PDA

View Full Version : FW190 vs Spit Mk VB... Is it true?



Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 10:43 AM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

When I was reading the article, I tried to compare those conclusions with the game and always ask my self "Ha?... Is it true?"

I was very amazed when read following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and the most interesting:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, the article or the game lies? It just very differ from my experience flying these aircrafts in the game.

PS. Sorry, if it was disscused before.

Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 10:43 AM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

When I was reading the article, I tried to compare those conclusions with the game and always ask my self "Ha?... Is it true?"

I was very amazed when read following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and the most interesting:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, the article or the game lies? It just very differ from my experience flying these aircrafts in the game.

PS. Sorry, if it was disscused before.

Stiglr
01-29-2005, 11:07 AM
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered"

Zyzbot
01-29-2005, 11:59 AM
After the war the British fighter pilot Johnnie Johnson wrote about the merits of the Focke-Wulf 190:

"The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France."

Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read the article? It is not "situationally" comparation, it is "wing-to-wing" comparation.
Althought I agree that Germans used different tactics - that is why FW190 was even more superior.

OldMan____
01-29-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read the article? It is not "situationally" comparation, it is "wing-to-wing" comparation.
Althought I agree that Germans used different tactics - that is why FW190 was even more superior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you take Spit V and FW190A4 flying in at least pairs you will see that FW will win most of time , if you rdon't beleive, just check greter green stats, it includes the results for mathups between both planes.

A4 is more maneuverable, but only at high speeds. It is faster.. OK, and climb better. For this one you must make the correct way.

First remove outer cannons most british tests I read had no outer cannons), full fuel, and try climbing from 0 to 2k at 420 kph. I already made this test several times. The A5 for instance will outclimb the SPIT 9!! The A4 will stay between SpitV and Spit 9. Remember that A4 only enables the max 1700 hp by using manual propeller pitch.


The main advantage on Spit side is SOBERB E retention. After a head on he can turn 180 degrees without loosing more than 10kph and if you are climbing he will catch you. That is what happens most online.

Bull_dog_
01-29-2005, 01:09 PM
Check stats at UK dedicated on Battle-fields.com and you will see that the A-4 rules the skies as it relates to Spitfire Mk V's.

I know there are lots of people that don't think the Fw can stack up but it just isn't true....the Fw is a killer through and through.

Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Check stats at UK dedicated on Battle-fields.com and you will see that the A-4 rules the skies as it relates to Spitfire Mk V's.

I know there are lots of people that don't think the Fw can stack up but it just isn't true....the Fw is a killer through and through. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could tell you why the stat shows that A-4 is better over Spit. That is because only good pilots could fly FW190 in the game, but Spit is one of the most easy-to-fly plane thus novice players like this plane.
But with the good level pilots, the one who drive Spit will usually win... IMO

faustnik
01-29-2005, 01:50 PM
In PF:

Fw190A4s will beat even good Spit V pilots. The 190s can completely dictate the fight. The Fw190A4 is faster than the Spit Vb and can outclimb it at speeds over 350kph. Yes, you are correct that it requires experienced and disciplined Fw190 pilots to dominate, but, even veteran Spit Vb pilots will have a rough time with this matchup.

JtD
01-29-2005, 01:53 PM
FW A-4 is far superior in the game to the SpitV, even to the LF models.

I frequently fly both and if anyone blames the stats on pilot skill, he must be blind.

Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
If you take Spit V and FW190A4 flying in at least pairs you will see that FW will win most of time , if you rdon't beleive, just check greter green stats, it includes the results for mathups between both planes.

A4 is more maneuverable, but only at high speeds. It is faster.. OK, and climb better. For this one you must make the correct way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it is more maneuverable at high speeds, but it bleeds a LOT of energy.
Does FW190 accelerate better? No.
Does FW190 climbs better? Only at high speeds with manual pitch, but with very quick overheat...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>First remove outer cannons most british tests I read had no outer cannons), full fuel, and try climbing from 0 to 2k at 420 kph. I already made this test several times. The A5 for instance will outclimb the SPIT 9!! The A4 will stay between SpitV and Spit 9. Remember that A4 only enables the max 1700 hp by using manual propeller pitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does the WWII German pilots use manual prop pitch? I'm very doubt...

jurinko
01-29-2005, 02:15 PM
A4 was better not only because of better tactics, but most probably also in 1to1, coE fight. In FB, it can be flown succesfully only with superior tactics or superior pilot skill. Without advantage it can only run, fortunately it is fast enough comparing to VB. The sim A4 tactcs is based on 99% on its superior speed.

Aaron_GT
01-29-2005, 02:35 PM
"Oleg, the article or the game lies? It just very differ from my experience flying these aircrafts in the game."

With regard to the acceleration and climb it may depend on the version of the Spitfire V you test with in the game compared to the one tested by the RAE (I think your quotes were from an RAE test). With regard to manoeuverability the superior roll rate of the 190A4 at higher speeds gives it quite an advantage. Just don't try a pure turn fight with a Spitfire if you are in a 190.

Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 02:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
http://www.netaces.org/genplanes/planes.html

It is from other game but is very interesting though, especially the diagram at the end of document. Could someone test this in PF? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How do you think, what will hapen with FW in such situation? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

OldMan____
01-29-2005, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
If you take Spit V and FW190A4 flying in at least pairs you will see that FW will win most of time , if you rdon't beleive, just check greter green stats, it includes the results for mathups between both planes.

A4 is more maneuverable, but only at high speeds. It is faster.. OK, and climb better. For this one you must make the correct way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it is more maneuverable at high speeds, but it bleeds a LOT of energy.
Does FW190 accelerate better? No.
Does FW190 climbs better? Only at high speeds with manual pitch, but with very quick overheat...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>First remove outer cannons most british tests I read had no outer cannons), full fuel, and try climbing from 0 to 2k at 420 kph. I already made this test several times. The A5 for instance will outclimb the SPIT 9!! The A4 will stay between SpitV and Spit 9. Remember that A4 only enables the max 1700 hp by using manual propeller pitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does the WWII German pilots use manual prop pitch? I'm very doubt... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It climb better at the only way that matters.. since being slow is wrong. It turn better at the only speed that matters..fast. Bleed Is not an issue anymore after you learn how to handle the FW.. Only at rare ocasions the E retention of spit is able to turn the table. You can always outpace him whenever you want. And yes you accelerate faster than him, specially above 400 kph.

A4 in special bleed much less E than heavier 190. You also have an instant turn rate that very few planes can match.


So the only thing where FW190 sucks is plain level turn and burn in circles.


And you do not nedd 100% pitch do outclimb spit5. At 80% and rad 4 you will outclimb it and can make that for quite some time.

I usually do not use manual pitch.. I dont need it. I use it only when facing something fast and dangerous. With auto pitch you will still be able to overclim him, but you will need perfect trimming and wont be so great.

And yes.. in special case of A4 the 2700rpm were required for max emergency power(as far as I know). So probably tests were made with Komandostuff setuped to 2700 rpm. In game you need to use Manual Prop Pitch to reach that Rpm.

OldMan____
01-29-2005, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
http://www.netaces.org/genplanes/planes.html

It is from other game but is very interesting though, especially the diagram at the end of document. Could someone test this in PF? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How do you think, what will hapen with FW in such situation? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will happen exactly what stated in that page..but in minor degree. IF the FW pilot is capable of holding hisplane at edge of wing stall without loosing it. Main advantage of spit is its almost unstalable wing.


But the statement on this page is exagerated. you wont heve a chance to build a whole 180 degree advantage this way. But I usually am able to get some 45 degrees in very few seconds for a burst on spits. You may even miss.. since most pilots will make a violent maneuver when they see tracers... so he looses E too

Russian_Ivan
01-29-2005, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
It climb better at the only way that matters.. since being slow is wrong. It turn better at the only speed that matters..fast. Bleed Is not an issue anymore after you learn how to handle the FW.. Only at rare ocasions the E retention of spit is able to turn the table. You can always outpace him whenever you want. And yes you accelerate faster than him, specially above 400 kph.

A4 in special bleed much less E than heavier 190. You also have an instant turn rate that very few planes can match.


So the only thing where FW190 sucks is plain level turn and burn in circles.


And you do not nedd 100% pitch do outclimb spit5. At 80% and rad 4 you will outclimb it and can make that for quite some time.

I usually do not use manual pitch.. I dont need it. I use it only when facing something fast and dangerous. With auto pitch you will still be able to overclim him, but you will need perfect trimming and wont be so great.

And yes.. in special case of A4 the 2700rpm were required for max emergency power(as far as I know). So probably tests were made with Komandostuff setuped to 2700 rpm. In game you need to use Manual Prop Pitch to reach that Rpm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OldMan, I agree that FW190 in game is good for fighting, but ONLY in B'n'Z. And something tells me that it is not historical and that the FW190 wasn't so bad in real world. You know, when I'm fighting on other plane - I usually enjoy it, but when I'm flying on FW I feel like I'm working very hard... The only FW190 I really enjoy is Dora.

VW-IceFire
01-29-2005, 04:20 PM
You don't have to fly a strict BNZ style with the FW190A-4. Its manuverable enough to use a more traditional dogfighting method...the trouble is, everyone assumes that this means spiraling dogfights. Thats not really true either.

You don't have to get into a spiraling 0 altitude dogfight and nor should you in a FW190. But you can still mix it up in a FW190A-4...you just need speed.

Yes that diagram is more or less true. The Spitfires excellent energy retention does, if its already traveling very quickly, make it difficult to slow down to optimal turn speed. A FW190 pilot can lean into this and fire a good shot...trouble is of course deflection shooting and the poor view over the cowling but in terms of strict aircraft performance the FW190 is better.

On UK-Dedicated I've flown with a few good FW190 pilots...in one scenario with the A-4, we would climb upto 2500 or 3000 meters, look for bandits at equal or lower altitude. We'd dive and keep diving in and out of their aircraft....the A-4 is more than capable of sustaining a turn with a Lagg-3 or a Yak-1 or even a Yak-9 long enough to land some shots and cause enough damage to zoom away. We just never let the speed drop to under 400kph...above that and we were far more agile and manuverable than the Russian planes. You do really feel a sense of total control of the combat situation and from the alternate perspective of being the Russian pilot, you feel pretty helpess and outmanuvered.

So the pilot anecdotes and the game seem to patch up in my mind. The FW190As are now QUITE capable and very much the superior of their opponents till much later in the war.

By 1944, the FW190A-8 and A-9 are more bomber dispatchers so they feel really heavy and their handling suffers. They still can mix it up sometimes but not as well...depends on the planes.

Vipez-
01-29-2005, 05:21 PM
On UK-Dedicated W√ľrger is the king of all planes.. (after P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but that does not tell the truth.. because of the n00bish settings.. No cockpit view! Makes fw190 a true killer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ..

With cockpit view deflection shooting is something of much harder in IL-2, that only pilots with months (years for some http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) of experience of flying IL-2 masters .. Imho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Vipez-
01-29-2005, 05:24 PM
And personally i much prefer fw190 over 109s... simply because they high speed manouvarability. Which is superior to allmost every allied plane (except P-47, P-51, Tempest.. )

WUAF_Darkangel
01-29-2005, 06:10 PM
In game the spit has better sustained climb than the a4 at 2000+m, but thats probably because the spit in game is modeled with higher boost than was normally used on spit mk5 in 1942.

Badsight.
01-29-2005, 06:25 PM
to beat a Spit Mk5 in a A4 FW-190 you have to fly with DISCIPLINE

dont let any forum member dupe you into thinking its easy

p1ngu666
01-29-2005, 07:19 PM
the LF spits are pretty potent, the v plane is actully 40 to 20kph too slow i think

Badsight.
01-29-2005, 08:06 PM
its speed is good , but it climbs waaay too good for a 9lb boost Mk5

as in WAAAAAY

p1ngu666
01-29-2005, 08:11 PM
yeah, its a 16lb boost in climb, but 9lb in speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

S.taibanzai
01-30-2005, 01:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
http://www.netaces.org/genplanes/planes.html

It is from other game but is very interesting though, especially the diagram at the end of document. Could someone test this in PF? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How do you think, what will hapen with FW in such situation? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thx for the post

in the game the spit in level turn with a lot Of E turns faster then the FW190 in level turn

i readed also that the FW190 was bether in level turn with much E then SPIT

this is not presented it the game

the spit just have to jank the stick 90-180-360 degrees to get back on the FW 190 when meeting headon at the same speed
actualy the spit most have a larger turn radius then the fw 190 when meeting at high speed
and must rol slower at high speed that is not like in the game

Badsight.
01-30-2005, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
i readed also that the FW190 was bether in level turn with much E then SPIT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you read wrong

Blackdog5555
01-30-2005, 02:31 AM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A
Theaccount below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942.
TheFW190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet.

The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows -

At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB
At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB

Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

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. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions
of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat.

When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack.
Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the FW 190, it was easily caught even if the FW 190 was sighted when well out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, providing the FW 190 was seen in time. This forced the FW 190 into a stern chase, and although it eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep. This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions.
Ifthe Spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the FW 190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive.

The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the FW 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise.

WWMaxGunz
01-30-2005, 02:36 AM
How to be a Airplane Fanboy;

Get something that says things you want. Something historic for credibility.
Get the best parts and arrange them as effectively as possible.
Remove any parts that won't leave the right impressions.
Don't specify the exact full source, just that you used it... you don't want
anyone coming back at you with your own sources!
Tack on some pictures and punch it up a bit.
Get that up on the web.

Ta-daaaa! You are now an information source for the credulous!

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

Oh yeah... we have seen that report posted here. All but the first pages are
easy to find on the web, I think at Rings' site. The first pages, where they
tell complete details about the planes which Oleg did reply about.

The 190 in the comparison was run at boost above what it was rated for on a
placard right in the cockpit. The 190 was run with Brit sparkplugs until they
got Bosch plugs... just how far into the trials has been speculated for "points".

The 190 is not the same as in the sim anyway.

The Spit V is not the same as in the sim. Word I read is that the one used
was one of the very first Spit V's made and the earliest we have is a 1942
model mislabelled as 1941 according to 1C.

But hey, don't let that stop anybody from 16+ pages of posts over what don't
apply to the sim. It didn't last time and I think there was a time before.

Web pages are not primary information sources in general. If you see a site
with document scans then make sure ALL the pages are there.

Xnomad
01-30-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Stiglr but you is wrong. You just described Bf 109 tactics, the FW 190 surprised RAF pilots because instead of diving away after an attack they stuck around and mixed it up with the Spits.

BenQ-the-Hawk
01-30-2005, 04:31 AM
i like the A-4 very much an i often fought Spits! An my result: if you have more altitude or much more speed the spit is good for lunch! But if you lost all your E at an end of the fight, and a Spit comes in with just a little more of energy you are dead. I made out that in all FW-190 E is everything. If you have much E you can win almost every fight because they outurn almost every fighter at great speeds and and you can be very fast. Other planes breat at the speed and you fly quite normal. Of course it climbs very good if you don't go straigt up and it is very fast. So if you use the right tactics, you will win against a spit, but if you fly only with 300kph and a spit is behind you you can thank god if you survived!

OldMan____
01-30-2005, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:

OldMan, I agree that FW190 in game is good for fighting, but ONLY in B'n'Z. And something tells me that it is not historical and that the FW190 wasn't so bad in real world. You know, when I'm fighting on other plane - I usually enjoy it, but when I'm flying on FW I feel like I'm working very hard... The only FW190 I really enjoy is Dora. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No fight is easy with any plane, unles the one where you enemy did not saw you. You may always face a pilot that makes the exact correct thing to defeat you no matter the lane you fly.

I almost never BnZ with 190A and dont regreat on it. People tent to thing anithing out of pure horizontal turning is BnZ. NO, BnZ you come from far higher than enemy passa by him with overheklming speed advantage while shooting.. extend and climb back to the same original altitude advantage. Only then repeat maneuver.


What most TnB pilots call BnZ is only proper E fighting. Using a few seconds of extension to rebuild E is NOT BnZ.. is proper piloting. Your plane is only good at a a HIGH E fight.. so keep E high.. simple.

Also do not fixate in a single enemy... spending too much time on a single one makes you loose too much E along wiht him so someone else might kill you.

Just do what icefire said.. keep above 400 kph.. you will have a glad surprise how A4 is capable is facin even russian planes like La5 this way.


Also a good hint is use your flaps.. but only for very short instants.. to get that extra lift.. not to keep you in a circle.


If you are pursuing someone in a full 360 degree circle.. you did something very wrong, since you could have at very beggining started a vector roll turn that would give you a snapshot sollution.

Zneg1
01-30-2005, 08:07 AM
I just tried this in the QMB with the Spit V and the FW190 A4. The Spit could not maintain nor catch up on straight climb as well as follow on a spiral helix climb. I can see them trying though since I saw the tracers behind me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif With 6 of the guns/cannon firing its easy to down the Spits as long as you conserve your energy.

Bull_dog_
01-30-2005, 09:12 AM
The other thing to consider...us gamers, especially new ones often don't....avoiding or disengaging from a fight that you are about to get waxed in is essentially a victory....it was in real life too.

The Fw is faster and has great high speed controls and a superior high speed climb. This makes it superior to the Spit if you are willing to disengage when you are outmatched. The speed allows it. The speed allows for a margins to be turned too...easy to do as you extend away from the spit and all the sudden he turns because he is losing you and you just turn around and shoot at him.

It is real easy to avoid head on attacks in the aircraft because of the high speed controls and rate of roll.

Yes you have to fight with intellegence but I find that is the case with every aircraft that is modelled with its historical strengths and weaknesses...and there are only a couple in the game imho that arent modelled as close as the engine allows.

The 190 is superior, cockpit on or cockpit off. For those that think arcade settings are easy...head over to UK Dedicated for a bit. Gunnery is much more easy, but suprise isn't obviously. I have flown both servers and I find that flying skills and tactics are every bit if not more important in cockpit off than cockpit on....maybe I'll cya there...I'll likely be flying a Fw if one is available.

VW-IceFire
01-30-2005, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Stiglr but you is wrong. You just described Bf 109 tactics, the FW 190 surprised RAF pilots because instead of diving away after an attack they stuck around and mixed it up with the Spits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...Stiglr is right (its shocking that I'm saying this, we argue so often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I read that stuff too about how the RAF pilots were always disappointed when the 109s would attack and then run home. This was probably mostly true of the 109E's at this point and maybe the F's but surely the F's with their excellent turn were able to mix it up if they wanted to.

The thing about the FW190s and mixing it up is this. The 190s never engaged in a swirling dogfight with Spitfire Vs. When they say that they mixed it up...they would arrive in a number, and conduct constant up and down slashes. The FW190s stayed after the first attack and came back again and again. Sometimes this would mean that the FW190s would get caught in a turn with a Spitfire and then be shot down....but they didn't get into the IL-2:FB dogfight server swirling mess that so often happens (and so often sees a new FW190 pilot caught easily by a Spit Vb).

I went after some of the pilot reports...they stayed, but not the way people get the impression they did. If you fly the FW190 the way its mentioned, then yes, you can stay quite close to the battle and totally dominate the opposition.

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 11:36 AM
Thank you, IceFire, it's good to know you can divorce the handle from the content.

I'd like to go back to that one statement buried a ways back that says a Spit can do a 180 with a loss of only 10mph. If that's true, it's totally bogus. But I've seen things like that happen, where a plane passes you at high speed nearly HO (but above you), turns around 180 (relatively flat turn, not a Split-S) and quickly catches up to you, when you had a little speed of your own and extended straight. There is just NO WAY that should happen from a headon pass. Either his turn would carry him fairly far off to one side (giving you an opportunity to turn away from that arc and extend), or the super hard break turn would eat up all his smash. At the very least, he would have to re-aaccelerate and crawl slowly up your six, provided you continue a straight or shallow climb extention. Unless the disparity between the planes' speeds was VERY great, this would not resolve itself within 10 - 15 seconds, because the 180 would close the speed gap such that the pursuing plane would not be able to make up the distance (both lateral and nose-to-tail) quickly.

