt flight is pretty much out of the question. Take Weight for example, removing things like 6x0.50 cals from the wings or a 20mm cannon from the nose will change the CG of the aircraft. Even if ballist is added in other areas to bring the CG back to it's orginal postion you have still chaged the moment of the aricraft, thus changing the way it will respond to dynamic changes. Take Aerodynamic shape for example.. The extended canopys of most two seater P51s is very different from the WWII configured version.. That may not sound like a big deal to you.. But I read a NACA document that pointed out how simply putting tape over the gun port holes effected the stall speeds... Yet you would have us belive that thes modern modified WWII aircraft will turn... How did you say it? "the turn will be identical" Sorry.. But Ill will have to pass on your opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
Pulling a max sustained turn is in no way "pushing" an aircraft and you don't need to be in combat to pull one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, but the max sustained turn will be different due to the aircraft being different. Not to mention the difference between a 20 year old pilot with tons of hedrenilin running through his viens when tracers are passing his canopy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
G loading in a max sustained turn is faaaar less than what the airframe is designed to handle and its done routinely in these birds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet we here storys of WWII pilots who have blacked out and or returned from combat with an aircraft with bent wings due to over g's... And you want to equate an air show to that? Again.. I will have to pass on your opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
As for wieght, yes the planes are lighter, BOTH planes are lighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This much is true.. But, by what percentage? Is the P51 23% lighter than a WWII configued P51? Is the 109 13% lighter than a WWII configued 109? Is 25% of a P51 weight equal to a 109 13%? Is the removing of the super chargers equal at all alts? Is removing 6x0.50 cals from the wings equal to removing 1x20mm from the centerline? All good questions.. none of which were addressed in that video.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
That means they both would have seen a similar small gain in turn performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOT TRUE. See above

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
But not by much, a non-functional guns package was installed on the 109 in question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.. but again, Ill have to pass on your opinion of "not by much" there just isnt enough information presented here to make that call IMHO.

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 01:28 PM
are you seriously suggesting the P51 out turned the 109G in real life?

HAHAHA OMG

I though this was a spit debate.

dude, its so obvious that it would out turn the P51 its not even close. Do you know what those slats do on the G? They prevent seperation of the boundary layer at reallly high AoA. Simple math taking the wing loading of the stang against the wing loading of the 109 would tell you right there that the 109 would do better, but throw in the slats and its freaking all over for the mustang.

MEGILE
10-27-2004, 01:33 PM
Why do you guys argue so much over well documented combat which took place 60 years ago?

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
are you seriously suggesting the P51 out turned the 109G in real life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Bartender.. Ill have what mnemeth1 is drinking!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
HAHAHA OMG

I though this was a spit debate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You know what they say when you *assume* things!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
dude, its so obvious that it would out turn the P51 its not even close. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes the low altitude slow speed trun ability of the 109 over the P51 is well know... What you dont seem to realise is that that was the exception to the rule and that most P51 and 109 encounters were at high alt and high speed. Something those modern WWII pilots can not even try to do becuase most have thier superchargers/blowers/turbos removed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
Do you know what those slats do on the G? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. I also know that alot of the 109 pilots didnt like they way they worked.. in that one would pop out before the other and put the 109 into an un-expected roll near the top of a loop that they had to contend with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
They prevent seperation of the boundary layer at reallly high AoA. Simple math taking the wing loading of the stang against the wing loading of the 109 would tell you right there that the 109 would do better, but throw in the slats and its freaking all over for the mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes the low alt slow speed of the 109 was better for GAME play turn fights... But too bad for the 109 that GAME play was not the case in WWII

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 01:48 PM
what does looping have to do with anything?

what does game play have to do with anything?

basically - wtf are you talking about?

so you agree the 109G would out turn a mustang in a sustained turning engagment?