But it happens all the time, due to this sim's inability to correctly simulate energy bleed and retention. I've even seen it in tracks, where planes momentarily appear to pivot about their CoG, their forward motion stopping for a few 10ths/seconds while they crank their noses around. The AI certainly does this, but I'm not altogether convinced that player planes can't pull this off at times, too.

Aaron_GT
01-30-2005, 01:47 PM
"I'd like to go back to that one statement buried a ways back that says a Spit can do a 180 with a loss of only 10mph"

Well in theory it should be possible if you were entering the turn relatively slowly. The Spitfire has respectable power loading and by pouring on the coals you should be able to yank it round 180 degrees without losing too much speed as long as you don't pull too hard and go into to high an AoA. But you'd probably have to be at 150mph at the beginning of the turn in real life to be able to do it unless the turn is wide and gentle.

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 01:53 PM
Exactly, Aaron, and all of the caveats you just described would prevent that plane from quickly catching up to a plane it did the 180 on.

You can minimize the speed lost on the turn...and make the turn radus a mile wide, and take yourself out of pursuit position.

Or you can do a max turn on a dime, and slow to such a speed that the escaping plane can't be quickly caught.

Either way, unless you have a well-timed lead turn (which is precluded by the description of a head-on pass separated by only a little alt), the turning plane is not going to quickly or easily catch up with a straight extending plane that has anything more than very low speed.

jurinko
01-30-2005, 01:55 PM
About the shallow climb which is the only way to outclimb Spit in FB (me thinks it is actually outrunning, not outclimbing):

"The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000."

Do not try this online. Spit can and will follow easily in climb and if starting with inferior speed, can and will always hang on the prop for long enough to let those Whispanos do the job..

"With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Let‚¬īs face it, to beat Spit in superior Fw 190 requires much more flying skill, better gunnery plus initial advantage than to beat Fw in Spit. Good pilots like the challenge though.

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 01:58 PM
Right you are, jurinko.

The other BIG, BIG factor in this, which is constantly overlooked, is the multi-bogey factor.

The FW190 has 4, count 'em, FOUR powerful 20mm cannons (in real life anyway, despite the lies this sim propogates about them). You only need a very small firing window to kill or maim a plane. So, in a more confused dogfight, the FW190 will be able to make use of snapshots and quick reverses; drag and bags with pairs of planes; and the proximity of multiple targets, to a greater degree than a Spit should with only half the cannon.

ZG77_Nagual
01-30-2005, 02:03 PM
Without going on - the original quotes are from a side-by-side test - not impressions from combat but strict test flights done by the brits.

Second - the a4 and a5 and a6 are all phenomenal dogfighters in all regimes - the only thing holding them back is the limited view for deflection shots. I'd add the dora is nothing to sneeze at either. People win in the a9 because they can mount 108s on them - but I don't like it or the a8 much because they lack the acrobatic ability of the earlier antons.

VW-IceFire
01-30-2005, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
About the shallow climb which is the only way to outclimb Spit in FB (me thinks it is actually outrunning, not outclimbing):

"The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000."

Do not try this online. Spit can and will follow easily in climb and if starting with inferior speed, can and will always hang on the prop for long enough to let those Whispanos do the job..

"With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Let‚¬īs face it, to beat Spit in superior Fw 190 requires much more flying skill, better gunnery plus initial advantage than to beat Fw in Spit. Good pilots like the challenge though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah the FW190 challenge is a fun one really. Most of the time anyways. Sometimes its really difficult but its a good plane to fly and its better now than ever before.

That said, I also love flying the Spitfire and with the Mark Vb I feel, in most situations, totally dominated by FW190s. In a Vb, I have to have the initiative and the advantage in an attack to make the difference. If I screw it up or am on the defensive...there generally isn't much I can do. The LF Vb at low alt has a slim chance....the IX is the one that really redresses the situation. The irony is that the IX is challenged more by the A-5 or A-6 than the A-8 or A-9 I find. Then the D-9 comes along and blows it away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
01-30-2005, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Then the D-9 comes along and blows it away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oooh tell em what you really think IceFire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
01-30-2005, 03:37 PM
I find the A9 too much heavy. For me is the worst FW. The A8 is somehow a midway. It is heavier than A6.. but still handles little bit better than A9 (although I agree A9 climb is great help).

A4 is soberb, mainly due to shorter nose and different weight distribution. A5 is in fact LIGHTER while empty, but is a little bit more tricky than A4. Also BMW engine has quite some torque and that does affect a lot stalls, juste reduce to 60% power before a strong turn and you will be safer... but rememer to push to 100% as soon as you leave stall edge.


Just in case no one did this test lately... The A5 WITHOUT outer cannons is now FASTER than with cannons. only 3 kph.. but it is.

The A5 and A6 have a match on Spit 9 and 8. Where they win on speed and loose on climb. On this match I would agree lot of skill is needed. But Again.. If you have time to build up to 500 kph you can always make a sharp reverse and turn that will break Spit's pilot's neck. Just remember to go to vertical as soon as you complete 90 or 100 degrees on turn.

But do not face a spit alone unless you start at a good position.



I do not consider climbing at high speed outrunning.. specially because I do NOT climb in combat unless I am at least 350 kph. Of course there are rare exceptions...

What is the problem with climbing shalowly? I ge away from enemy.. that is what matters.. you build up E advantage.

If he is far enough from you.. you will be fine. If you are not.. you would be toasted anyway in a steep climb where you show your back to enemy.

I prefer to climb slowly.. but with safety...

p1ngu666
01-30-2005, 04:03 PM
if u climb away, your more likely tobe going for another attack, while most choose level to get away. ofcourse u can use both climb and level for both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
01-30-2005, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Then the D-9 comes along and blows it away http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oooh tell em what you really think IceFire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seriously...if I run into a FW190D-9 and the pilots any good I start sweating in the seat of a Spitfire IX. The IX is too slow to compete and the D-9 has enough of a zoom climb, acceleration, and speed advantage to get away or to engage and disengage. The D-9s only trouble is the firepower....or if you get outnumbered. Which is what tends to happen to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight.
01-30-2005, 04:41 PM
yea but you wriggle around like a worm , its takes 2 to bring you down

OldMan____
01-30-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if u climb away, your more likely tobe going for another attack, while most choose level to get away. ofcourse u can use both climb and level for both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since 80% of my deaths online are whenI am at top of a zoom climb ... I must admit I put a grain of salt on any strong cklimbing.

I really preffer shalow climb on fastmove where you can stll make good evasive maneuvers.

WWMaxGunz
01-30-2005, 06:23 PM
Spitfire used in that trials was a lower boost model than what is in the sim.

USELESS to compare the report to the sim except for whiner propaganda trying to make trouble.
That makes USELESS report for WORSE THAN USELESS people.

Now 3 pages over nothing but old "issue" answered long ago.

p1ngu666
01-30-2005, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if u climb away, your more likely tobe going for another attack, while most choose level to get away. ofcourse u can use both climb and level for both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since 80% of my deaths online are whenI am at top of a zoom climb ... I must admit I put a grain of salt on any strong cklimbing.

I really preffer shalow climb on fastmove where you can stll make good evasive maneuvers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

think it depends on server settings, i think u are a full real guy, so your SA wont be equal to a arcaders, cos u got the cockpit on and no externals, and icons etc...

Badsight.
01-31-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Spitfire used in that trials was a lower boost model than what is in the sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
uh ? that was a 9Lb boost spit in that test no ? the Faber A3 test isnt it ?

the MkV Spitfire in FB climbs like a 16 lb Boost Spitfire , kinda handy if you ask me

& the Armin Faber A3 190 was run at a MP that the LW were not using at that stage of the war , in other words , the fdifference between the Mk5 Spitfire & the A3 190 wasnt as bad as that report made out for that point off the war

but i probably have my RAF tests mixed up here

jurinko
01-31-2005, 12:22 AM
Max you are basically hinting that MkVB was not so inferior to A-3. Then you must admit that British pilots were noobs during late 1941 and all 1942, when losing at least 3 Spits to 1 Fw. Like during the operation Jubilee, August 1942 - 104 British planes destroyed for cca 30 Fws + some bombers. Or they were not the noobs, but their feeling was correct - Antons were heavily superior to their Spitfires.

Nubarus
01-31-2005, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
uh ? that was a 9Lb boost spit in that test no ? the Faber A3 test isnt it ?

the MkV Spitfire in FB climbs like a 16 lb Boost Spitfire , kinda handy if you ask me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh, the Spitfire Vb in FB has 16 lb boost so why should it have to climb like a 9lb boost one?

Russian_Ivan
01-31-2005, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
uh ? that was a 9Lb boost spit in that test no ? the Faber A3 test isnt it ?

the MkV Spitfire in FB climbs like a 16 lb Boost Spitfire , kinda handy if you ask me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh, the Spitfire Vb in FB has 16 lb boost so why should it have to climb like a 9lb boost one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you guys sure that the Spit Vb in the game has 16lb boost? It couldn't be nominal boost because even with Merlin 45, which produced in the middle of 42, the engine's "3000rpm+16lb" boost was permitted for periods not exceeding 3 minutes during combat.
So if we have Spitfire Vb of 1941 year in the game, it should have at most these performance characteristics (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa873.html). What do you think, spitfighters? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nubarus
01-31-2005, 02:43 AM
Why don't you hop in the game and see for yourself?

The boost indicator is on the bottom right of the pannel.

And as was said before, even in this thread: The Spitfire Vb in FB is not a 1941 model even though it says so in the discription.

anarchy52
01-31-2005, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
Are you guys sure that the Spit Vb in the game has 16lb boost? It couldn't be nominal boost because even with Merlin 45, which produced in the middle of 42, the engine's "3000rpm+16lb" boost was permitted for periods not exceeding 3 minutes during combat.
So if we have Spitfire Vb of 1941 year in the game, it should have at most http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa873.html. What do you think, spitfighters? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My 2 (euro)cents:
Spitfire in FB is stigmatized as n00b plane - not entirely without basis. Novice pilots tend to choose Spits because it compensates for the lack of experience (e-retention, climb, manuverability), accuracy (very powerfull weapon with flat trajectory) and to some degree situation awareness (very tough vs german 20mm).
Nevertheless, in dog servers Spits have disproportionate losses in respect to the objective quality of the airplane and it's the human nature kicking in - "I lost because my &lt;insert your favorite ride&gt; is undermodelled". That is how I explain those "we need 3000hp spitfires and ponys". Be sure, that phenomena can be observed on the LW side as well.

You might call me a luftwhiner, but I feel that ever since FB came out most german planes do not enjoy the historical advantages they had over their allied counterparts. RELATIVE performance of the planes is a bit off IMHO (109E vs I-16, 109F vs LaGG-3, 190 vs Spit...etc). FB engine does favor turninfighters due to somewhat simplified modelling of energy retention, roll, low speed handling, stall behaviour etc. Also some bugs (fuel tank leak on 190, MG151/20 effectiveness, generally weak DM) contributes to offseting the relative combat effectiveness.

Regardless of that FB is the best combat flight sim on the market, be sure.

OldMan____
01-31-2005, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if u climb away, your more likely tobe going for another attack, while most choose level to get away. ofcourse u can use both climb and level for both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since 80% of my deaths online are whenI am at top of a zoom climb ... I must admit I put a grain of salt on any strong cklimbing.

I really preffer shalow climb on fastmove where you can stll make good evasive maneuvers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

think it depends on server settings, i think u are a full real guy, so your SA wont be equal to a arcaders, cos u got the cockpit on and no externals, and icons etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


arrgghh I really can't understand how poeple play on wonder woman view. Externals is not so bad...worst thing can happen is F6. But wonder woman is ugly, destroys all suspension of disbilief. And I still can aim MUCH better with cockpit ON on my FW... I use cockpit obstructions more like a positional grid that helps me aim correctly.

Russian_Ivan
01-31-2005, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Why don't you hop in the game and see for yourself?

The boost indicator is on the bottom right of the pannel.

And as was said before, even in this thread: _The Spitfire Vb in FB is not a 1941 model even though it says so in the discription._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK then, so which Spitfire Vb we have in the game?
It climbs 6.5 min to 20,000 ft using nominal boost. Result is fantastic comparing with real Spits of second part of '42 (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html). It climbs like it using 16lb all the time.

Nubarus
01-31-2005, 03:25 AM
I don't know which exact model is in the game, Oleg only posted a long time ago that the standard Vb in FB was mislabled as a 1941 plane.

At least I do know it's not a Spit Vc fitted with 4x20mm Hispano's like the one in the test you posted.

Badsight.
01-31-2005, 03:35 AM
ok so if we got a 42 MkV in FB then thats good to go against the 42 A4 in FB

but , if its a 1942 16Lb boost Spitfire then its too slow level speed

& it dont change the fact that the Faber A3 190 was tested at a higher boost than the LW allowed at that point in the war

Mysha76
01-31-2005, 04:40 AM
E.Brown tested Faber‚¬īs and another FW and wrote:
no shake (no warning) before spin. But in game this bird is shaking like pinscher when you pull a little harder. BTW: P51 has similar wing loading, but is more stable than FW. Why?

tigertalon
01-31-2005, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
You might call me a luftwhiner, but I feel that ever since FB came out most german planes do not enjoy the historical advantages they had over their allied counterparts. RELATIVE performance of the planes is a bit off IMHO (109E vs I-16, 109F vs LaGG-3, 190 vs Spit...etc). FB engine does favor turninfighters due to somewhat simplified modelling of energy retention, roll, low speed handling, stall behaviour etc. Also some bugs (fuel tank leak on 190, MG151/20 effectiveness, generally weak DM) contributes to offseting the relative combat effectiveness.

Regardless of that FB is the best combat flight sim on the market, be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that every day of the week.

WWMaxGunz
01-31-2005, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
Max you are basically hinting that MkVB was not so inferior to A-3. Then you must admit that British pilots were noobs during late 1941 and all 1942, when losing at least 3 Spits to 1 Fw. Like during the operation Jubilee, August 1942 - 104 British planes destroyed for cca 30 Fws + some bombers. Or they were not the noobs, but their feeling was correct - Antons were heavily superior to their Spitfires. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not hinting.
From what I read there is no "the Mk VB". Simple as that.

The trials shown on that site had the first or second serial Spit V made, already in used
condition and check please the history of that I think Butch or others knows, compared to
Farbers' practically new and yes derated 190A-3 which the Brits ran to full ATA and screwed
it up to the point of needing some repair, also the extent of which is known.

So you get some results that people want to go waving around saying "THIS is how Spit VB
should do against 190A-3!".

In the sim we have derated 190A-4 of Russian Front. And we have 1942 Spit VB mislabelled
as 1941. 16 lb boost? I dunno, regular performance for that one should be 12 lb boost
for very long periods.

Simple without hinting -- the Spit VB models in the sim are NOT the one used in the trials
but more powerful engined ones. NOT THE SAME. So it is no good -- USELESS -- to quote
that trials report as any kind of indicator of the sim... revert to whining = normal mode
so now it's build up lists of perceived wrongs and fight over them.

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

Operation Jubilee? Are you gonna wave situational results at me and oh please use them to
say about the FM? I KNOW you are smarter than that! What is near a full page of posts
saying over and over that the FW's, flown correctly, do better on servers?

And 41-42, the Brits were noobs??? Ever heard of the BoB? Read history again.

I have to stop. What I read from people who think they are great pilots or something is
making me want to get the flamethower. If you can't fly it then don't take the FW online.
Spitfires are easier to fly in every sim I've seen em in. Why? Because they were.

anarchy52
01-31-2005, 06:16 AM
I just want MG151/20 fixed
Then FW-190 in FB will truelly be Butcherbird
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Russian_Ivan
01-31-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Farbers' practically new and yes derated 190A-3 which the Brits ran to full ATA and screwed
it up to the point of needing some repair, also the extent of which is known. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you tell me a source where you read this? I would like too read this too.

p1ngu666
01-31-2005, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if u climb away, your more likely tobe going for another attack, while most choose level to get away. ofcourse u can use both climb and level for both http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since 80% of my deaths online are whenI am at top of a zoom climb ... I must admit I put a grain of salt on any strong cklimbing.

I really preffer shalow climb on fastmove where you can stll make good evasive maneuvers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

think it depends on server settings, i think u are a full real guy, so your SA wont be equal to a arcaders, cos u got the cockpit on and no externals, and icons etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


arrgghh I really can't understand how poeple play on wonder woman view. Externals is not so bad...worst thing can happen is F6. But wonder woman is ugly, destroys all suspension of disbilief. And I still can aim MUCH better with cockpit ON on my FW... I use cockpit obstructions more like a positional grid that helps me aim correctly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

each to his own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jurinko
01-31-2005, 11:09 AM
cmon Max, never told British were noobs.. Our pilots also fought in BoB, from the western side of the channel, be sure.
Btw the real 1941 Spitfire should have that stupid carburator which stops working when pushing the stick forward. I think the existing so called 1941 MkVB is basically the type which was delivered to USSR in 1943 - and they had to be 42 or upgraded 41 versions with more powerfull engines and membrane Schilling carburator.

faustnik
01-31-2005, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
I think the existing so called 1941 MkVB is basically the type which was delivered to USSR in 1943 - and they had to be 42 or upgraded 41 versions with more powerfull engines and membrane Schilling carburator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right Jurinko.

The Fw190A4 derrated power figures are correct according to Oleg's LW factory data. He has no evidence (either do I and I looked) that the 190s were run over 1.35 ata before the A5.

WWMaxGunz
01-31-2005, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
cmon Max, never told British were noobs.. Our pilots also fought in BoB, from the western side of the channel, be sure.
Btw the real 1941 Spitfire should have that stupid carburator which stops working when pushing the stick forward. I think the existing so called 1941 MkVB is basically the type which was delivered to USSR in 1943 - and they had to be 42 or upgraded 41 versions with more powerfull engines and membrane Schilling carburator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respect you Jurinko, as you've been here for as long as here was IIRC.
But I also quoted your first post so go back up and read your own words.
I'll stand here with the salt.

Wish I had saved so much that was discussed on the board, couldn't be over a gig.
A lot of members with good airplane libraries have left and Oleg posts less often
as typing the same things over and over doesn't wind his clock.

We have a Spitfire labelled as 1941 which Oleg and a 1C member have come and posted
the 1941 is a typo, the model is mid-1942. The Schilling device got distributed
in late 1941 according to one post on SimHQ, which is later than I remembered as
there were Spit 1's that I thought got them. It's just a little button with a hole
in the middle that fit right in the carb so the mod was only as hard as opening up
a carb (careful work really), putting one in and then most likely new seals in the
closing-up. Not as easy as changing a whole engine in 20 minutes on certain German
planes (cough) but still a mod that every running Spit (and Hurris?) got quickly
enough. Easier to make and ship buttons than engines or carburetors.

And for kill counts... no I won't. You are smarter than to use that. I think you
have been having a bad day that day?

VW-IceFire
01-31-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
cmon Max, never told British were noobs.. Our pilots also fought in BoB, from the western side of the channel, be sure.
Btw the real 1941 Spitfire should have that stupid carburator which stops working when pushing the stick forward. I think the existing so called 1941 MkVB is basically the type which was delivered to USSR in 1943 - and they had to be 42 or upgraded 41 versions with more powerfull engines and membrane Schilling carburator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wasn't there a temporary solution that was implemented in 1940 for Spitfires and Hurricanes? It wasn't as good as the later solution but it was a good stopgap and it was able to prevent Spits and Hurris from loosing power in negative G manuvers of a short duration...

Lucius_Esox
01-31-2005, 06:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Yawn,, Time for bed I think..

Badsight.
01-31-2005, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
Could you tell me a source where you read this? I would like too read this too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its common knowledge that the Armin Faber FW-190 A3 was run at 1.42 ATA in the RAF test against the MkV Spitfire

even tho the LW at that had not cleared the BMW801 to run at that ATA at that stage in the war

in other words . . . . the Faber test shows the FW / Spit Mk5 performance gap incorrectly , it wasnt as bad as that test shows

Xnomad
01-31-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Stiglr but you is wrong. You just described Bf 109 tactics, the FW 190 surprised RAF pilots because instead of diving away after an attack they stuck around and mixed it up with the Spits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...Stiglr is right (its shocking that I'm saying this, we argue so often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I read that stuff too about how the RAF pilots were always disappointed when the 109s would attack and then run home. This was probably mostly true of the 109E's at this point and maybe the F's but surely the F's with their excellent turn were able to mix it up if they wanted to.

The thing about the FW190s and mixing it up is this. The 190s never engaged in a swirling dogfight with Spitfire Vs. When they say that they mixed it up...they would arrive in a number, and conduct constant up and down slashes. The FW190s stayed after the first attack and came back again and again. Sometimes this would mean that the FW190s would get caught in a turn with a Spitfire and then be shot down....but they didn't get into the IL-2:FB dogfight server swirling mess that so often happens (and so often sees a new FW190 pilot caught easily by a Spit Vb).

I went after some of the pilot reports...they stayed, but not the way people get the impression they did. If you fly the FW190 the way its mentioned, then yes, you can stay quite close to the battle and totally dominate the opposition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I too late in replying to this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif However, essentially you said that Stiglr was right and then went on to prove that he was wrong. Stiglr gave the impression that they attacked, shot and got the hell out of there. I said they stuck around, and you said they stuck around so who is right then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I never said they got into swirling dogfights ala FB. I just said they didn't run home. Stiglr may not have said that either but "zoomed up and away" and "kept going in a can't-be-followed dive" sounds like they didn't stick around.

OldMan____
02-01-2005, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
I think the existing so called 1941 MkVB is basically the type which was delivered to USSR in 1943 - and they had to be 42 or upgraded 41 versions with more powerfull engines and membrane Schilling carburator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right Jurinko.

The Fw190A4 derrated power figures are correct according to Oleg's LW factory data. He has no evidence (either do I and I looked) that the 190s were run over 1.35 ata before the A5. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeap, but A4 should be able to reach 2700 rpm .. even with manual pitch we can get at most 2600. That is not much.. only about 4% difference. But I personnaly would like that extra 4%.. not very important.. and I know many much more important things deserve attention before this one.

WWMaxGunz
02-01-2005, 07:56 AM
Can't you flatten pitch and ovverrev the thing? As in don't do this?

OldMan____
02-01-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Can't you flatten pitch and ovverrev the thing? As in don't do this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only pointing nose down and while on manual picth you can reach 2700. But engine will only overrev at 3000rpm.

faustnik
02-01-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:

yeap, but A4 should be able to reach 2700 rpm .. even with manual pitch we can get at most 2600. That is not much.. only about 4% difference. But I personnaly would like that extra 4%.. not very important.. and I know many much more important things deserve attention before this one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2700 rpm would indicate 1.42 ata. I can't find any evidence of an Fw190 being cleared for 1,42 ata before the A5. I've looked all over for evidence of an A3 or A4 run at 1.42 but, nothing do far.

If you know different, please let me know of the source.

VW-IceFire
02-01-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Stiglr but you is wrong. You just described Bf 109 tactics, the FW 190 surprised RAF pilots because instead of diving away after an attack they stuck around and mixed it up with the Spits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...Stiglr is right (its shocking that I'm saying this, we argue so often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I read that stuff too about how the RAF pilots were always disappointed when the 109s would attack and then run home. This was probably mostly true of the 109E's at this point and maybe the F's but surely the F's with their excellent turn were able to mix it up if they wanted to.

The thing about the FW190s and mixing it up is this. The 190s never engaged in a swirling dogfight with Spitfire Vs. When they say that they mixed it up...they would arrive in a number, and conduct constant up and down slashes. The FW190s stayed after the first attack and came back again and again. Sometimes this would mean that the FW190s would get caught in a turn with a Spitfire and then be shot down....but they didn't get into the IL-2:FB dogfight server swirling mess that so often happens (and so often sees a new FW190 pilot caught easily by a Spit Vb).

I went after some of the pilot reports...they stayed, but not the way people get the impression they did. If you fly the FW190 the way its mentioned, then yes, you can stay quite close to the battle and totally dominate the opposition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I too late in replying to this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif However, essentially you said that Stiglr was right and then went on to prove that he was wrong. Stiglr gave the impression that they attacked, shot and got the hell out of there. I said they stuck around, and you said they stuck around so who is right then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I never said they got into swirling dogfights ala FB. I just said they didn't run home. Stiglr may not have said that either but "zoomed up and away" and "kept going in a can't-be-followed dive" sounds like they didn't stick around. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm interpreting what he said and positioning my own information onto what is being said here.

Basically you've got the people who say one of two things:
1) FW190s are undermodeled because they can't stay with Spitfire Vbs in a dogfight (which is untrue).
2) FW190s should only be used as boom and zoom planes (also untrue).

I'm disproving both camps....yes I'm a little nutty but the tactic works for me online. In a group setting, a group of FW190s and a group of Spitfires can run into each other and have a sustained fight without the need for either to run away home after first contact....but what it does not devolve into is a swirling mess of a dogfight like some players think they should be able to have. They can't...the Spitfire V is totally superior to every version of the FW190 when it comes to turn rate...and frankly every version of the Spitfire is better than every version of the FW190 in turns as far as I can think and remember. The difference is in a vertical vs horizontal fight situation and the FW190 pilots that stayed in and mixed it up with the Spitfires certainly knew what they were doing to produce success. So the people who think that the FW190 is undermodeled because it can't do what they think it should according to statements about the Spitfire Vb are wrong in my book. And probably in your book too...and in Stiglrs book. (many books http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

I'm just restating and backing up some good stuff thats been said to counter some more flawed approaches to the subject. I refuse to take things are face level and I refuse to understand things on only one term...there's many things at play with the FW190 vs Spitfire debate or even the 109 vs Spitfire debate.

I would go so far as to say, based on what I've read, that the 109 was perfectly capable of doing what the FW190 did and mix it up with the Spitfire. The difference is that the 109 would then be playing the same game as the Spitfire in the horizontal and while both planes were pretty well matched in this regard, the Luftwaffe apparently (I'm paraphrasing here) felt that many of their 109 pilots were not as capable as the Spitfire pilots in a close in battle. I'm not sure if that is because of the mystique surrounding the Spit (the same one that saw FW190s deployed to the West almost a year before the East) or something that was more tangible.

Either way, if I fly a FW190A-4 against Spitfire Vs I feel totally in control. Unless the Spitfire is faster or above me....then I'm screwed...but in what plane would you not be?

OldMan____
02-01-2005, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Either way, if I fly a FW190A-4 against Spitfire Vs I feel totally in control. Unless the Spitfire is faster or above me....then I'm screwed...but in what plane would you not be? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... Me 262A ? :P

VW-IceFire
02-01-2005, 05:36 PM
Ok, Me-262 pretty much nothing can even remotely touch me except another jet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-01-2005, 08:26 PM
Anyone who can't figure out how to work the FW's to the point of "something's wrong with
my plane" and feels like they can try something different for a change -- there is a
place for you.

True, it's advice labelled for a different sim but every last bit applies extremely well.
It applies to every combat flight sim worth anything really. And who knows, people might
find that the FW's are even harder to fly in other sims with tabled spot-on FM's. Try
turning how hard you think it should in Air Warrior or some other also serious sims, then
come back and cry about bleed... FB/AEP/PF is very forgiving. In AW there's a term called
"Spit-dweeb" which is a newbie in a Spitfire cause it's the easiest to fly and they still
get killed then go off and whine.

Anyway -- read and absorb then try it this out if you aren't already there:

http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller/training/train.htm

Bullethead, whose pages those are, is a past master at energy fighting.
may the fastest plane win. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

VFA195-MaxPower
02-03-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Stiglr but you is wrong. You just described Bf 109 tactics, the FW 190 surprised RAF pilots because instead of diving away after an attack they stuck around and mixed it up with the Spits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...Stiglr is right (its shocking that I'm saying this, we argue so often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I read that stuff too about how the RAF pilots were always disappointed when the 109s would attack and then run home. This was probably mostly true of the 109E's at this point and maybe the F's but surely the F's with their excellent turn were able to mix it up if they wanted to.

The thing about the FW190s and mixing it up is this. The 190s never engaged in a swirling dogfight with Spitfire Vs. When they say that they mixed it up...they would arrive in a number, and conduct constant up and down slashes. The FW190s stayed after the first attack and came back again and again. Sometimes this would mean that the FW190s would get caught in a turn with a Spitfire and then be shot down....but they didn't get into the IL-2:FB dogfight server swirling mess that so often happens (and so often sees a new FW190 pilot caught easily by a Spit Vb).
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This stuff was back on page 2. Just wanted to add a point.

I think the bf109e's were quite maneuverable too. I think another reason for this disparity in combat tactics between the 109 and 190 pilots was their differences in fuel capacity, especially when engaging over the channel.

VW-IceFire
02-03-2005, 02:53 PM
Yet another good point that gets missed out by some.

And yes, everything I've read says the Mark I Spitfire and the Bf-109E is that the two are nearl parity in turning. Anything I've read suggests that the 109E may infact have been a slightly better turner but that the Spitfire rides the edges of stalls better and Spitfire pilots were more inclined (and found it easier) to sustain a turn when a 109E pilot may have found it more difficult to control.

The Mark V would offer some advantages in power that surely made being a 109E over the channel more perilous.

WWMaxGunz
02-03-2005, 03:46 PM
EVERYTHING you read? Read more.

If you got up high enough then maybe 109E:Spit I near parity turning.
Maybe.
If the Bf109E had a higher ceiling than the Spitfire I and they were both up there.
If.
But down where the German bombers flew... no way, Jose.
~~~~~
just
dream
on
~~~~~~
Fact: down below 8,000 ft, even the Hurricanes flat turned with the 109E's.
Fact: down below 4,000 ft, the Hurricanes flat turned better.
Those two facts were used by Hurricane pilots to escape and sometimes beat 109E's.
And the Spitfires turned better than the Hurricanes, especially above 8,000 ft.

Bull_dog_
02-03-2005, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
EVERYTHING you read? Read more.

If you got up high enough then maybe 109E:Spit I near parity turning.
Maybe.
If the Bf109E had a higher ceiling than the Spitfire I and they were both up there.
If.
But down where the German bombers flew... no way, Jose.
~~~~~
just
dream
on
~~~~~~
Fact: down below 8,000 ft, even the Hurricanes flat turned with the 109E's.
Fact: down below 4,000 ft, the Hurricanes flat turned better.
Those two facts were used by Hurricane pilots to escape and sometimes beat 109E's.
And the Spitfires turned better than the Hurricanes, especially above 8,000 ft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why don't you tell us what is really on your mind? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just about every thing I've read indicates that the spit turned better and traded speed advantage with the 109 depending on altitude.

Kurfurst__
02-04-2005, 01:57 AM
I barely dare to post this, as the honorable Mr. MaxGlunz had already posted his unquestionable opinion, but it may prove interesting :


"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

-Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show"


"Indeed many fresh pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manouvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from the period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfite turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had may dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up with the engine. It was a matter of feel. Whem one noticed the speed becoming critical- the aircraft vibrated- one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather tha a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire-and I shot down 6 of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires wrer delivered"

- 109 E "experte", Erwin Leykau


"In personally facing the RAF in the air over the Dunkirk encirclement, I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France."


Oberst Herbert Kaiser, 68 victories, Bf 109 :
Page 470, 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes'.


"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."

-Mark Hanna

OldMan____
02-04-2005, 03:06 AM
Warning! Warning!

FW190 Thread under kidnap danger!

Request imediate assistance of all FW jocks!!

I repeat...

FW190 Thread under kidnap danger!

tigertalon
02-04-2005, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Warning! Warning!

FW190 Thread under kidnap danger!

Request imediate assistance of all FW jocks!!

I repeat...

FW190 Thread under kidnap danger! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here I am for help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ok, let's stick back to topic... Well, I started very similar thread some time ago, titled: I don't get it: SpitMkV superior to Fw190A?

Well, I read all the posts carefully, informed myself on both planes as much as possible, and I changed my mind completely. Fw190 are superior, no doubt. A5 with some alt advantage can even hold its own against MkIX... D9 44 is my favourite ride and La7s, Spits, Stangs and especially Yak3s are my favourite targets... Russians stay breathless above 3k, Spit and Stang are touger there...

What it takes? Learning, training, learning, training... And above all: Teamplay!

However I still think some issues with Fw190 should be resolved: first of all, obvious Mg151/20 bug. then: fuell leak bug, dive acceleration, and forward view IMO (the light is coming straight through the tick glass under big angle - it should not, and this would improve forward visibility).

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2005, 05:31 AM
Kurfurst, you can show instances and opinions all you want.
It comes down to situations and pilots, of course the survivors didn't get outdone.
How many 109's were lost? How many Spitfires were lost on the ground? Why do you
bother throwing that 450 planes "admitted" lost? Gee, those dishonest Brits for not
sending accurate daily reports to the Germans!

You do know that there were a LOT of green pilots flying for Britain, don't you?
And they were outnumbered heavily. I don't ask that.
I won't bother the conclusions you will draw but do note that I know of this;
The fighters were not tightly leashed to the bombers until after the bomber losses were
high. When the losses were reported and the bomber command said they needed the fighters
to stay close, that they were not there during attacks, then the fighters were ordered to
stay close. It wasn't policy from the start so it is not a blanket excuse -- the Brits
were tearing up the LW more badly than the LW was tearing up the Brits, even while Brit
airfields were also being attacked.

The doghouse charts were posted for 15,000 ft which is where the bomber action went up to,
didn't it? Well, the 109E didn't compare on those charts. You got charts for higher up,
the flat turns get closer and the 109E speed is even more better than the Spitfire I. You
do know how altitude affects the comparison? I don't see you write of that. Perhaps just
keep posting compare in the region 109E looks best but don't say that as if it is everywhere.

You can just post anecdotes without specific conditions. Plenty of those both ways to find
and you know it.

p1ngu666
02-04-2005, 08:34 AM
alot of raf planes hadto be left behind, due to small issues (no spares of right type, etc) so they where burnt so the germans didnt get them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and yes, dont take over the thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

190 pilots may have dogfighted closer because they had big advantages in speed and roll dive etc, so if it got sticky they could run away. 109 would have a tough time shaking a spitfire.

ive flown spitVb vs 190a4 onwhine, feel abit helpless at all alts in my spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

IX or VIII is much better, but im not a good spit pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Kurfurst__
02-04-2005, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Kurfurst, you can show instances and opinions all you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, You do that, I deal in facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It comes down to situations and pilots, of course the survivors didn't get outdone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that`s the nature of war anecdotes. `Dead tell no tales.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How many 109's were lost? How many Spitfires were lost on the ground? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recalling from memory, some 250 109s were lost to all causes during BoF vs. some 1000+ RAf planes, plus the French ones.

And this is for over Dunkirk...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1102087573_dunkirklosses.jpg

Just compare loss rate of Stukas(!!) and Spitfires... and also the number of sorties flown by single engined fighters. Hardly outnumbered, definietely outdone.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why do you bother throwing that 450 planes "admitted" lost? Gee, those dishonest Brits for not sending accurate daily reports to the Germans! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s a historical fact the RAF lost ca. 450 fighter planes in the BoF. It was just noted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You do know that there were a LOT of green pilots flying for Britain, don't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In BoB, yes, after the experienced ones were shot down in BoF and over Dunkirk.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And they were outnumbered heavily. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually in BoB the RAF-FC slightly outnumbered the Jagdwaffe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The fighters were not tightly leashed to the bombers until after the bomber losses were high. When the losses were reported and the bomber command said they needed the fighters to stay close, that they were not there during attacks, then the fighters were ordered to stay close. It wasn't policy from the start so it is not a blanket excuse -- the Brits
were tearing up the LW more badly than the LW was tearing up the Brits, even while Brit airfields were also being attacked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well this would lead to a long BoB debate, OTOH British top brass took rather desperate measures (sending pilots into battle before their training course completed etc.), the morale was low, and the leaders actually saying they needed a 'miracle' after 7th September.

I see no such signs of desperate measures on the LW`s side. Close escorts, along with fighter sweeps, and top cover flights were the ordered tactic, after the LW penetrated right into the heart of the British homeland.. the scenes of battle, the knife was closer and closer to the RAF`s throat, is that a success or failure on the RAF`s side?

But I hardly understand what would operational details of the BoB tell about a rather technical aspect of turning performance between two fighters... wait, is the reasoning behind : 'the side that teared up the other more badly because it had tighter turning fighters'? I fail to see the validity of this conclusion...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The doghouse charts were posted for 15,000 ft which is where the bomber action went up to,didn't it? Well, the 109E didn't compare on those charts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s an estimated British chart, based on flight tests with a damaged and fairly alien plane for British pilots who flew it. Even on that chart, the 109E doesn`t seem to be at much of a disadvantage.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You got charts for higher up, the flat turns get closer and the 109E speed is even more better than the Spitfire I. You do know how altitude affects the comparison? I don't see you write of that. Perhaps just keep posting compare in the region 109E looks best but don't say that as if it is everywhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn`t notice I did that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You can just post anecdotes without specific conditions. Plenty of those both ways to findand you know it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I just posted the opinion of a few experienced pilots who tell the diff . Icefire said, correctly, that in the literature it isn`t like of your position, you attacked him, I underlined his comments and proved there IS plenty of literature behind what he said. But you have made up your mind already, you don`t need literature, you don`t need to listen to others, you know it better alone yourself. Fine for me.

faustnik
02-04-2005, 10:22 AM
So, one of the keys for the 190 vs. the Spit Vb is maintaining high speed. If you drop into the 300kph range, the Spit Vb can out-accelerate the Fw190A4. If you stay above 400kph, the Fw190 will pull away in level flight, climb and dive. A lot of people get the impression that the Spit Vb is superior because they drop below the 190s correct speed range.

p1ngu666
02-04-2005, 10:23 AM
hey kurfy, wanna post a chart of how the polish did against the lw? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the polish shot down more germans, than the germans shot down polish. germans won by numbers and russia invading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

the knife got closer yes, but goering held it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

morale wasnt fantastic, but they would shoot down every german they could.

british aircrew wherent fantasticly trainned. guy gibsons first sortie took 2000lbs of bombs, later they took more. they had NEVER flown with a bombload at his squadron.

well trainned, but not always in a useful way as u will see if u read about some pilots.

Kurfurst__
02-04-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hey kurfy, wanna post a chart of how the polish did against the lw? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the polish shot down more germans, than the germans shot down polish. germans won by numbers and russia invading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the vast majority of the LW`s losses were due to AAA in the polish campaign, polish fighters had troubles catching even bombers... not surprising considering how many sorties the bombers flown, AA was a factor on every sortie.. as for outnumbered, only some 200 109s were pitted against the Poles (rest guarded the Vaterland on the West), so you can`t even say 'won by numbers'.

This being made a bit nicer by Polish historians, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
02-04-2005, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So, one of the keys for the 190 vs. the Spit Vb is maintaining high speed. If you drop into the 300kph range, the Spit Vb can out-accelerate the Fw190A4. If you stay above 400kph, the Fw190 will pull away in level flight, climb and dive. A lot of people get the impression that the Spit Vb is superior because they drop below the 190s correct speed range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fear that the main reason why the Fw 190A-4 displays superiority over the Spitfire MkVb in-game is because of the undermodelled topspeed for the Vb. This really hampers it when climbs are performed at speeds in excess of 350km/h. Compared to the Vb, the Spitfire IXc has more than twice the performance in this department, and outclimbs even the D-9 at these speeds.

p1ngu666
02-04-2005, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hey kurfy, wanna post a chart of how the polish did against the lw? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

the polish shot down more germans, than the germans shot down polish. germans won by numbers and russia invading http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the vast majority of the LW`s losses were due to AAA in the polish campaign, polish fighters had troubles catching even bombers... not surprising considering how many sorties the bombers flown, AA was a factor on every sortie.. as for outnumbered, only some 200 109s were pitted against the Poles (rest guarded the Vaterland on the West), so you can`t even say 'won by numbers'.