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
what does looping have to do with anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple.. the few pilot accounts I have read about the 109 and the negative effect the slats had showed up at the top of a loop where the speed was slow and thus the slats would pop out. You do realise they were held in place by the air pressure... thus when you go slow... like at the top of a loop.. they were apt to pop out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
what does game play have to do with anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was mentiond to HIGHLIGHT the fact that the 109 slow speed low alt turn advantage over the P51 show up more often in GAME play than it did in RL. You do realise that GAME play is very Very VERY different from WWII right? Allmost as different as the configurations of the WWII aircraft to the modern ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
basically - wtf are you talking about? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The 109 and P51 and your inability to follow along.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
so you agree the 109G would out turn a mustang in a sustained turning engagment? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes low and slow the 109 wins... Too bad for the 109 the fight was high and fast

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 02:00 PM
who exactly are you arguing those points with?

I thought this whole post was about the 109's ability to turn inside a mustang, not how combat effective they were?

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
who exactly are you arguing those points with?

I thought this whole post was about the 109's ability to turn inside a mustang, not how combat effective they were? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You know what they say happens when you *assume* things?

123-Wulf-JG123
10-27-2004, 02:03 PM
Tagert you are making a lot of noise and a LOT of assumptions, what exactly are you defending, why expend so much time and energy on something that you have no actual knowledge of, per se, the ACTUAL aircraft that these guys were discussing.
I think EVERYONE should wait and see what ACTUAL a/c were being discussed before spouting a load of nonsense about stuff that isn't even in the equation.

GR142_Astro
10-27-2004, 02:08 PM
Hey I know, let's post this WMV about 180 more times, in about 10 different threads, then it will become truth!

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

Are the LW's gearing up for another turn boost whine for 109s? Getting awful deep in here.

New forum shoes:


http://epoxy.mrs.umn.edu/~gjerdind/DDS/galoshes.jpg

mnemeth1
10-27-2004, 02:10 PM
hahaha

yeah I was supprised to see my movie plastered in a bunch of threads.

Not quite sure what's going on here myself

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
Tagert you are making a lot of noise and a LOT of assumptions, what exactly are you defending, why expend so much time and energy on something that you have no actual knowledge of, per se, the ACTUAL aircraft that these guys were discussing.
I think EVERYONE should wait and see what ACTUAL a/c were being discussed before spouting a load of nonsense about stuff that isn't even in the equation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say nonsense.. But would you mind giving me one example of something I said you consider to be nonsense? I think I can defend just about everything I said.. But we wont know until you can be a little more specific.. You statments, like the pilots, are thin on details

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mnemeth1:
Not quite sure what's going on here myself <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On that we agree! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
10-27-2004, 02:22 PM
Tagert's point about high speed combat would also explain why most USAAF pilots considered the Fw190 to more maneuverable LW fighter.

123-Wulf-JG123
10-27-2004, 02:26 PM
Life's too short to waste it on self opinionated experts who will NEVER be swayed from voicing what they truly believe is right. Frankly I don't understand guys that will argue about how many angels can dance on a pin head. I simply don't care about ANY of the stuff you have written because it has NO relevance to the video interview and frankly is self opinionated speculation backed up by assumptions. End of my thread.

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
Life's too short to waste it on self opinionated experts who will NEVER be swayed from voicing what they truly believe is right. Frankly I don't understand guys that will argue about how many angels can dance on a pin head. I simply don't care about ANY of the stuff you have written because it has NO relevance to the video interview and frankly is self opinionated speculation backed up by assumptions. End of my thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true in that you cared enough to post a responce... As for number of angels.. I see 4 above you.

TAGERT.
10-27-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Tagert's point about high speed combat would also explain why most USAAF pilots considered the Fw190 to more maneuverable LW fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! The roll rate tends to be more useful for high speed fights imho.. The flat turns and loops fights were Red Baron WWI tatics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Karaya1VFA-25
10-27-2004, 05:35 PM
the video was done by a member of the wwiionline community named wound.
here is the original thread link http://discussions.playnet.com/viewtopic.php?t=124790&sid=7428e7bdc7c0cb1768049abcb760daea

El Turo
10-27-2004, 05:57 PM
Roadie said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Interesting stuff...