This being made a bit nicer by Polish historians, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

think i photographed the book, ill see if i can find hte pics. and yes they ran into 110 mostly, cos 110 was the offensive arm of the luftwaffe, 109 had those range issues for offensive opperations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and i can say they won by numbers because the poles ran out of planes before the luftwaffe did, while the poles where shooting down more luftwaffe than luftwaffe shot down them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

it was also 2 weeks before the germans bombed any fighters on the ground... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
02-04-2005, 12:14 PM
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/fighterinwar/SIMG6542.JPG

onwards (6543, just change the number or url hack)

there are other bits in there with random pictures of planes, but its one of the best books ive read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
02-04-2005, 01:27 PM
Simplier if I delete ze url back to the directory path. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I`ll read it through, then see if I can get some data on losses from Groehler.. thx.

Looks like you have some nice digicam btw. Canon or Nikon guy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-04-2005, 02:03 PM
Salute Isegrim/Kurfurst

Once again you are trotting out the same old sources of disinformation we have seen MANY times before. And which have been proven incorrect as many times.

Let's start with turns Spit I vs 109E

Here are excerpts from British tests:

(all of these are from the 4th Fighter Group website, courtesy Mike Williams:

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

Quote:

Turning:- The RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment, testing unit) determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the cooresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

Another table:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif

Now practical experience from the British, (first) then German pilots:

Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience whilst flying with No. 65 Squadron:

Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000 ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly in turning circle. (...) One engagement with several Me 109s at about 25,000 ft over the Channel sticks in my memory. It all happened very suddenly; in fact we were mildly 'bounced' and soon I found myself behind two 109s in a steep left-hand turn. I was able to turn inside the second one and fired at him from close range. He went on pulling round as sharply as he could. I followed him without any difficulty and went on firing bursts at him. There were puffs of black smoke and then a trail of white vapour streamed from his aircraft. By this time I could no longer see the first 109 and then realized that he was on my tail. As I was by now just shuddering on the verge of a g-stall, I quickly turned inwards and dived. I pulled up again when I was sure I had shaken him off... I was pleased with that little episode ‚‚ā¨" partly because I was **** sure that the first 109 was not going to get home and also because I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights. 23
F/Lt Al Deere, with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:

My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy. 24
P/O Art Donahue, an American serving with No 64 Squadron, described his 8 August combat with a Me 109:

Then one got on my tail and gave me a burst just as I saw him, and I laid over into a vertical turn; and as he did likewise, following me, I hauled my Spitfire around as tight as I could. We were going fast and I had to lean foward and hold my breath to keep from blacking out, and I turned this way for several seconds. Then I eased my turn so that I could straighten up and look out my cockpit, and I spotted the other in front of me. I had turned around on his tail now. He apparently became aware of it at the same time, for he abandoned his turn and took to flight; but he was a little late now. 25
S/L Brian Lane, of No. 19 Squadron, got into a tight turning fight with an Me 109 on 15 September 1940:

That German pilot certainly knew how to a handle a 109 - I have never seen one thrown about as that one was, I felt certain that his wings would come off at any moment. However, they stayed on, and he continued to lead me a hell of a dance as I strove to get my sights on him again. Twice I managed to get in a short burst but I don't think I hit him, then he managed to get round towards my tail. Pulling hard round I started to gain on him, and began to come round towards his tail. He was obviously turning as tightly as his kite could and I could see that his slots were open, showing he was nearly stalled. His ailerons were obviously snatching too, as first one wing and then the other would dip violently. Giving the Spitfire best, he suddenly flung out of the turn and rolled right over on his back passing in front of me inverted. ...he flew on inverted for several seconds, giving me the chance to get in a good burst from the quarter. 26
F/S George Unwin, also of No. 19 Squadron, had a close call on 15 September remarking:

I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure.
Geoffrey Wellum of No 92 Squadron found himself in quite a fix after expending all his ammunition shooting down an HE-111:

I've behaved like a beginner, bounced from behind. My own fault, shouldn't have relaxed after I'd finished with that bloody Heinkel. Elementary rule number one: never relax vigilance. I asked for it and got caught napping, well and truly bounced...
Looking back over my shoulder, an Me 109 is sitting on my tail not thirty yards away, or so it seems, and turning with me. I see the flash from his cannons and puffs of greyish smoke as he tries a quick burst. Not a bad one either as I hear more hits somewhere behind the fuselage.

The German pilot is trying to tighten his turn still more to keep up with me and I'm sure I see the 109 flick. You won't do it, mate, we're on the limit as it is. I can see his head quite clearly and even the dark shape of his oxygen mask. Yet again I imagine that the 109 gives a distinct flick, on the point of a high speed stall. He has to ease his turn a fraction. The Spitfire gains slowly. I exalt and yell at him. Sweat starts to get into my eyes...

The 109 finally comes out of his turn and pulls up, trying to gain height on me. As he climbs he goes into another steep turn, very steep, well over the vertical. I look up at him but he has made his effort and failed. I've gained too much and now I'm more behind him than he is behind me...

If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

P/O Colin Gray (later Group Captain) of No. 54 Squadron reflected:

The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive - and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience. 28
F/O Hugh Dundas, with No. 616 during the Battle, wrote:

In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane. This was a serious handicap to the Luftwaffe pilots allotted the duty of providing close escort for the bombers. Their freedom of action was curtailed. They could not pursue the tactic, best suited to their planes, of a high-speed attack followed by dive and zoom. They had to stick around and fight it out; and that involved the matching of turning circles. They never found a way round that problem and their difficulties were made all the greater when Goering, infuriated by the losses inflicted on his bombers, ordered the fighter squadrons to cling ever closer to the bombers they were escorting. 29
Roll Rate:- The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."



Elevator:- The BF 109E flight handbook states: "Die H√¬∂henruderkr√¬§fte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr gro√ü." 31 (The elevator forces and fin loads become very large during high speed). The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive."32 It was found that the Spitfire pilots were able to evade Me 109's by "doing a flick roll and then quickly pulling out of the subsequent dive", and "if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable".

F/Sgt. Tew, of No 54 Squadron, put this tactic to good use, being credited with 1 Me. 109 destroyed without firing a shot:

During Patrol at approximately 1300 hours on 18/8/40 I was attacked by one Me 109 when I was at 2,000 feet. I turned towards enemy aircraft in a diving turn. Enemy aircraft half-rolled and followed me. I pulled out of dive at low altitude but enemy aircraft continued his dive and struck the ground bursting into flames. 34
The Spitfire on the other hand was known to have a sensitive elevator control, perhaps a bit too sensitive.

Aerobatics:- The RAE's view on the Me 109E's aerobatic capablity:

Aerobatics are not easy on this aeroplane. Loops must be started from 280 m.p.h. when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a marked tendency for the slots to open near the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction, and in consequence accurate looping is almost impossible.
At speeds below 250 m.p.h, when the ailerons are light and very effective, the aeroplane can be rolled very quickly, but there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall in the final stages of the roll, and the stick must be moved well back in order to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls are difficult; the elevator is so heavy at high speed that only a gentle pull-out from the preliminary dive is possible, and a considerable loss of speed is thus inevitable before the upward rolls can be started. 35

The Spitfire I's Pilot's Notes states:

This aeroplane is exceptionally good for aerobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising r.p.m. should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation might occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing of II.JG/51 observed in a letter to home written 17 August 1940:

During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few.

Leutnant Max-Hellmuth Ostermann of 7./JG 54 wrote in his diary for 31 August 1940:

Utter exhaustion from the English operations has set in. Once more I lost contact with my squadron. The Spitfires showed themselves wonderfully manoeuvrable. Their aerobatics display - looping and rolling, opening fire in a climbing roll - filled us with amazement. I did no shooting but kept trying to get into position, meanwhile keeping a sharp watch on my tail.

S/Ldr. Leathart of No 54 Squadron put the Spit's capabilities, as well as his own, to use on 2/9/40 when he "played a game" with the Me 109s:

I was caught at a disadvantage about 4/5,000 feet below two squadrons of Me 109's. I decided that the best thing to do would be to act as a decoy. I harassed them and weaved among them and ended up getting them about 20 miles away from the aerodrome and North of Rochford.

Major Werner M√¬∂lders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full. 39
Fortunately for Spitfire pilots, the two-pitch propeller was not representative of the condition of their aircraft during the Battle of Britain. New production Spitfires were delivered with constant speed propellers beginning in December 1939 and those older Spitfires with two pitch propellers underwent a crash program in June 1940 to have constant speed units retrofitted. 40 41 Another modification to the Spitfires undertaken just prior to the Battle which proved to be of immense value to its pilots was the addition of armour plating behind the pilot's seat. 42 Without doubt the Daimler-Benz performed better than the Merlin under negative 'g', however, it was not without its own limitations: Motor und Triebwerksanlage des Flugzeuges sind nicht zur Durchf√ľhrung von r√ľckenfl√ľgen geeignet. Hingegen ist Motor und Triebwerksanlage geeignet f√ľr Kunstflug in jeder anderen Form, wo nur ganz kurzzeitige R√ľckenlagen in Verbindung mit anderen Flugfiguren verkommen. Had the Rechlin test used the 100 octane fuel available to the British and had the tested Spitfire incorporated the latest improvements, M√¬∂lders would have seen the British fighters to be much more formidable opponents than those faced during the Battle for France. Given that M√¬∂lders was injured when his 109 was shot up by a Spitfire on 28 July 1940, and his plea to G√¬∂ring in August for "a series of ME-109s with more powerful engines", 43 its likely he held revised views of the Spitfire after the Battle of Britain.

Oberleutnant Gerhard Sch√¬∂pfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:

It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.

Oblt Hans Schmiller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:

My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing.

For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range.

G√ľnther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time:

The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it.

Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to G√¬∂ring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".

The conclusions of the RAF, beginning with the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE):

Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle. 50

The Aeroplane and Armament Establishment at Boscombe Down reached a similar conclusion:

In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics. 51
Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to the Spitfire I as follows:

My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was outstandingly better in turning circle.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat. 53

F/L Robert Stanford Tuck, who had an opportunity to fly a captured Me 109 E3 in May 1940, had a rather more positive view of the 109 stating: "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane - not as maneuverable as the Spit mind you, nor as nice to handle near the ground", giving high marks to the 109's higher rudder pedals and agreeing with M√¬∂lders that the the 109 had an advantage in that "our Merlin engines couldn't stand up to negative 'G' whereas the Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz seemed quite unaffected".

P/O H.R. "Dizzy" Allen (later Wing Commander) of No. 66 Squadron, echoing Tuck, wrote of the matchup with an eye on tactical doctrine:

We were better at dogfighting than the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe, but only because both the Spitfire and Hurricane were more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitts 109 and 110. In fact, dog-fighting ability was not all that important during the war. Fighter attacks were hit-or-miss affairs on average. Either you dived with the sun behind you and caught him napping, or he did that to you. I occasionally had to mix it in dog-fights with German fighter pilots, and either I would shoot them down or they would shoot me down, or I would lose sight of them because thier camouflage was better than mine. The reason we were more manoeuvrable than them was because the Me-109 had a higher wing loading than our fighters. This gave us advantages, but they also had certain benefits. We had no idea that the Daimler-Benz engines in the 109s were fuelled by direct-injection methods. Our carburettors were a definate handicap. The Germans could push down the nose of their fighters, scream into a vertical dive, as if beginning a bunt, and accelerate like made away from us. When we tried that tactic, our carburettors would flood under negative gee, and our engines would stall momentarily - as they frequently did - which lost us all-important seconds during the engagments.

Alan Deere, who served with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, summed it up:

Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces. Overall there was little to choose between the two fighters.

In regards to Issy's suggestion that the British pilots were not using the slats because they were inexperienced:

Here is another quote from Gunther Rall the 3rd leading scorer for the Luftwaffe during the war. We have already heard him clearly say that the Spitfire outturned the 109, now here in this excerpt are his comments on the usefulness of the slats during combat turns:

(It is taken from the interview done by Finnish enthusiasts and is posted at their sitehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

A: Ja. I will tell you the weakness, and I think,
really, Messershmidt will forgive me. &lt;Laughter from
audience&gt;.
The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time
pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems
starting with the gear. You know it was a high, narrow
gear. And we had many ground loops. And then the gear
breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it
anyway happens. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow,
VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between
your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And
the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they
made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But
they cut off the side through the back. You know?
Because we had this steel plate, here.
Then the starting system, as I mentioned, this was
absolutely obsolete, you know? In an area with
temperatures minus 30 degrees or more. And then, which
I didn't like this feature, the slots, Ja? Why slots?
Look at the wing of the Spitfire! Thats what we call
elliptical shaped. Its beautiful elope on the wing, the
Spitfire. We don't need lift help until takeoff and
landing. You know? We can make it with a little bigger
wing. So I mean, but, when you fly five and a half years
in that plane in all conditions, you feel at home, even
(laughing) if you have to leave it for some emergency
reasons. &lt;audience laughter&gt;

Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned
they pop open uneven?
A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to
increase the lift during low speed take off and landing.
To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air,
if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot
might get out. You can correct it immediately by
release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht,
its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if
you know it, you prevent it.
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all. I mean, its also a matter of experience of
the pilot, you know?

Quite clearly, Rall is stating that the slats were useless in combat, and inhibited the turn circles and ability to turn.

Now in regards to Isegrim/Kurfy's disinformation in suggesting the 109E used in the tests was 'damaged':

In fact, it was in perfect condition, landed by the German pilot safely with no damage.

On 22 November, 1939, Fw Karl Hier of 1./JG76 landed near Woerth, Bas-Rhin, some 12 miles on the French side of the border. This machine, Bf109E3, white 1, W.nr.1304, was first test-flown by the French at Orleans-Bricy and later turned over to the British, where it became AE479.

Photographed where it landed:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/109fr-2x.jpg

In British markings:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/109fr-5x.jpg

This was one of many 109E's captured and tested by the British. Another one, Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.4101 shown here:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/dg200.jpg

Additionally, the test pilots for these aircraft were part of a dedicated team who did nothing but fly German aircraft. These were members of ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT. They were not inexperienced on these aircraft, in fact they probably flew more varied types of German aircraft than the average Luftwaffe pilot did. They were also all test pilots, with all the knowledge and skill required to be accepted in that role.

Kurfurst__
02-04-2005, 02:28 PM
Salute Buzzsaw,

Thank you for correcting my same old sources of disinformation - that have been seen MANY times before and which have been proven incorrect as many times - with your invaluable input, and with the highly objective, aganda- and bias-free, through, professional study by Mr. Mike Williams. Also for proving beyond reasonable doubt that the slats were useless in combat, and inhibited the turn circles and ability to turn. They`d be a good start for weighsaving measures on more than 70-80 000 aircraft during WW2 - and today.

We are honoured.

And no, I didn`t even bother to read it the whole thing when I saw it`s just you and SpitdweebMike. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
02-04-2005, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
EVERYTHING you read? Read more.

If you got up high enough then maybe 109E:Spit I near parity turning.
Maybe.
If the Bf109E had a higher ceiling than the Spitfire I and they were both up there.
If.
But down where the German bombers flew... no way, Jose.
~~~~~
just
dream
on
~~~~~~
Fact: down below 8,000 ft, even the Hurricanes flat turned with the 109E's.
Fact: down below 4,000 ft, the Hurricanes flat turned better.
Those two facts were used by Hurricane pilots to escape and sometimes beat 109E's.
And the Spitfires turned better than the Hurricanes, especially above 8,000 ft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well four historically acclaimed books on the subject in an academic library at a university was a decent source. Good enough for my Battle of Britain essay.

The feeling was that the two were very close in overall ability but that the Hurricane was better then both.

p1ngu666
02-04-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Simplier if I delete ze url back to the directory path. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I`ll read it through, then see if I can get some data on losses from Groehler.. thx.

Looks like you have some nice digicam btw. Canon or Nikon guy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

erm traveler generic parts bin special, it is rather good for ordinary shots, but need to use flash for books really and i move a little so some are blurred http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

its much quicker for me to take pics than scan also...

plenty of other stuff on my site too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2005, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But I hardly understand what would operational details of the BoB tell about a rather technical aspect of turning performance between two fighters... wait, is the reasoning behind : 'the side that teared up the other more badly because it had tighter turning fighters'? I fail to see the validity of this conclusion...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. It was just my answer to your use of kill counts. Same relevance. When the LW
had green pilots with little training late war, that didn't reflect they flew bad planes but
rather they must be in ubercraft to have done what they did I have read here but no it doesn't
jack when the shoe is on the British foot -- not that I abscribe to either view in case you
want to paint that picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You can just post anecdotes without specific conditions. Plenty of those both ways to findand you know it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I just posted the opinion of a few experienced pilots who tell the diff . Icefire said, correctly, that in the literature it isn`t like of your position, you attacked him, I underlined his comments and proved there IS plenty of literature behind what he said. But you have made up your mind already, you don`t need literature, you don`t need to listen to others, you know it better alone yourself. Fine for me.[/QUOTE]

Icefire said "according to everything he read" and I answered that he better read more.
There is more that I've read by a wide margin, especially the technical, that puts the 109E
airframe as less well flat turning in the same conditions as the Spitfire I. Start to mix
power, load, speed differences and piloting into it and the story changes different ways.

The planes were not that far apart overall. Each had advantages that with training and
tactics made it very good. The place to neutralize the advantages of the other is in the
airfight, not the forum. Your posted accounts... the one stating the egg-shaped turn is
showing exactly the use of energy for angles which is not flat turn capability but the use
of power and situation to overcome a disadvantage. He never had the problem of being out
turned because he avoided situations where he would be. Doesn't say all of how. I posted
the link to Bulletheads' AW Training Pages just because he lays out the how.

VW-IceFire
02-05-2005, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The planes were not that far apart overall. Each had advantages that with training and
tactics made it very good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats pretty much what I said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can dig up the books if you really really want me to. I was just recalling from memory...but it was a point made in my essay and it was very valid: pilot skill and tactics rather than a performance edge was the determining factor during the Battle of Britain (and furthermore that the RAF had homefield advantage).

Buzzsaw-
02-05-2005, 05:59 PM
Salute Kurfurst

Of course I understand your point... If you actually read the post, then perhaps you'd have to admit to yourself that your perfect 109 might not have actually been in reality, the best at everything.

But never mind.

After all, what does some insignificant pilot by the name of Gunther Rall know anyway...

Right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
...but it was a point made in my essay and it was very valid: pilot skill and tactics rather than a performance edge was the determining factor during the Battle of Britain (and furthermore that the RAF had homefield advantage). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that I can agree with. But it has no real bearing on airframe performance.

Yah the Brits had homefield advantage, while their homefields were also under attack so
sometimes a decided disadvantage, no?

I have an account I have posted here before from a Polish pilot in a Hurricane. He was
caught by a 109 at altitude over 10,000 ft. 109 with good pilot but not the best maybe.
The Polish pilot was not green himself. He spiral dived with the 109 close behind all
the way down but notes the heights where he was getting more and more lead. Finally
down at low alt he had the advantage in the turning fight. The 109 was losing slowly
and he says it was obvious... but I don't remember him saying how many circles until
he closed onto the 109 that had been closed on him. Only that he wondered and wondered
why the 109 pilot did not break off and run when he had the chance, the 109 could easily
outrun the Hurricane even down low. And then he got inside the 109 with leading shots
and the 109 nosed in.

Somethings we do not see much in online fights is what makes sense of parts of that.
Neither plane was using flaps and running down to stall speed circles. You do that in
real and the other guy just pulls up, noses down and carks yer six or dances over you.
In the sim, you rise up with near full climb at stall + 10kph, hang on your prop and
waste him.
Which is a bad thing another way, the width of the circle IRL was such that the 109
would have been able to escape and the Hurricane too far away to get in telling shots.
Try that online! Try it offline!

The FM with lowered speed bleed just ruins tactics. It makes the dogfights closer to
WWI than WWII. And then people grab stories and quotes and expect them to work... by,
get this please, by demanding things like "my plane must turn tighter!". And when it
happens (as in the P-51 which really needs a reality check, or very likely some 109's
but maybe it's just situation and skill makes them seem so unlike the P-51) for what
ever reason, the sim just gets into tighter and smaller 'tactics' and the FM has
morphed into 'flyable by Johnnie/Johan-Joystick' although at least since FB and PF
original disks it gets pulled back from the worst as patches come out.

I say we can't expect to see the sim match stories until some real changes in the FM
but we can fully expect people to use stories to push for the FM being ever more unreal.

Bull_dog_
02-06-2005, 08:44 AM
I have a story from flight journal...very similar to the story posted earlier about a pilot pulling elliptical circles to turn inside an opponent....

You will like this...it was between a P-51 Mustang and a Yak 9 (in Korea) !!!!

The Mustang and Yak pilot met with the Mustang pilot seeing tracers around him...eventually the two manuevered in such a way as to get into a turning circle...every circle that was oblique and not horizontal in nature brought the Mustang closer to the Yak's six...when the Yak figured out the jig was up he made a fatal error and was shot down.

What this tells me is that getting maximum turning performance of an aircraft in real life is much more complicated than is probably modelled in this game. In addition, pilots have other sensory inputs like G's, Sound, buffeting, etc...to help indicate the relative state of an aircraft.

I think, in real life, that pilot skill was a bigger part of turning performance of an aircraft than it is in this sim.

Food for thought...we have what we have for a sim, pretty good, but again lots of room for improvement.

I keep reading and stuff indicating this plane out turns that plane, at certain speeds, at certain altitudes etc... probably true in real life, probably not true in FB/AEP/PF...seems in this game you either can out turn or can't. I don't think pilot experience counts quite as much in game than in real life....fewer variables in game.

p1ngu666
02-06-2005, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I have a story from flight journal...very similar to the story posted earlier about a pilot pulling elliptical circles to turn inside an opponent....

You will like this...it was between a P-51 Mustang and a Yak 9 (in Korea) !!!!

The Mustang and Yak pilot met with the Mustang pilot seeing tracers around him...eventually the two manuevered in such a way as to get into a turning circle...every circle that was oblique and not horizontal in nature brought the Mustang closer to the Yak's six...when the Yak figured out the jig was up he made a fatal error and was shot down.

What this tells me is that getting maximum turning performance of an aircraft in real life is much more complicated than is probably modelled in this game. In addition, pilots have other sensory inputs like G's, Sound, buffeting, etc...to help indicate the relative state of an aircraft.

I think, in real life, that pilot skill was a bigger part of turning performance of an aircraft than it is in this sim.

Food for thought...we have what we have for a sim, pretty good, but again lots of room for improvement.

I keep reading and stuff indicating this plane out turns that plane, at certain speeds, at certain altitudes etc... probably true in real life, probably not true in FB/AEP/PF...seems in this game you either can out turn or can't. I don't think pilot experience counts quite as much in game than in real life....fewer variables in game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah
yak was pulling up sharper into a vertical climb, p51 pilot didnt, used wing for lift so he won

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 01:01 PM
Pilot skill:

Avoiding the situation where you will lose while trying to put the other guy in the same.

You can always exchange speed for extra angle.
Knowing when you have the speed to spare is critical.
Judging the other guys energy state and maybe presenting him with an opportunity to spend
what he ain't really got is finesse while misjudging is a mistake you may live to tell of.

Bullethead teaches these things. It's like Shaw condensed.

VW-IceFire
02-06-2005, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
...but it was a point made in my essay and it was very valid: pilot skill and tactics rather than a performance edge was the determining factor during the Battle of Britain (and furthermore that the RAF had homefield advantage). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that I can agree with. But it has no real bearing on airframe performance.

Yah the Brits had homefield advantage, while their homefields were also under attack so
sometimes a decided disadvantage, no?

I have an account I have posted here before from a Polish pilot in a Hurricane. He was
caught by a 109 at altitude over 10,000 ft. 109 with good pilot but not the best maybe.
The Polish pilot was not green himself. He spiral dived with the 109 close behind all
the way down but notes the heights where he was getting more and more lead. Finally
down at low alt he had the advantage in the turning fight. The 109 was losing slowly
and he says it was obvious... but I don't remember him saying how many circles until
he closed onto the 109 that had been closed on him. Only that he wondered and wondered
why the 109 pilot did not break off and run when he had the chance, the 109 could easily
outrun the Hurricane even down low. And then he got inside the 109 with leading shots
and the 109 nosed in.

Somethings we do not see much in online fights is what makes sense of parts of that.
Neither plane was using flaps and running down to stall speed circles. You do that in
real and the other guy just pulls up, noses down and carks yer six or dances over you.
In the sim, you rise up with near full climb at stall + 10kph, hang on your prop and
waste him.
Which is a bad thing another way, the width of the circle IRL was such that the 109
would have been able to escape and the Hurricane too far away to get in telling shots.
Try that online! Try it offline!

The FM with lowered speed bleed just ruins tactics. It makes the dogfights closer to
WWI than WWII. And then people grab stories and quotes and expect them to work... by,
get this please, by demanding things like "my plane must turn tighter!". And when it
happens (as in the P-51 which really needs a reality check, or very likely some 109's
but maybe it's just situation and skill makes them seem so unlike the P-51) for what
ever reason, the sim just gets into tighter and smaller 'tactics' and the FM has
morphed into 'flyable by Johnnie/Johan-Joystick' although at least since FB and PF
original disks it gets pulled back from the worst as patches come out.

I say we can't expect to see the sim match stories until some real changes in the FM
but we can fully expect people to use stories to push for the FM being ever more unreal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The homefield advantage was this:
1) Pilots were a scarcer resource than planes (by September 1940 there was sufficient production of fighters to replace losses - there was not enough pilots). When a RAF pilot bailed out, he'd be back at his squadron the next day with a new plane. A Luftwaffe pilot would be captured.
2) By September 1940, the Luftwaffe was ignoring RAF bases and had felt that the RAF was essentially crushed and unable to fight for much longer. London was the target so the RAF had room at their own bases to keep up operations. Also, dreadful intelligence by the Luftwaffe meant that all RAF bases were attacked rather than just the fighter bases. In some cases, fields that were essentially unused were attacked while busy ones were lower on the priority list.

As for the FM considerations...I think you can do whats in the stories...it just takes some thinking. But surely we haven't gotten to a solid FM quite yet...thats going to take quite a few more years and some more powerful chips.

OldMan____
02-06-2005, 04:35 PM
I don‚¬īt want to be rude but.. WHAT THE HELL DOES all this has to do with SpitV vs FW190 TITLE of the thread?


Every @#!!@#!@$! post is transformed in the same old discussion SPIT vs 109 TURNING!!

What the helll! I will suggest UBI to open a whole FOrum about this!

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 05:01 PM
I really believe that until the planes fly a lot closer to real that demands for changes
based on relative performance will generally lead to worse FM just from how it's been so
far.

-------------
1)
If a Brit pilot bailed and he hadn't been burned or otherwise wounded, then he could make
it back to fly again. You land wrong in a chute and you won't be walking anywhere fast
or soon, maybe ever. I doubt that even the majority escaped injury in getting shot down
even besides the ones that died. Somewhere there is probably a dead and wounded list as
the British definitely treasure their history. Well, doesn't about everyone?

2)
The LW changed targets to civilian cities because one night a German bomber got lost and
dropped their bombs where they thought nothing was below before heading home. They were
over London and they were not supposed to do that. England retaliated by bombing Berlin.
Hitler went ballistic and gave a speech, changed the whole thrust of the BoB attacks to
brit cities, especially London, and rained terror on the cities. In the meantime, the RAF
got back strength even while fighting the blitz.

3?)
Had that one mistake not been made, the RAF may have been supressed enough for the invasion
to have taken place and the outcome of the whole war would have changed, though it may have
been the USSR that ended up with Europe rather than Germany.
England holding out is the only way I see that the US had a forward base close enough to
attack from and the English Armed Forces were not exactly a minor part of the Allied effort
either! Both of those could have been taken out/lost.

Could the USSR have gooten the new equipment and troops up in time and attacked while
Germany was pacifying and consolidating Britain and Western Europe? I think tha the
T-34 and the new planes were already beginning in production so how much sooner if the
East Front hadn't been opened and taken or destroyed all those factories they did?
Chilling, eh? One day I started counting Soviet units just prior to Barbarossa and the
production behind them. Those 5 and 10 year plans... timing was not quite ready in 1941
but they were close and another 6 months to a year would have made a load of difference.

p1ngu666
02-06-2005, 05:35 PM
if britain fell, it would open up the world to the axis.

africa would have gone axis, middle east too, iraq and iran (iran actully means aryan or whatever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif) india too...

hitler could of had a two front war on russia, the japanease joining in ( and others), with oil supplied by the germans.

america, and the pacific would have been left alone.... for awhile atleast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

LBR_Rommel
02-06-2005, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

When I was reading the article, I tried to compare those conclusions with the game and always ask my self "Ha?... Is it true?"

I was very amazed when read following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and the most interesting:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, the article or the game lies? It just very differ from my experience flying these aircrafts in the game.

PS. Sorry, if it was disscused before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_____________________________________________

The Focke Wulf Fw 190 was one of the most successful combat aircraft of the Second World War and its introduction into service on the English Channel coast in 1941 marked the beginning of a period of heavy losses and mounting alarm for the Royal Air Force.

This new German radial-engined fighter was superior in almost all respects to the contemporary British Spitfire V and was able to maintain this advantage until the arrival of the first Spitfire IXs in July 1942.

Focke Wulf Fw190s operated as a day fighters alongside Messerschmitt Bf109s on all German war fronts, from North Africa to Arctic Russia, until the end of the Second World War. As German ground attack units demanded higher performance aircraft they were quickly fitted with bomb racks for fighter bomber work. Later still they were used as night fighters against the British bombers.

Although the company manufactured a prototype two-seat Fw190 to help with the conversion of pilots from slower ground attack units, all the other two-seaters, like this one, were produced by modifying existing aircraft.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/focke-wulf-fw190a-8-u-1.htm
_____________________________________________

There you go

VW-IceFire
02-06-2005, 08:59 PM
All good points MaxGunz. The only thing that I'll disagree about is Hitler's interest in invading England. That was supposed to be the plan but they had no real invasion force...the Royal Navy was well out of range of the bombers during the Battle of Britain and could be a force to disrupt any plans. I don't think Germany really had any proper assualt landing craft either. Attacking Britain wasn't really in the big grand scheme for Hitler. "Living space" was the goal and the USSR, Poland, Czech, and other places were the real targets.

Anyways, back on the FW190 vs Spitfire debate.

FW190 does climb "faster" in that it climbs at virtually the same rate (to a later model 1942 Spitfire V) but at a higher speed and therefore is able to escape attack and evade. It is also more manuverable in that it has a better elevator at speed and roll rate. So it depends on your defintion of manuverability...when I take up a Spitfire after flying a FW190 for a while I have to adjust to the "more sluggish" plane which the Spitfire is in comparison. At least on the controls...thats a huge thing for real pilots.

GR142-Pipper
02-07-2005, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Spits should definitely not only be able to follow a 190 in a "tight loop" but rendezvous (close) with it as it looped. The 190, like the G and later 109s, was not an aircraft known for its turning ability.

As an aside, "maneuverable" always means the ability to: 1) generate high turn rates, 2) generate high pitch rates, 3) generate high roll rates. The more an aircraft has in each of these categories, the more maneuverable it is. It does not mean "fight in the vertical". "Maneuverable" describes the maneuvering attributes of the aircraft while "fighting in the vertical" describes a method of fighting. The two aren't the same.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
02-07-2005, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
All good points MaxGunz. The only thing that I'll disagree about is Hitler's interest in invading England. That was supposed to be the plan but they had no real invasion force...the Royal Navy was well out of range of the bombers during the Battle of Britain and could be a force to disrupt any plans. I don't think Germany really had any proper assualt landing craft either. Attacking Britain wasn't really in the big grand scheme for Hitler. "Living space" was the goal and the USSR, Poland, Czech, and other places were the real targets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno bout that. I can agree that Hitler did not want to invade at least then.
* They sent people demanding Britain give reassurances of neutrality or they would invade.
* Britain told em to screw off, in polite terms.
* They pointed out that the British Army had left practically all their equipment at Dunkirk.
* The Brits told em they'd fight anyway down to the last town and street, all that stuff.
* They had a force assembled but crossing entirely hinged on neutralizing the RAF and I guess
then the LW would have been used to keep the RN out of it.
* The biggie to my view is that the Germans put forth the aerial attacks at least initially
to make that plan work and even when they took heavy losses, they stuck to it and intensified.
That to me marks a certain amount of seriousness about invading. Had that mistake not been
made and the Brits not responded by bombing Berlin (and was that not just once?) then what
other outcome than the probable fall of the RAF and invasion of Englnd do you see? Well,
maybe an armistice but I feel sure that occupation to ensure cooperation would have been
seen as necessary... the same end with a lot less blood shed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyways, back on the FW190 vs Spitfire debate.

FW190 does climb "faster" in that it climbs at virtually the same rate (to a later model 1942 Spitfire V) but at a higher speed and therefore is able to escape attack and evade. It is also more manuverable in that it has a better elevator at speed and roll rate. So it depends on your defintion of manuverability...when I take up a Spitfire after flying a FW190 for a while I have to adjust to the "more sluggish" plane which the Spitfire is in comparison. At least on the controls...thats a huge thing for real pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was posted at SimHQ an account of one of the pilots at the Farnborough trials. He flew
the Spitfire while his buddy flew the 190. He was supposed to have flown the 190 and noted
that he was disappointed but he conceeded that the other guy was the better choice. The reason
he gave was that in the climb trials, the other guy in the 190 kept the speed high and he could
not keep up and still match the climb, which is just what the 190 pilots were doing out over
the Channel. In the trials report they note that the best climb speeds are the same BUT they
do not say the climb trials were made at that speed anywhere I saw at least. And then there
are the words of the guy who flew the test saying what he did... I think that people have to
be careful when putting words together and even myself I can't say from the pieces I have except
that I have NOT "proved" anything. I'd much rather see the official performance charts for
the planes we have as they are modelled down to the props as Oleg has noted those matter.

How's that for being on topic?

anarchy52
02-07-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
FW190 does climb "faster" in that it climbs at virtually the same rate (to a later model 1942 Spitfire V) but at a higher speed and therefore is able to escape attack and evade. It is also more manuverable in that it has a better elevator at speed and roll rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In disputed "Faber test" it was said IIRC Spit V and focke A3 have similar best climb speed, but focke can climb at considerably steeper angle.
Just my opinion: focke in this game feels way too heavy and does not enjoy it's historical advantages (except firepower in case of the A8/A9).

FB is the best WWII flightsim around and it's (unfortunatelly) closed for modding, sometimes wonderfully accurate and in-sync with historical data sometimes ridiculous and based on "common wisdom", sometimes painted by national bias, marketing reasons, gameplay considerations, misinterpretation and technical issues preventing more accurate simulation.

It would be the best if we had a sim that is :
a) open for modding
b) modded content can be signed to prevent/discourage malicious modding

Imagine community like the 1% was for CFS on lightyears more sophisticated engine like FB or BoB...no more waiting for patches and begging OM to look at this or that issue...just download the community compiled realism pack and off you go.

123-Wulf-JG123
02-07-2005, 09:08 AM
Hmmm...only one word for what would happen if that was allowed, CHAOS.
The day they start to allow that sort of **** is the day I uninstall PF.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

anarchy52
02-07-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
Hmmm...only one word for what would happen if that was allowed, CHAOS.
The day they start to allow that sort of **** is the day I uninstall PF.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CHAOS theory stands only if you have architecture like CFS.
If you have signed mods it's a whole different ball game. You can think of PF as FB mod. You can't play if you have different versions. You underestimate the modding community.

Atomic_Marten
02-08-2005, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Russian_Ivan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Check stats at UK dedicated on Battle-fields.com and you will see that the A-4 rules the skies as it relates to Spitfire Mk V's.

I know there are lots of people that don't think the Fw can stack up but it just isn't true....the Fw is a killer through and through. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I could tell you why the stat shows that A-4 is better over Spit. That is because only good pilots could fly FW190 in the game, but Spit is one of the most easy-to-fly plane thus novice players like this plane.
But with the good level pilots, the one who drive Spit will usually win... IMO <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don not want to rush onto conclusions, but that may be my opinion on the matter too. Spit V is somewhat in better position when there is a fight with no advantage (any kind, alt energy pilot etc.) on either side.

Statistic do not tell the truth all the time.

I have flown Spit V versus FW190A4 lot of times online and sometimes FW190 does not win a fight even when posses alt advantage (FW190 pilots almost always engage with alt advantage). Key for Spit enormous success might be in turn; he loses small amount of speed in turn, so he can change horizontal directions sharply without losing much energy. FW190 cannot except for roll manoeuvres, which cannot be executed sharply.

About diving Spit is also good (I have catch all kind of aircraft in shallow dive with Mk9/100% thort.WEP BOOST/ unsure of Mk5 tho).

Atomic_Marten
02-08-2005, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 123-Wulf-JG123:
Hmmm...only one word for what would happen if that was allowed, CHAOS.
The day they start to allow that sort of **** is the day I uninstall PF.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CHAOS theory stands only if you have architecture like CFS.
If you have signed mods it's a whole different ball game. You can think of PF as FB mod. You can't play if you have different versions. You underestimate the modding community. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

anarchy I agree that would be nice, but danger of cheating is just too high IMO. We have witnessed cheating in current game, imagine if it is open source (that may be changed).

Monty_Thrud
02-15-2005, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don‚¬īt want to be rude but.. WHAT THE HELL DOES all this has to do with SpitV vs FW190 TITLE of the thread?


Every @#!!@#!@$! post is transformed in the same old discussion SPIT vs 109 TURNING!!

What the helll! I will suggest UBI to open a whole FOrum about this!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because its about time the Spitfires had their historically correct advantage against the Bf109's put in this wonderful Sim, just check hardballs Aircraft viewer this mirrors what i'm experiencing online, and i know how to turn in a Spitfire VIII/IX

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Salute Isegrim/Kurfurst

Once again you are trotting out the same old sources of disinformation we have seen MANY times before. And which have been proven incorrect as many times.