Did he say that he had flown these aircraft at combat weight? Most of the warbirds I've seen have no weapons or armor on them, and a lot of them have modified engines (some bigger, some without original blowers, etc) and airframes, so it's a little hard to compare what "new" warbird pilots say to what combat pilots have written.

Also, keep in mind that most of the modern-day warbird pilots are not brutalizing and flogging these aircraft the way they did in WWII when the aircraft were brand spanking new and their lives were on the line. Have they put put a 109G against a Spitfire IX and done any one v one ACM encounters with guys who know how to fly each aircraft? Now THAT would be VERY interesting.

What Skip Holm said is completely opposite to what Johnnie Johnson said in a Spit IX vs 109G setup. In fact, Johnson saved his bacon in a Spit IX by pulling as tight as sustained turns as he could, followed by near vertical climbs. The 109Gs could NOT out-perform the Spit IX in a turn, NOR could they out-climb him. In fact, here, I looked it up. This is what Air Vice-Marshal Johnnie Johnson said in his book Wing Leader about the encounter:

Wing Leader; Copyright 1956 by J.E. Johnson; published in 2000 by Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited - Toronto, Canada.

Page 264:

€œI pulled my Spitfire well ahead of the six aircraft and learnt of my error the hard way when wicked tracer flashed over the top of my chickenpit. Instinctively, I broke to port in a desperate, tight turn, and over my shoulder saw the lean nose and belching cannons of a Messerschmitt as its pilot tried to hold a bead on my turning Spitfire. My fate would be decided by the tightness of our turns and I pulled the stick back until the Spitfire shuddered with a warning of the flick-stall. I was blacking-out. I eased the turn to recover a grey and dangerous world. Keep the height at all costs. No breath to spare to call Larry (the other flight leader}. The leader of the Messerschmitts knows the form (knows his stuff). He has placed a pair of aircraft on either side of me whilst he and his number two stick grimly to my tail. The flanking Messerschmitts whip into action with head-on attacks. But they are not good shots and the greatest danger lies from their leader. The moment I ease out of the turn he will nail me. But I cannot turn forever, and if I am to live I must somehow climb and so get the extra power from the blower (he€s talking about the second-stage of the supercharger). The sun is at its zenith (highest point in the sky for the time of year) and I wrench the Spitfire in a steep climb into its sheltering glare. The blinding light will hide me. But my Spitfire quivers as she takes a cannon shell in her starboard wing root (note that the aircraft doesn€t explode and that the wing doesn€t fall off from €˜structural failure€ or any of that baloney you guys keep coming up with). Another turn. Another soaring climb into the sun until with an unpleasant thump the blower cuts in. Now I have sufficient power to draw away from my pursuers, and I am able to increase the gap with another long haul into the sun. soon" I am out of range of the Messerchmitts, but they continue to climb steadily after me. Now that I have reached comparative safety, I toy with the idea of a stall turn followed by a fast dive and a head-on attack against their persistent leader. But I dismiss this scheme. Fortune has already smiled upon me, and there will be another day.€

Now, it is possible that Johnnie Johnson is (I'm sure everyone in Finland and all dedicated German players in the U.S. feel this way) a lier and a propagandist, but, based on the man's credentials, I tend to believe what he says. Also, you have to keep in mind what Adolf Galland said about the two aircraft as well. So, go figure.

Also, wound - who is asking the questions in that video? You?

Come on - "we find that in the game the Spitfire out-turns and retains energy like a hundred times more then the 109F".

I HOPE you were just exagerating, were you not?? And if so, why the hell you would say something so completely stupid as that during an "unbiased" interview?

I was hoping to get some real info from this but, due to your knuckle-headed question, there is nothing to be gained on this thread. Way to go!! You blew a great opportunity to get some real good info...