Let's start with turns Spit I vs 109E

Here are excerpts from British tests:

(all of these are from the 4th Fighter Group website, courtesy Mike Williams:

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

Quote:

Turning:- The RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment, testing unit) determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the cooresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

Another table:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif

Now practical experience from the British, (first) then German pilots:

Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience whilst flying with No. 65 Squadron:

Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000 ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly in turning circle. (...) One engagement with several Me 109s at about 25,000 ft over the Channel sticks in my memory. It all happened very suddenly; in fact we were mildly 'bounced' and soon I found myself behind two 109s in a steep left-hand turn. I was able to turn inside the second one and fired at him from close range. He went on pulling round as sharply as he could. I followed him without any difficulty and went on firing bursts at him. There were puffs of black smoke and then a trail of white vapour streamed from his aircraft. By this time I could no longer see the first 109 and then realized that he was on my tail. As I was by now just shuddering on the verge of a g-stall, I quickly turned inwards and dived. I pulled up again when I was sure I had shaken him off... I was pleased with that little episode ‚‚ā¨" partly because I was **** sure that the first 109 was not going to get home and also because I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights. 23
F/Lt Al Deere, with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:

My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy. 24
P/O Art Donahue, an American serving with No 64 Squadron, described his 8 August combat with a Me 109:

Then one got on my tail and gave me a burst just as I saw him, and I laid over into a vertical turn; and as he did likewise, following me, I hauled my Spitfire around as tight as I could. We were going fast and I had to lean foward and hold my breath to keep from blacking out, and I turned this way for several seconds. Then I eased my turn so that I could straighten up and look out my cockpit, and I spotted the other in front of me. I had turned around on his tail now. He apparently became aware of it at the same time, for he abandoned his turn and took to flight; but he was a little late now. 25
S/L Brian Lane, of No. 19 Squadron, got into a tight turning fight with an Me 109 on 15 September 1940:

That German pilot certainly knew how to a handle a 109 - I have never seen one thrown about as that one was, I felt certain that his wings would come off at any moment. However, they stayed on, and he continued to lead me a hell of a dance as I strove to get my sights on him again. Twice I managed to get in a short burst but I don't think I hit him, then he managed to get round towards my tail. Pulling hard round I started to gain on him, and began to come round towards his tail. He was obviously turning as tightly as his kite could and I could see that his slots were open, showing he was nearly stalled. His ailerons were obviously snatching too, as first one wing and then the other would dip violently. Giving the Spitfire best, he suddenly flung out of the turn and rolled right over on his back passing in front of me inverted. ...he flew on inverted for several seconds, giving me the chance to get in a good burst from the quarter. 26
F/S George Unwin, also of No. 19 Squadron, had a close call on 15 September remarking:

I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure.
Geoffrey Wellum of No 92 Squadron found himself in quite a fix after expending all his ammunition shooting down an HE-111:

I've behaved like a beginner, bounced from behind. My own fault, shouldn't have relaxed after I'd finished with that bloody Heinkel. Elementary rule number one: never relax vigilance. I asked for it and got caught napping, well and truly bounced...
Looking back over my shoulder, an Me 109 is sitting on my tail not thirty yards away, or so it seems, and turning with me. I see the flash from his cannons and puffs of greyish smoke as he tries a quick burst. Not a bad one either as I hear more hits somewhere behind the fuselage.

The German pilot is trying to tighten his turn still more to keep up with me and I'm sure I see the 109 flick. You won't do it, mate, we're on the limit as it is. I can see his head quite clearly and even the dark shape of his oxygen mask. Yet again I imagine that the 109 gives a distinct flick, on the point of a high speed stall. He has to ease his turn a fraction. The Spitfire gains slowly. I exalt and yell at him. Sweat starts to get into my eyes...

The 109 finally comes out of his turn and pulls up, trying to gain height on me. As he climbs he goes into another steep turn, very steep, well over the vertical. I look up at him but he has made his effort and failed. I've gained too much and now I'm more behind him than he is behind me...

If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

P/O Colin Gray (later Group Captain) of No. 54 Squadron reflected:

The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive - and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience. 28
F/O Hugh Dundas, with No. 616 during the Battle, wrote:

In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane. This was a serious handicap to the Luftwaffe pilots allotted the duty of providing close escort for the bombers. Their freedom of action was curtailed. They could not pursue the tactic, best suited to their planes, of a high-speed attack followed by dive and zoom. They had to stick around and fight it out; and that involved the matching of turning circles. They never found a way round that problem and their difficulties were made all the greater when Goering, infuriated by the losses inflicted on his bombers, ordered the fighter squadrons to cling ever closer to the bombers they were escorting. 29
Roll Rate:- The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."



Elevator:- The BF 109E flight handbook states: "Die H√¬∂henruderkr√¬§fte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr gro√ü." 31 (The elevator forces and fin loads become very large during high speed). The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive."32 It was found that the Spitfire pilots were able to evade Me 109's by "doing a flick roll and then quickly pulling out of the subsequent dive", and "if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable".

F/Sgt. Tew, of No 54 Squadron, put this tactic to good use, being credited with 1 Me. 109 destroyed without firing a shot:

During Patrol at approximately 1300 hours on 18/8/40 I was attacked by one Me 109 when I was at 2,000 feet. I turned towards enemy aircraft in a diving turn. Enemy aircraft half-rolled and followed me. I pulled out of dive at low altitude but enemy aircraft continued his dive and struck the ground bursting into flames. 34
The Spitfire on the other hand was known to have a sensitive elevator control, perhaps a bit too sensitive.

Aerobatics:- The RAE's view on the Me 109E's aerobatic capablity:

Aerobatics are not easy on this aeroplane. Loops must be started from 280 m.p.h. when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a marked tendency for the slots to open near the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction, and in consequence accurate looping is almost impossible.
At speeds below 250 m.p.h, when the ailerons are light and very effective, the aeroplane can be rolled very quickly, but there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall in the final stages of the roll, and the stick must be moved well back in order to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls are difficult; the elevator is so heavy at high speed that only a gentle pull-out from the preliminary dive is possible, and a considerable loss of speed is thus inevitable before the upward rolls can be started. 35

The Spitfire I's Pilot's Notes states:

This aeroplane is exceptionally good for aerobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising r.p.m. should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation might occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing of II.JG/51 observed in a letter to home written 17 August 1940:

During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few.

Leutnant Max-Hellmuth Ostermann of 7./JG 54 wrote in his diary for 31 August 1940:

Utter exhaustion from the English operations has set in. Once more I lost contact with my squadron. The Spitfires showed themselves wonderfully manoeuvrable. Their aerobatics display - looping and rolling, opening fire in a climbing roll - filled us with amazement. I did no shooting but kept trying to get into position, meanwhile keeping a sharp watch on my tail.

S/Ldr. Leathart of No 54 Squadron put the Spit's capabilities, as well as his own, to use on 2/9/40 when he "played a game" with the Me 109s:

I was caught at a disadvantage about 4/5,000 feet below two squadrons of Me 109's. I decided that the best thing to do would be to act as a decoy. I harassed them and weaved among them and ended up getting them about 20 miles away from the aerodrome and North of Rochford.

Major Werner M√¬∂lders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full. 39
Fortunately for Spitfire pilots, the two-pitch propeller was not representative of the condition of their aircraft during the Battle of Britain. New production Spitfires were delivered with constant speed propellers beginning in December 1939 and those older Spitfires with two pitch propellers underwent a crash program in June 1940 to have constant speed units retrofitted. 40 41 Another modification to the Spitfires undertaken just prior to the Battle which proved to be of immense value to its pilots was the addition of armour plating behind the pilot's seat. 42 Without doubt the Daimler-Benz performed better than the Merlin under negative 'g', however, it was not without its own limitations: Motor und Triebwerksanlage des Flugzeuges sind nicht zur Durchf√ľhrung von r√ľckenfl√ľgen geeignet. Hingegen ist Motor und Triebwerksanlage geeignet f√ľr Kunstflug in jeder anderen Form, wo nur ganz kurzzeitige R√ľckenlagen in Verbindung mit anderen Flugfiguren verkommen. Had the Rechlin test used the 100 octane fuel available to the British and had the tested Spitfire incorporated the latest improvements, M√¬∂lders would have seen the British fighters to be much more formidable opponents than those faced during the Battle for France. Given that M√¬∂lders was injured when his 109 was shot up by a Spitfire on 28 July 1940, and his plea to G√¬∂ring in August for "a series of ME-109s with more powerful engines", 43 its likely he held revised views of the Spitfire after the Battle of Britain.

Oberleutnant Gerhard Sch√¬∂pfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:

It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.

Oblt Hans Schmiller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:

My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing.

For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range.

G√ľnther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time:

The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it.

Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to G√¬∂ring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".

The conclusions of the RAF, beginning with the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE):

Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle. 50

The Aeroplane and Armament Establishment at Boscombe Down reached a similar conclusion:

In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics. 51
Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to the Spitfire I as follows:

My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was outstandingly better in turning circle.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat. 53

F/L Robert Stanford Tuck, who had an opportunity to fly a captured Me 109 E3 in May 1940, had a rather more positive view of the 109 stating: "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane - not as maneuverable as the Spit mind you, nor as nice to handle near the ground", giving high marks to the 109's higher rudder pedals and agreeing with M√¬∂lders that the the 109 had an advantage in that "our Merlin engines couldn't stand up to negative 'G' whereas the Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz seemed quite unaffected".

P/O H.R. "Dizzy" Allen (later Wing Commander) of No. 66 Squadron, echoing Tuck, wrote of the matchup with an eye on tactical doctrine:

We were better at dogfighting than the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe, but only because both the Spitfire and Hurricane were more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitts 109 and 110. In fact, dog-fighting ability was not all that important during the war. Fighter attacks were hit-or-miss affairs on average. Either you dived with the sun behind you and caught him napping, or he did that to you. I occasionally had to mix it in dog-fights with German fighter pilots, and either I would shoot them down or they would shoot me down, or I would lose sight of them because thier camouflage was better than mine. The reason we were more manoeuvrable than them was because the Me-109 had a higher wing loading than our fighters. This gave us advantages, but they also had certain benefits. We had no idea that the Daimler-Benz engines in the 109s were fuelled by direct-injection methods. Our carburettors were a definate handicap. The Germans could push down the nose of their fighters, scream into a vertical dive, as if beginning a bunt, and accelerate like made away from us. When we tried that tactic, our carburettors would flood under negative gee, and our engines would stall momentarily - as they frequently did - which lost us all-important seconds during the engagments.

Alan Deere, who served with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, summed it up:

Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces. Overall there was little to choose between the two fighters.

In regards to Issy's suggestion that the British pilots were not using the slats because they were inexperienced:

Here is another quote from Gunther Rall the 3rd leading scorer for the Luftwaffe during the war. We have already heard him clearly say that the Spitfire outturned the 109, now here in this excerpt are his comments on the usefulness of the slats during combat turns:

(It is taken from the interview done by Finnish enthusiasts and is posted at their site

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

A: Ja. I will tell you the weakness, and I think,
really, Messershmidt will forgive me. &lt;Laughter from
audience&gt;.
The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time
pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems
starting with the gear. You know it was a high, narrow
gear. And we had many ground loops. And then the gear
breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it
anyway happens. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow,
VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between
your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And
the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they
made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But
they cut off the side through the back. You know?
Because we had this steel plate, here.
Then the starting system, as I mentioned, this was
absolutely obsolete, you know? In an area with
temperatures minus 30 degrees or more. And then, which
I didn't like this feature, the slots, Ja? Why slots?
Look at the wing of the Spitfire! Thats what we call
elliptical shaped. Its beautiful elope on the wing, the
Spitfire. We don't need lift help until takeoff and
landing. You know? We can make it with a little bigger
wing. So I mean, but, when you fly five and a half years
in that plane in all conditions, you feel at home, even
(laughing) if you have to leave it for some emergency
reasons. &lt;audience laughter&gt;

Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned
they pop open uneven?
A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to
increase the lift during low speed take off and landing.
To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air,
if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot
might get out. You can correct it immediately by
release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht,
its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if
you know it, you prevent it.
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all. I mean, its also a matter of experience of
the pilot, you know?

Quite clearly, Rall is stating that the slats were useless in combat, and inhibited the turn circles and ability to turn.

Now in regards to Isegrim/Kurfy's disinformation in suggesting the 109E used in the tests was 'damaged':

In fact, it was in perfect condition, landed by the German pilot safely with no damage.

On 22 November, 1939, Fw Karl Hier of 1./JG76 landed near Woerth, Bas-Rhin, some 12 miles on the French side of the border. This machine, Bf109E3, white 1, W.nr.1304, was first test-flown by the French at Orleans-Bricy and later turned over to the British, where it became AE479.

Photographed where it landed:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/109fr-2x.jpg

In British markings:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/109fr-5x.jpg

This was one of many 109E's captured and tested by the British. Another one, Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.4101 shown here:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/dg200.jpg

Additionally, the test pilots for these aircraft were part of a dedicated team who did nothing but fly German aircraft. These were members of ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT. They were not inexperienced on these aircraft, in fact they probably flew more varied types of German aircraft than the average Luftwaffe pilot did. They were also all test pilots, with all the knowledge and skill required to be accepted in that role. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent post btw BUZZSAW

VW-IceFire
02-15-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
FW190 does climb "faster" in that it climbs at virtually the same rate (to a later model 1942 Spitfire V) but at a higher speed and therefore is able to escape attack and evade. It is also more manuverable in that it has a better elevator at speed and roll rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In disputed "Faber test" it was said IIRC Spit V and focke A3 have similar best climb speed, but focke can climb at considerably steeper angle.
Just my opinion: focke in this game feels way too heavy and does not enjoy it's historical advantages (except firepower in case of the A8/A9).

FB is the best WWII flightsim around and it's (unfortunatelly) closed for modding, sometimes wonderfully accurate and in-sync with historical data sometimes ridiculous and based on "common wisdom", sometimes painted by national bias, marketing reasons, gameplay considerations, misinterpretation and technical issues preventing more accurate simulation.

It would be the best if we had a sim that is :
a) open for modding
b) modded content can be signed to prevent/discourage malicious modding

Imagine community like the 1% was for CFS on lightyears more sophisticated engine like FB or BoB...no more waiting for patches and begging OM to look at this or that issue...just download the community compiled realism pack and off you go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I still don't believe that. The FW190 has those small little wings with wingloading that suituates it as a better speed than turn aircraft. Thats how it gets to go so fast despite having less HP than some others. The Spitfire has a much better high AoA performance and I would imagine that means that it can make the steeper climb. I suspect in the test they were looking at zoom climb performance at which yes the FW190 does so much better than the Spitfire does...even in this game.

hop2002
02-15-2005, 05:19 PM
There is a way for the 190 to have a better angle of climb than the Spit; if both are keeping to the same high speed.

In that case, the 190 would have greater excess thrust available, and could keep a higher climb angle.

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
In disputed "Faber test" it was said IIRC Spit V and focke A3 have similar best climb speed, but focke can climb at considerably steeper angle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm trying to find a link to those pages, don't see them on Rings PRO site and last time
I saw them somewhere the first page was not shown, maybe page 2 as well... the page with
the conditions of the test to put it bluntly.

Yes I remember that the statement above was in there with slightly different wording but
I also know that it does not say that the climb test was made at best climb speed. From
an account by the pilot who flew the Spit V, the climb test was made at high speed which
is under the conditions of combat the RAF was experiencing vs FW's at the time which he
did note clearly. If someone collects facts and reports observations together, you have
to be careful not to draw ties between any where they are not stated because then you are
making assumptions which you can only defend as "common sense". Me, I would rather be
sure and to do that I need to see those pages.

Note that Oleg also made statement about FW 190A-4 vs Spit VB modelled versions as to
climb, the FW will outclimb the Spit at high speed -- but he is only going from best
German test he has vs best British test he has, so what does he know, huh? I think, LOTS.

JtD
02-16-2005, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Spitfire has a much better high AoA performance and I would imagine that means that it can make the steeper climb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steep climb hasn't got much to do with a high AoA as this angle is measured relative to flight direction. You can make very steep climbs even at negative AoA if you got enough power to keep the speed very high. Check out missiles, for one extreme.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2005, 10:48 AM
At high speed the Spitfire VB used in the test didn't have the power to keep speed
and climb with the FW used in the test as it was used (1.42 ATA).

And then people want to make a lot out of that and imply that all FW vs Spitfire
encounters should run by that form even to the point of major presentations of
partial info on created webpages that in turn get used as "information sources".

It's not desperation, it's more akin to politics of fans and wannabes.

faustnik
02-16-2005, 10:53 AM
I have spent some time researching this and have had some email conversations about it with Oleg. We can find no evidence of Fw190 versions earlier than the Fw190A5 using a boost greater than 1.35 in general service (not prototype testing).

So, the climb rates for the Fw190A4 in PF are modeled very well using 1.35 as a maximum boost. Unless other data can be found, it looks like the Farnborough tests on Faber's 190A3 were run at an incorrect boost level and would not reflect the power levels used by Fw190s at that time.

faustnik
02-16-2005, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
At high speed the Spitfire VB used in the test didn't have the power to keep speed
and climb with the FW used in the test as it was used (1.42 ATA).

And then people want to make a lot out of that and imply that all FW vs Spitfire
encounters should run by that form even to the point of major presentations of
partial info on created webpages that in turn get used as "information sources".

It's not desperation, it's more akin to politics of fans and wannabes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

There is a lot of conflicting and incorrect data out there that is not easy to sort through on the Fw190. We have an forum dedicated to it now over at CWOS and we are working hard to clear up some of the grey areas. You can't blame people for getting the wrong idea when published sources provide incorrect data.

Oleg is trying very hard to use only data from the original factory sources. The more I communicate with him, the more faith in his modeling of the Fw190. Oleg really cares about getting it right, not balance or marketing as some might speculate.

ZG77_Nagual
02-16-2005, 11:36 AM
This is my conviction also - based on interactions with Oleg with regard to several A/C. Allegations of concessions to mere opinion or the expediency of marketing are insulting and grossly innacurate.

IvanoBulo
02-16-2005, 12:03 PM
faustnik, I agree with you that the FW190 is modelled properly. And maybe others planes too. BUT IMHO the biggest problems in the game are:
* all planes are able to fly at very low speeds with full throttle.
* they are climbing too fast below stall speed.
* rudder on some planes (including Spit) too effective at high speeds.

faustnik
02-16-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IvanoBulo:
faustnik, I agree with you that the FW190 is modelled properly. And maybe others planes too. BUT IMHO the biggest problems in the game are:
* all planes are able to fly at very low speeds with full throttle.
* they are climbing too fast below stall speed.
* rudder on some planes (including Spit) too effective at high speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could very well be correct IvanoBulo, I wouldn't know, I'm a printer not a aeronautical engineer. All I can say is, the more I learn and understand about flight physics and the history of the Fw190, the more I appreciate Oleg's model.

VW-IceFire
02-16-2005, 09:25 PM
Good point Hop. I'd still think it figures in...over a long sustained high angle climb you're surely going to run into a angle of attack position at some point...say in a fight, at which point I'd think the Spit could hold on a bit longer. Of course, if you fly the FW190 properly, you'd never reach that sort of position on purpose.

I agree with Faustnik. Oleg's done some good stuff on the FW190 flight model which speaks more to its actual performance than before. Its gotten better than when we first saw it...definately.

Kwiatos
02-17-2005, 02:41 AM
I think too that FM of Fw190 is very good moddeled in FB/PF. But BIG problem is in its very weak weapons effectivity, bug in fuel leak and of course in FM of some others planes like Spitfire exp. MK V (not accurate climb rate and zoom climb). If others planes would have as good acurate FM like Fw190 has then we will see how good these plane was.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2005, 03:05 AM
I'd like to know why the climb vs speed curves are so whacked for all planes.
That behaviour affects how fights are flown entirely.
It is unreal and so the fights become when players do everything they can.
Fights become more like WWI and as much as I'd love a WWI sim to these
standards, the planes are all wrong with the skins and cannon and power.

There is also view which nothing can be done about, no head or shoulder movement
and no compensation.

There is also the 151/20's gunpods/all others to understand what is going on.
Answer maybe simple, then it can be fixed simple.

mortoma
02-17-2005, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There may be some truth to what you're saying but I've read of a few accounts of horizontal turn fights between Spits and 190s in which the 190 did quite well. It's historically documented too.

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2005, 02:13 AM
Energy for angles. You should not make comparisons without specifying speeds of the planes,
G's pulled, altitude, time the turn is maintained. Bits of stories with "fill in the details
by yourself" logic keep getting called "proof" or "evidence" of performance that no, the
claims are not backed that way.

If both are at 6 G's and the same speed then both are the same radius or one of those two is
judged wrong -- 6 G's being considered the edge of blackout it is a good type of turn for a
plane at disadvantage to try and force on the one with the turn advantage just by pushing and
keeping the speed of the encounter as high as possible. Let the turn fighter slow down and
if you use the vertical instead of stalling yourself into his best tactics, you will have
him at least IRL. With the lowspeed climbrates so high though and the accelerations so good,
I think you will have to work more and can never really bleed the sucker down properly.

VW-IceFire
02-20-2005, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I think too that FM of Fw190 is very good moddeled in FB/PF. But BIG problem is in its very weak weapons effectivity, bug in fuel leak and of course in FM of some others planes like Spitfire exp. MK V (not accurate climb rate and zoom climb). If others planes would have as good acurate FM like Fw190 has then we will see how good these plane was. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually Mark V climb rate is accurate for later model Mark V (of late 1942) but level speed is accurate for 1941 Mark V. One or the other would be nice no doubt.

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2005, 02:17 AM
Climb accurate at best climb speed but like all planes, too high at other speeds with
near stall climb tending to arcade. Climb curves shown are looking almost flat lines
where they should be pretty steep hills.

All planes I tried and I've seen others posted on.
This tendency has been with us more and less since FB 1.0.
Perhaps it is result of a fix for speeds or perhaps because of all the whining back
in especially summer of 2002.

I should have faith it will be at least toned down? Shouldn't I?

Bull_dog_
02-21-2005, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IvanoBulo:
faustnik, I agree with you that the FW190 is modelled properly. And maybe others planes too. BUT IMHO the biggest problems in the game are:
* all planes are able to fly at very low speeds with full throttle.
* they are climbing too fast below stall speed.
* rudder on some planes (including Spit) too effective at high speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could very well be correct IvanoBulo, I wouldn't know, I'm a printer not a aeronautical engineer. All I can say is, the more I learn and understand about flight physics and the history of the Fw190, the more I appreciate Oleg's model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here here...I second that...one of the most intellegent things I've heard...Oleg, don't change a thing on the Fw...I love it the way it is!

I'm coming to the realization that the A-4,5 and 6 may be the most accurately modelled aircraft in the game based on what I know and have read about aircraft vs. how I use it in game to win or lose....the tactics that work irl seem to work in game. I can't say that about a lot of other aircraft. The engine still has limitations but it is still the best that I have experience.

MOH_NoXiuS
10-08-2005, 02:36 AM
Bump!

Jetbuff
10-08-2005, 02:59 AM
The Spit Vb / 190A-4 matchup is one of the few really pure E vs angles matchups in the game. They are very well balanced:

190 has roll, speed and climb advantage (above 400kph)
Spitfire has turn-rate, E-retention and climb advantage (below 400kph)

The clipped wing version does not have a serious roll disadvantage and narrows the speed gap considerably.

The are both well armed so whoever makes a mistake pays for it, dearly! The only catch is that, at least theoretically, only the 190 can decide when and where to fight because of the higher speed. Then again, isn't that why most fighters progressed to being faster rather than better turners throughout the war?

Dunno about how realistic their performance is, but the matchup in the game is certainly an interesting square-off of angles vs. E.

tigertalon
10-08-2005, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you assume things went this way because things go this way also in this sim, or do you know it was indeed like as you described? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
10-08-2005, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to buy into this so late, but I saw your post Stig, and had to comment. It wasn‚‚ā¨ôt just the vertical, it was roll as well. The AFDU reports an evasive maneuver for a FW to lose a pursuing Spit, where the FW would do a snap roll to port and pull into a level corner speed turn then, when the Spit has rolled to follow, continue the roll to port through another 170 odd degrees and pull into a diving turn to starboard. They said the Spit ‚‚ā¨" both MkV and MkIX were tested - had trouble maintaining contact through this maneuver even when they were expecting it, and no chance at all if taken by surprise.

This was one of the abilities that encouraged the FW drivers to stay and mix it with the Spits, and not just boom and zoom. With the Wurger, they were a lot more aggressive.

Ratsack

Ratsack
10-08-2005, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiglr:
Thank you, IceFire, it's good to know you can divorce the handle from the content.

I'd like to go back to that one statement buried a ways back that says a Spit can do a 180 with a loss of only 10mph. If that's true, it's totally bogus. But I've seen things like that happen, where a plane passes you at high speed nearly HO (but above you), turns around 180 (relatively flat turn, not a Split-S) and quickly catches up to you, when you had a little speed of your own and extended straight. There is just NO WAY that should happen from a headon pass. Either his turn would carry him fairly far off to one side (giving you an opportunity to turn away from that arc and extend), or the super hard break turn would eat up all his smash. At the very least, he would have to re-aaccelerate and crawl slowly up your six, provided you continue a straight or shallow climb extention. Unless the disparity between the planes' speeds was VERY great, this would not resolve itself within 10 - 15 seconds, because the 180 would close the speed gap such that the pursuing plane would not be able to make up the distance (both lateral and nose-to-tail) quickly.

But it happens all the time, due to this sim's inability to correctly simulate energy bleed and retention. I've even seen it in tracks, where planes momentarily appear to pivot about their CoG, their forward motion stopping for a few 10ths/seconds while they crank their noses around. The AI certainly does this, but I'm not altogether convinced that player planes can't pull this off at times, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about only 10 mph, but my recent experience of this is that I've managed to consistently surprise FW190 and Bf109 drivers while flying P51s and P38s. From a near head on (I usually maintain a little off angle to avoid getting the axe from a lucky shot), as soon as the other guy is past, I throttle back pull up as quickly as AoA will allow without the shakes, redline it again and pull over the top, popping combat flaps as the speed gets below corner.

Lately (I‚‚ā¨ôm getting better at it), the result has usually been one sorry Blue player who‚‚ā¨ôs either on fire or running for it with severe damage. Because the move is vertical, a lot of the speed reduction - which allows the quick change of direction - is going into potential energy (altitude) rather than bleeding off in a flat turn. There is no reason a Spit shouldn‚‚ā¨ôt be able to pull this off in a positively murderous fashion.

I don‚‚ā¨ôt see this as an energy-modeling problem. Although I agree with you that there seems to be some probs with the way some planes retain E, this scenario is not one of them.

Ratsack

PS ‚‚ā¨" from a personal perspective, being a fairly **** pilot, I love killing late model 109s in the P38. The buggers come on like like flies to sh1t expecting an easy kill, and before they know it they‚‚ā¨ôre defensive‚‚ā¨¬¶provided there aren‚‚ā¨ôt too many of them at once.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 05:24 AM
I think the game distorts the views somewhat. FW was manouverable all right. The latest FB patch before AEP got it quite well, the flat turn wasn't anything particular but manouvering was great. Now the stump buffeting with anything elevator related is back again. Well that's just IMO.

One of my favourite accounts is from Julius Meimberg's books (also one of my favourite books), he flew a mock dogfight against no lesser pilot than Egon Mayer:

"Am 6. September verlegen wir nach Poix, wo Assi Hahn mit seiner III./JG 2 stationiert ist. Ich habe ihn nicht mehr gesehen, seit er mich in Suresnes besuchte - ganz zu schweigen von meinem Kriegsschul-Kameraden und Freund Egon Mayer, der in Hahns Gruppe die 7. Staffel f√ľhrt. Es gibt gro√ües Hallo, als wir auf dem Fliegerhorst zusammentreffen.
"Na Jule", frotzelt Mayer, indem er einem absch√¬§tzigen Blick zu meiner Messerschmitt hin√ľberwirft, "haben sie dich wieder auf die Hundertneun gesetzt, weil du mit modernem Flugger√¬§t nicht so gut zurechtkommst?"
"Im Gegenteil, mein Lieber:dieser Vogel ist 'was f√ľr K√¬∂nner. Wer mit ihm richtig umzugehen wei√ü, wickelt jeden."
"Niemals."
"Wollen wir darauf wetten?"
"Mit der Hundertneun gegen die Focke-Wulf?"
"Ganz genau."
Assi Hahn st√¬∂√üt pfeifend die Luft durch die L√ľcke zwischen seinen Schneidez√¬§hnen. Was sich hier anbahnt, ist ganz nach seinem Geschmack.
"Also gut", grinst Egon Mayer, "dann la√ü es uns ausfliegen. Gleich hier √ľberm Platz."
Zehn Minuten sp√¬§ter rollen wir nebeneinander am Startpunkt in Position. Ein letzter Blickwechsel, ein Kopfnicken, die linken Daumen hochgereckt, und jeder schiebt seinen Leistungshebel zum Anschlag. Meyer zieht mir mit seiner Focke-Wulf davon und f√¬§hrt bereits sein Fahrwerk √ľber Platzgrenze ein, als ich noch vollauf damit besch√¬§ftigt bin, die Messerschmitt an ihren √ľblichen Gemeinheiten beim Start zu hindern. Endlich hebt sie ab. Fahrwerk ein, Klappen hoch. Noch nicht ziehen, einfach Bodenn√¬§he geradeaus - sie soll erst einmal Fahrt aufnehmen. Die Leistung lasse ich auf Vollgas stehen. Als das Flugzeug die 300 km/h - Marke √ľberfliegt, ziehe ich es gef√ľhlvoll ins Blaue hinauf, bis die beste Steiggeschwindigkeit erreicht ist.
Befreit von Panzerplatten, sonstigem schwerem R√ľstzeug und mit nur halbvollem Tank r√¬∂hrt die Messerschmitt wie eine Rakete in den Himmel. Egon Mayer, der Fuchs, ist nach S√ľdwesten in die Sonne geflogen und hat seine Focke-Wulf dort unter voller Leistung an die Latte geh√¬§ngt, aber meine Messerschmitt - √ľber eine Tonne leichter als seine Fw 190 - steigt mit gut 20 Metern in Sekund an ihm vorbei wie ein Fahrstuhl. Bald kann ich aus mehreren hundert Metern √Ňďberh√¬∂hung beobachten, wie er sich weiter abm√ľht, mir zu folgen. Ich lasse mich zwischen ihn und ide Sonne gleiten und schwinge zum ANgriff ab.
Wir liefern uns einen Kampf auf Biegen und Brechen, aus dem sich Momentaufnahmen f√ľr immer in mein Ged√¬§chtnis gebrannt haben. Das bullige Profil, der Focke-Wulf f√ľr Sekundbruchteile √ľber mir wie die Silhouette eines Habichts, der gleich die F√¬§nge in seine Beute schl√¬§gt; die engen Steigflugkurven und Turns, das Hochfauchen des Fahrtwindes in den Abschw√ľngen;die breite, platte Schnauze seines J√¬§gers hinter mir mit dem b√¬∂se aufblitzenden Zyklopenauge der Winschutzscheibe auf dem Rumpf; die d√ľnnen Kondensf√¬§den an den Randb√¬∂gen seiner Tragfl√¬§chen, wenn er mir gerade wieder entwischt; seine Anwehrbewegungen im Lichtk√¬§fig meines Reflexvisiers; die meisterlich Gerissenheit, mit der er sich aus dem Schlagabtausch l√¬∂st, sobald er nicht mehr im Vorteil ist, nur um unverz√ľglich aus einer besseren taktischen Position anzusetzen. Welch ein gro√ües Jagdfliegerherz schl√¬§gt in diesem z√¬§hen, quiligen Kerl! Wehe dem Gegner, der sich diesem ausgebufften K√¬∂nner stellen mu√ü! Wir beide, die sich vor nicht einmal drei Jahren noch in Doppeldeckern am wei√üblauen Himmel Oberbayerns balgten, sind in vielen Dutzenden von Luftk√¬§mpfen zu Raubtieren geworden, zu Experten f√ľr den schnellen Tod. Der rohe Darwinismus, das einzige Gesetz der Kanalfront, hat uns √ľbriggelassen - hart, kalt, schlau und berechnend, aggressiv und instinktgetrieben, und wir schenken uns nichts. In seltenen Augenblick ahnen wir wohl noch, da√ü es ein anderes Leben geben mag, allein: ein anderes √Ňďberleben gibt es f√ľr uns schon lange nicht mehr.
Als wir gelandet sind, ohne da√ü je einer von uns wirklich zum Schu√ü gekommen w√¬§re, sind wir am Ende unserer Kr√¬§fte. Ich kann mich nicht einmal mehr an der Bordwand hochzuziehen und die Kabine ohne Hilfe verlassen. Einige Meter neben mir nehme ich Egon Mayers zusammengesunkenen Oberk√¬∂rper in der Focke-Wulf wahr. Unentschieden.
"Herrschaften", bekennt Assi Hahn mit der Leidenschaft eines Hexenmeisters, der seinen Zauberlehrlingen gerade die Pr√¬∂fung abgenommen hat,"sowas habe ich noch nie gesehen. Nein - sowas habe ich wirklich noch nie gesehen..."

Now that's a description of close combat and it doesn't read that FW was no match. I try to translate it next.

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 06:10 AM
Translation:
"On 6th September we transfer to Poix, where Assi Hahn is placed with his III./JG 2. I haven't seen him since he visited me in Suresner - not to montion my old War Academy companion and friend Egon Mayer, whose leading 7th Wing. There a big Hallo as we see each other in the Base.
"Na, Jule", taunts Mayer, as he throws a loathing look at my Messerschmitt. "Have you put yourself back on 109 'cause you can not handle a modern aircraft so well?"
"Nope, friend: this bird is something for a knower. Someone who knows how to handle it is able to get anyone."
"Never."
"Want to bet?"
"With 109 against Focke-Wulf?"
"Exactly."
Assi Hahn is whistling between his teeth. This is developing into something quite to his liking.
"Allright then", Egon Mayer is grinning, "then let us fly that one. Right here, right over the field."
Ten minutes later we are taxiing to the starting point for a hold. Last exchange of looks, nod, the left thumbs raised and both move the throttle to the stop. Mayer is pulling away with his Focke-Wulf and is already retracting his landing gear at the edge of the field, as I am still fully occupied, keeping the usual meanness of Messerschmitt in the start in check. Finally she takes off. Landing gear up, flaps up. Not yet pull, first simply stay close to the ground - she should get some speed first. I let the throttle on full power. As I get over the 300 km/h mark, I pull up gently into the blue, until I reach the best climb speed.
Free from armour plate and other heavy equipment and with only half a tank of fuel, Messerschmitt is roaring like a rocket into the sky. Egon Mayer, the fox, has flown to the south-west ito the sun and has hung his Focke-Wulf with full power from the disc, but my Messerschmitt - over one ton lighter as his Fw 190 - is climbing over 20 m/s past him like in the elevator. Soon I can observe from a hundert meter altitude advantage, how he is troubling himself to follow me. I let myself slip between him and the sun and swing into the attack.
Wir deliver each other a fight, of bending and breaking, of which the snapshots are burnt forever in my recollections. The broad profile of the Focke-Wulf, momentarily above me like a silhoutte of a hawk, just about to strike its claws into the prey; the steep climbing curves and turns, the pick up the wind in the pendolums; the broad, stump nose of his fighter with the evil cyclop's eye of his windscreen; the think condense streams from his wingtips, as he is just able to slip from me again; his defensive manouvers in the light of my Revi; the masterful boldness, how he extends from the exchange, just as soon as he has no upper hand anymore, only to return immediately from a better tactical position. What a big heart of a fighter pilot is beating in this gutsy, restless guy. Pray for the opponent who has to face this master. We both, who no more than three years ago were still roughing in the Oberbayern skies with bi-planes, have become predators over the dozens of air combats, the experts of fast death. The raw darwinism, the only law on the channel front, has spared us - hard, cold, wise and calculating, aggressive and instinctive, and we give us nothing for free. In the seldom moments we note that there may exist another life, alone: another kind of survival doesn't exist anymore for us.
After we have landed, with neither of us really coming into the firing position, we are at the end of our strength. I can't even pull myself up from the cockpit framing and leave the cockpit without help. Some meters next to me I notice the slumbed, shrunken body of Egon Mayer in the cockpit of Focke-Wulf. Draw.
"Gentlemen", acknowledges Assi Hahn with the passion of the Master Wizard, who's just examined his apprentices, "Something like that I've never seen before. No - something like that I've never seen before..."

Jaws2002
10-09-2005, 08:59 AM
Great read. Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
10-09-2005, 10:01 AM
thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
canal front = france/the channel ?

AnaK774
10-09-2005, 10:06 AM
Yup Pingu

Kurfurst__
10-09-2005, 11:01 AM
A most fascinating read, Ugly Kid! Thank you, it was wonderful, really! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-09-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I let the throttle on full power. As I get over the 300 km/h mark, I pull up gently into the blue, until I reach the best climb speed.
Free from armour plate and other heavy equipment and with only half a tank of fuel, Messerschmitt is roaring like a rocket into the sky. Egon Mayer, the fox, has flown to the south-west ito the sun and has hung his Focke-Wulf with full power from the disc, but my Messerschmitt - over one ton lighter as his Fw 190 - is climbing over 20 m/s past him like in the elevator. Soon I can observe from a hundert meter altitude advantage, how he is troubling himself to follow me. I let myself slip between him and the sun and swing into the attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

soon tobe appearing quoted by kurfy in future threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 12:05 PM
My pleasure,

The book "Feindber√ľhrung" from Meimberg - don't know if it exists in English - is really a great read. Most captivating...It's great fun to read the opposite sides of the story, first Clostermann's or Johnsson's book and then Meimberg's book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - there are some conincidences.

rr9
10-09-2005, 01:21 PM
There's even a Finnish translation of this. "Viholliskosketus".

luftluuver
10-09-2005, 04:06 PM
The 109 (with 1/2 fuel load, equipment removed) must be an over-rated a/c, and the 190 (2000lb heavier) must be an under-rated a/c if the combat was a draw.

Vrabac
10-09-2005, 04:34 PM
Just looked at some of the first posts agian... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif "look at the *airquake dog server name* stats and you'll see..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif A very reliable way of matching planes.

FW190 is obvioulsy less than it should be,but IMHO it's being held back to make balance. Because as it is, victory against Spits is easy in group fights. Why? Because 190 doesn't give you a choice: Either you collaborate with others or you die. And teamwork will win most of the time, no matter the planes. With spit it's easy to become separated because of its obviously superior manouverability, but than you get bounced easily. If 190 would be superior, as it should be, it would be just rediculous in the game. So for the sake of the balance, I guess it was made weaker.

Think about it: You fly in-game 109. Beautiful plane, fast, agile, climbs well, difficult to stall... Than you get to evaluate 190 prototype... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif If the game would be RL, and I would be the one evaluating the prototype I'd say "My god, WTF is this? THIS is supposed to be serially produced 'FIGHTER'? Close this book and never open it ag..." Ehem. You see what i mean. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But against typical bunch of spits found on most of the dog servers (as mentioned) cereful 190, or even better a pair of 190s, can really rule the sky. Because mostly experienced guys pick it, and than work together and, imagine, they win against a horde of uncoordinated one-man airforces.

Skalgrim
10-16-2005, 08:42 AM
not right,

it was one of the best brits fighters Johnnie Johnson that could not match 190 pilots and only
through help from ships aaa could he survive

keep in the mind the 190 pilots was highest probable not ace like Johnnie Johnson, because just 1% was perhaps same skilled as Johnnie Johnson,

nevertheless this 190 pilots was superior for
Johnnie Johnson,

therefore i think it was maschine and not the pilots,


read his account, think some now where his account to find is



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiglr:
These are all situationally-tinged descriptions of pilots accounts of the 1942 Focke Wulf scourge.

Spit V pilots were being bounced by these speedy, slashing FW190s, who flew in from out of the sun, blasted a couple of people and either zoomed up and away, or kept going in a can't-be-followed dive, while the Spit pilots were trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

"More maneuverable" in this case considers the vertical, in which the FW190 shines. Spit pilots were finding the 190s could roll them out of pursuit plane and dive away to safety; or they could pull up into tight loops that the Spits couldn't follow; it would look for all the world that they were being "outmaneuvered" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
10-16-2005, 09:33 AM
rall had almost not westfront experience

spit with 1670ps turn out g6 1300ps sure

he means g6 1300ps against higher boost spits

109 with same powerload turn similar and at very low speed better as spits

from many account from westfront 109 fighter , one eastfront 109 pilots count more as many westfront 109 pilots,

think not then they had fight from beginning up to the end the spits







<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Isegrim/Kurfurst

Once again you are trotting out the same old sources of disinformation we have seen MANY times before. And which have been proven incorrect as many times.