If you do have more of the interview that might have some good info on it and you need some bandwidth, PM me and I'll see if I can post it on my web site <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yogy
10-28-2004, 12:57 AM
I found ther part on Spit vs. 109 interesting.

In PF, it is difficult to replay the opinion of a 109 turning better sustained then a Spit... Shoudl be about slats and power/weight, I think. Spit has no slats, but higher wing area... so? Hm.

Ergo: We need a original 109G6 mock-fighting an orig. P51D. Pls do this in Germany, so I can watch it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WUAF_Badsight
10-28-2004, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Hey I know, let's post this WMV about 180 more times, in about 10 different threads, then it will become truth!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Are the LW's gearing up for another turn boost whine for 109s? Getting awful deep in here.
New forum shoes:
http://epoxy.mrs.umn.edu/~gjerdind/DDS/galoshes.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol at the shoes . . ..

but seriously every single fighter in FB (bar all FW models) already has a better than RL sustained turn & climb rate

every _ single _ one

Kurfurst__
10-28-2004, 07:41 AM
Well, it`s always fun to see these series denials when things come up... like people don`t like to face the reality, all these lame-*** excuses... tagert`s "removed turbos/superchargers" cr@ptalk is my favourite, clealry shows he has absolutely no idea of the stuff, just throwing in things in desperation. Yeah I know he will answer with 2-page long CAPS LOCK STUCK IN novels, "disproving" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif every single word I typed, hehehehe, but that`s what he`s.. I stay with the facts, like there`s absolutely no proof of that ever happening to old warbirds, and besides it would be stupid, since NONE of the Spit/109/Stang has turbos, and ALL of them having SUPERCHARGED engines, and absolutely REQUIRE a supercharger to be present... for I wonder how does an engine develop more than 1 atm MAP w/o a supercharger, and if the performance is sooooo much better w/o a supercharger, why did they bother to install a supercharger even in low-alt only planes like the Sturmovik?!

BTW, I see a pattern in that every single pilot who actually flown all these types are of quite good opinion of the 109s, quite convinced there`s not much to tell in turn between a Spit and a 109, and quite certain that the Mustang is faster but not nearly turns or climbs as well as a 109.. the thick bias (and sometimes you can`t accuse them for it!), the "my plane better than the others" are all coming from guys who never flown any of them, or flown just one, and couldn`t really compare it. And of course from the 3rd rate trolls of Ubi.com. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Oh, it would be nice to see any kind of proof the Mustang would outturn a 109 at high speed for whatever reason. For up to now, there is NO such proof, not even anything that would point towards that. Yet the Allied fanboys, even the ones that can be taken seriously, seem to believe so. Why, I must wonder, stickforces were just as high on the P-51 as on the 109s, 20 lbs/G, there`s no aerodynamic reasoning behind that (elevator sturcture or such), and the lack of slats on the P-51 ain`t helping the cause either. So I wonder, what is this assumption based on? Spare me of the one-sided pilot accounts, for these don`t give much clue and can be disproved by two other quotes, similiarly one-sided qoutes, or the "I read many pilots/books etc. that say so", for there`s no WW2 pilot or book about WW2 that is named or titled "Many".

berg417448
10-28-2004, 08:41 AM
LOL! So the pilots are only right when they tell of the parts where the 109 of is better (turn and climb) but they are wrong when the tell of the part (speed) where the P-51 is better?

mnemeth1
10-28-2004, 10:48 AM
turo that quote by roadie is so full of holes its almost laughable.

First off, if you read the section quote by Johnnie Johnson, you'll see that the 109G was able to follow the spit into the turn quite easily.

You'll also note that the spit was HIT coming OUT OF THE TURN because the 109 was able to follow it so closely.

As far as performance goes, the 109 in question is carring a non-functional guns package. The weight is almost identical and there is a 100 hp difference in engine output. But other than that the airframes are identical.