Let's start with turns Spit I vs 109E

Here are excerpts from British tests:

(all of these are from the 4th Fighter Group website, courtesy Mike Williams:

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

Quote:

Turning:- The RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment, testing unit) determined in Report No. B.A.1640 that "The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire." and that the cooresponding time to turn through 360 deg is 25 seconds for the Me 109 and 19 seconds for the Spitfire. (See also Me 109 and Spitfire. Comparison of Turning Circles and Spitfire and Me 109 Diagrams of Turning). 60 years later Dr. John Ackroyd, PhD, C.Eng, FRAeS of the Aerospace Division, Manchester School of Engineering, University of Manchester, and Fellow of The Royal Aeronautical Society, took a fresh look at this subject in his paper "Comparison of turning radii for four Battle of Britain fighter aircraft". He calculated the minimum turn radii to be 686 feet for the Spitfire IA versus 853 feet for the BF 109 E-3 - which is in very good agreement with the RAE's findings.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

Another table:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif

Now practical experience from the British, (first) then German pilots:

Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience whilst flying with No. 65 Squadron:

Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000 ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly in turning circle. (...) One engagement with several Me 109s at about 25,000 ft over the Channel sticks in my memory. It all happened very suddenly; in fact we were mildly 'bounced' and soon I found myself behind two 109s in a steep left-hand turn. I was able to turn inside the second one and fired at him from close range. He went on pulling round as sharply as he could. I followed him without any difficulty and went on firing bursts at him. There were puffs of black smoke and then a trail of white vapour streamed from his aircraft. By this time I could no longer see the first 109 and then realized that he was on my tail. As I was by now just shuddering on the verge of a g-stall, I quickly turned inwards and dived. I pulled up again when I was sure I had shaken him off... I was pleased with that little episode ‚‚ā¨" partly because I was **** sure that the first 109 was not going to get home and also because I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all heights. 23
F/Lt Al Deere, with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, commented:

My experience over Dunkirk had taught me that when attacked the best counter was to go into a right turn. In this manoeuvre, the Spitfire was infinitely superior to the Messerschmitt, and so long as one remained in the turn, the enemy pilot could not bring his guns to bear. And this I did, as the German pilot flashed past, turning as he did so to get behind me. But it was I who finished astern of him. The rest was easy. 24
P/O Art Donahue, an American serving with No 64 Squadron, described his 8 August combat with a Me 109:

Then one got on my tail and gave me a burst just as I saw him, and I laid over into a vertical turn; and as he did likewise, following me, I hauled my Spitfire around as tight as I could. We were going fast and I had to lean foward and hold my breath to keep from blacking out, and I turned this way for several seconds. Then I eased my turn so that I could straighten up and look out my cockpit, and I spotted the other in front of me. I had turned around on his tail now. He apparently became aware of it at the same time, for he abandoned his turn and took to flight; but he was a little late now. 25
S/L Brian Lane, of No. 19 Squadron, got into a tight turning fight with an Me 109 on 15 September 1940:

That German pilot certainly knew how to a handle a 109 - I have never seen one thrown about as that one was, I felt certain that his wings would come off at any moment. However, they stayed on, and he continued to lead me a hell of a dance as I strove to get my sights on him again. Twice I managed to get in a short burst but I don't think I hit him, then he managed to get round towards my tail. Pulling hard round I started to gain on him, and began to come round towards his tail. He was obviously turning as tightly as his kite could and I could see that his slots were open, showing he was nearly stalled. His ailerons were obviously snatching too, as first one wing and then the other would dip violently. Giving the Spitfire best, he suddenly flung out of the turn and rolled right over on his back passing in front of me inverted. ...he flew on inverted for several seconds, giving me the chance to get in a good burst from the quarter. 26
F/S George Unwin, also of No. 19 Squadron, had a close call on 15 September remarking:

I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure.
Geoffrey Wellum of No 92 Squadron found himself in quite a fix after expending all his ammunition shooting down an HE-111:

I've behaved like a beginner, bounced from behind. My own fault, shouldn't have relaxed after I'd finished with that bloody Heinkel. Elementary rule number one: never relax vigilance. I asked for it and got caught napping, well and truly bounced...
Looking back over my shoulder, an Me 109 is sitting on my tail not thirty yards away, or so it seems, and turning with me. I see the flash from his cannons and puffs of greyish smoke as he tries a quick burst. Not a bad one either as I hear more hits somewhere behind the fuselage.

The German pilot is trying to tighten his turn still more to keep up with me and I'm sure I see the 109 flick. You won't do it, mate, we're on the limit as it is. I can see his head quite clearly and even the dark shape of his oxygen mask. Yet again I imagine that the 109 gives a distinct flick, on the point of a high speed stall. He has to ease his turn a fraction. The Spitfire gains slowly. I exalt and yell at him. Sweat starts to get into my eyes...

The 109 finally comes out of his turn and pulls up, trying to gain height on me. As he climbs he goes into another steep turn, very steep, well over the vertical. I look up at him but he has made his effort and failed. I've gained too much and now I'm more behind him than he is behind me...

If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control. However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you.

P/O Colin Gray (later Group Captain) of No. 54 Squadron reflected:

The problem of manoeuvrability was of prime importance in enabling one to turn inside the enemy, certainly in fighter versus fighter combats, and thus to get a shot in when on attack, or avoid being shot down when on the defensive - and here the British aircraft had a decided advantage in my experience. 28
F/O Hugh Dundas, with No. 616 during the Battle, wrote:

In one vital aspect the ME109 was at a disadvantage against the British airplanes. It could be out-turned both by the Spitfire and the Hurricane. This was a serious handicap to the Luftwaffe pilots allotted the duty of providing close escort for the bombers. Their freedom of action was curtailed. They could not pursue the tactic, best suited to their planes, of a high-speed attack followed by dive and zoom. They had to stick around and fight it out; and that involved the matching of turning circles. They never found a way round that problem and their difficulties were made all the greater when Goering, infuriated by the losses inflicted on his bombers, ordered the fighter squadrons to cling ever closer to the bombers they were escorting. 29
Roll Rate:- The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."



Elevator:- The BF 109E flight handbook states: "Die H√¬∂henruderkr√¬§fte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr gro√ü." 31 (The elevator forces and fin loads become very large during high speed). The RAE also found the 109's elevators to be heavy: "Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive."32 It was found that the Spitfire pilots were able to evade Me 109's by "doing a flick roll and then quickly pulling out of the subsequent dive", and "if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable".

F/Sgt. Tew, of No 54 Squadron, put this tactic to good use, being credited with 1 Me. 109 destroyed without firing a shot:

During Patrol at approximately 1300 hours on 18/8/40 I was attacked by one Me 109 when I was at 2,000 feet. I turned towards enemy aircraft in a diving turn. Enemy aircraft half-rolled and followed me. I pulled out of dive at low altitude but enemy aircraft continued his dive and struck the ground bursting into flames. 34
The Spitfire on the other hand was known to have a sensitive elevator control, perhaps a bit too sensitive.

Aerobatics:- The RAE's view on the Me 109E's aerobatic capablity:

Aerobatics are not easy on this aeroplane. Loops must be started from 280 m.p.h. when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a marked tendency for the slots to open near the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction, and in consequence accurate looping is almost impossible.
At speeds below 250 m.p.h, when the ailerons are light and very effective, the aeroplane can be rolled very quickly, but there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall in the final stages of the roll, and the stick must be moved well back in order to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls are difficult; the elevator is so heavy at high speed that only a gentle pull-out from the preliminary dive is possible, and a considerable loss of speed is thus inevitable before the upward rolls can be started. 35

The Spitfire I's Pilot's Notes states:

This aeroplane is exceptionally good for aerobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising r.p.m. should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation might occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing of II.JG/51 observed in a letter to home written 17 August 1940:

During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few.

Leutnant Max-Hellmuth Ostermann of 7./JG 54 wrote in his diary for 31 August 1940:

Utter exhaustion from the English operations has set in. Once more I lost contact with my squadron. The Spitfires showed themselves wonderfully manoeuvrable. Their aerobatics display - looping and rolling, opening fire in a climbing roll - filled us with amazement. I did no shooting but kept trying to get into position, meanwhile keeping a sharp watch on my tail.

S/Ldr. Leathart of No 54 Squadron put the Spit's capabilities, as well as his own, to use on 2/9/40 when he "played a game" with the Me 109s:

I was caught at a disadvantage about 4/5,000 feet below two squadrons of Me 109's. I decided that the best thing to do would be to act as a decoy. I harassed them and weaved among them and ended up getting them about 20 miles away from the aerodrome and North of Rochford.

Major Werner M√¬∂lders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full. 39
Fortunately for Spitfire pilots, the two-pitch propeller was not representative of the condition of their aircraft during the Battle of Britain. New production Spitfires were delivered with constant speed propellers beginning in December 1939 and those older Spitfires with two pitch propellers underwent a crash program in June 1940 to have constant speed units retrofitted. 40 41 Another modification to the Spitfires undertaken just prior to the Battle which proved to be of immense value to its pilots was the addition of armour plating behind the pilot's seat. 42 Without doubt the Daimler-Benz performed better than the Merlin under negative 'g', however, it was not without its own limitations: Motor und Triebwerksanlage des Flugzeuges sind nicht zur Durchf√ľhrung von r√ľckenfl√ľgen geeignet. Hingegen ist Motor und Triebwerksanlage geeignet f√ľr Kunstflug in jeder anderen Form, wo nur ganz kurzzeitige R√ľckenlagen in Verbindung mit anderen Flugfiguren verkommen. Had the Rechlin test used the 100 octane fuel available to the British and had the tested Spitfire incorporated the latest improvements, M√¬∂lders would have seen the British fighters to be much more formidable opponents than those faced during the Battle for France. Given that M√¬∂lders was injured when his 109 was shot up by a Spitfire on 28 July 1940, and his plea to G√¬∂ring in August for "a series of ME-109s with more powerful engines", 43 its likely he held revised views of the Spitfire after the Battle of Britain.

Oberleutnant Gerhard Sch√¬∂pfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:

It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could. Also I felt that the Messerschmitt was not so strong as the British fighters and could not take so much punishment.

Oblt Hans Schmiller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:

My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerschmitt 109 was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar with the Spitfire from the start. That was my first and lasting impression. But with my experience with the 109, I personally would not have traded it for a Spitfire. It gave the impression, though I did not fly the Spitfire long enough to prove it, that the 109 was the faster especially in the dive. Also I think the pilot's view was better from the 109. In the Spitfire one flew further back, a bit more over the wing.

For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low. The cannon had greater range than the machine guns. But we were always told that in a dogfight one could not hope to hit anything at ranges greater than 50 metres, it was necessary to close in to short range.

G√ľnther Rall, who served with III./JG 52 during the Battle of Britain, reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of the adversaries at that time:

The elliptical wings of the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb. On the other hand they could stall during inverted maneuvers, cutting off the fuel because the force of gravity prevented the flow of fuel. But they were still a highly respected enemy. In contrast, our Bf 109s had shortcomings. I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visability. Fighter pilots need a good all-round field of vision and we didn't have it.

Adolf Galland wrote of the matchup: "the ME-109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more manueuverable" and in a fit of frustration uttered the famous passage to G√¬∂ring "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my Squadron".

The conclusions of the RAF, beginning with the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE):

Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle. 50

The Aeroplane and Armament Establishment at Boscombe Down reached a similar conclusion:

In general flying qualities the aeroplane is inferior to both the Spitfire and the Hurricane at all speeds and in all conditions of flight. It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns. No difference was experienced between climbing turns to the right and left. It does not possess the control which allows of good quality flying and this is particularly noticeable in acrobatics. 51
Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot for Supermarine, compared the Me 109E to the Spitfire I as follows:

My experience in fighting against the BF. 109 E in a Spitfire Mk. I was mostly around or above 20,000 feet and led me to the conclusion that the Spitfire was slightly superior both in speed and rate of climb, that is was a more 'slippery' or lower drag aeroplane, and that it was outstandingly better in turning circle.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat. 53

F/L Robert Stanford Tuck, who had an opportunity to fly a captured Me 109 E3 in May 1940, had a rather more positive view of the 109 stating: "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane - not as maneuverable as the Spit mind you, nor as nice to handle near the ground", giving high marks to the 109's higher rudder pedals and agreeing with M√¬∂lders that the the 109 had an advantage in that "our Merlin engines couldn't stand up to negative 'G' whereas the Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz seemed quite unaffected".

P/O H.R. "Dizzy" Allen (later Wing Commander) of No. 66 Squadron, echoing Tuck, wrote of the matchup with an eye on tactical doctrine:

We were better at dogfighting than the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe, but only because both the Spitfire and Hurricane were more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitts 109 and 110. In fact, dog-fighting ability was not all that important during the war. Fighter attacks were hit-or-miss affairs on average. Either you dived with the sun behind you and caught him napping, or he did that to you. I occasionally had to mix it in dog-fights with German fighter pilots, and either I would shoot them down or they would shoot me down, or I would lose sight of them because thier camouflage was better than mine. The reason we were more manoeuvrable than them was because the Me-109 had a higher wing loading than our fighters. This gave us advantages, but they also had certain benefits. We had no idea that the Daimler-Benz engines in the 109s were fuelled by direct-injection methods. Our carburettors were a definate handicap. The Germans could push down the nose of their fighters, scream into a vertical dive, as if beginning a bunt, and accelerate like made away from us. When we tried that tactic, our carburettors would flood under negative gee, and our engines would stall momentarily - as they frequently did - which lost us all-important seconds during the engagments.

Alan Deere, who served with No. 54 Squadron during the Battle of Britain, summed it up:

Undoubtedly, the 109 in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn, but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces. Overall there was little to choose between the two fighters.

In regards to Issy's suggestion that the British pilots were not using the slats because they were inexperienced:

Here is another quote from Gunther Rall the 3rd leading scorer for the Luftwaffe during the war. We have already heard him clearly say that the Spitfire outturned the 109, now here in this excerpt are his comments on the usefulness of the slats during combat turns:

(It is taken from the interview done by Finnish enthusiasts and is posted at their sitehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

A: Ja. I will tell you the weakness, and I think,
really, Messershmidt will forgive me. &lt;Laughter from
audience&gt;.
The 109 had not for us, maybe not for the long time
pilots of the 109, but the new comers had problems
starting with the gear. You know it was a high, narrow
gear. And we had many ground loops. And then the gear
breaks. That is not a norm, this is a exception, but it
anyway happens. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow,
VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between
your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? And
the visibility in the back was very poor. Later on they
made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But
they cut off the side through the back. You know?
Because we had this steel plate, here.
Then the starting system, as I mentioned, this was
absolutely obsolete, you know? In an area with
temperatures minus 30 degrees or more. And then, which
I didn't like this feature, the slots, Ja? Why slots?
Look at the wing of the Spitfire! Thats what we call
elliptical shaped. Its beautiful elope on the wing, the
Spitfire. We don't need lift help until takeoff and
landing. You know? We can make it with a little bigger
wing. So I mean, but, when you fly five and a half years
in that plane in all conditions, you feel at home, even
(laughing) if you have to leave it for some emergency
reasons. &lt;audience laughter&gt;

Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned
they pop open uneven?
A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to
increase the lift during low speed take off and landing.
To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air,
if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot
might get out. You can correct it immediately by
release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht,
its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if
you know it, you prevent it.
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all. I mean, its also a matter of experience of
the pilot, you know?

Quite clearly, Rall is stating that the slats were useless in combat, and inhibited the turn circles and ability to turn.

Now in regards to Isegrim/Kurfy's disinformation in suggesting the 109E used in the tests was 'damaged':

In fact, it was in perfect condition, landed by the German pilot safely with no damage.

On 22 November, 1939, Fw Karl Hier of 1./JG76 landed near Woerth, Bas-Rhin, some 12 miles on the French side of the border. This machine, Bf109E3, white 1, W.nr.1304, was first test-flown by the French at Orleans-Bricy and later turned over to the British, where it became AE479.

Photographed where it landed:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/109fr-2x.jpg

In British markings:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/109fr-5x.jpg

This was one of many 109E's captured and tested by the British. Another one, Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.4101 shown here:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/dg200.jpg

Additionally, the test pilots for these aircraft were part of a dedicated team who did nothing but fly German aircraft. These were members of ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT. They were not inexperienced on these aircraft, in fact they probably flew more varied types of German aircraft than the average Luftwaffe pilot did. They were also all test pilots, with all the knowledge and skill required to be accepted in that role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauker
10-17-2005, 02:16 PM
Hi all,
it is very interesting to read all the posts and parts from books about the different planes on all sides of the last WW. I guess, we all should pay our highest respect to all the pilots who defend their home-country and payed with their lives - no matter on witch side they took their stand. Maybe before their first take off some of them was noobs, but after they was airborne, they all was brave men in their mighty planes and what they did was honourable for them, because they believed it and they payed a very high price for it. They didn‚¬īt discussed a DM or FM - they followed their orders!
After the war was lost for germany, not only the gouvernment was changed, the whole way of live has to turn! This is what the whole world wants to make clear to the germans. So how can a realistic FS take place on the common market without being banned for the reason " Nazi-Propaganda " or gloryfying the 3.Reich?
On the other hand, how can a FS realise the balance between superior planes
( http://www.luft46.com )on one side with short ressources with countless planes on the other side? Now, 60 years after the war end, you can hear voices who claims, that there is no wing desing in modern planes the germans didn‚¬īt tested it already during the last war. No doubt, that there was a great technical advantage in the nazi-reich and for god thank no ressources to realise all that projects. But it was the same as with the "Panzerwaffe": Superior, but far not enough! It is fact, that there was no gun on the allied side to penetrate the armour of an "kingtiger" or "jagdtiger" from the front side during the whole war. Allied officials hint reports when heavy german tanks was shown up on the battlefield and ordered only an attack when there was a balance from 5:1! But back to the 190 vs. spits! Who from us tested these planes in reality? Nobody! And who can proof, what is a real testing report and what is propaganda? Nobody, because the "propaganda-weapon" was used on both sides and btw is still in use!!
Nobody can claim, that he can proof the real flight abilitys because the documents are locked in archives in the states till 2060 since the "operation paperclip"! So the best thing is just to enjoy that flightsim and have fun. And if somebody is not satisfied with it, nobody is forced to use it!

Browning50cal
10-28-2005, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pauker:
Hi all,
it is very interesting to read all the posts and parts from books about the different planes on all sides of the last WW. I guess, we all should pay our highest respect to all the pilots who defend their home-country and payed with their lives - no matter on witch side they took their stand. Maybe before their first take off some of them was noobs, but after they was airborne, they all was brave men in their mighty planes and what they did was honourable for them, because they believed it and they payed a very high price for it. They didn‚¬īt discussed a DM or FM - they followed their orders!
After the war was lost for germany, not only the gouvernment was changed, the whole way of live has to turn! This is what the whole world wants to make clear to the germans. So how can a realistic FS take place on the common market without being banned for the reason " Nazi-Propaganda " or gloryfying the 3.Reich?
On the other hand, how can a FS realise the balance between superior planes
( http://www.luft46.com )on one side with short ressources with countless planes on the other side? Now, 60 years after the war end, you can hear voices who claims, that there is no wing desing in modern planes the germans didn‚¬īt tested it already during the last war. No doubt, that there was a great technical advantage in the nazi-reich and for god thank no ressources to realise all that projects. But it was the same as with the "Panzerwaffe": Superior, but far not enough! It is fact, that there was no gun on the allied side to penetrate the armour of an "kingtiger" or "jagdtiger" from the front side during the whole war. Allied officials hint reports when heavy german tanks was shown up on the battlefield and ordered only an attack when there was a balance from 5:1! But back to the 190 vs. spits! Who from us tested these planes in reality? Nobody! And who can proof, what is a real testing report and what is propaganda? Nobody, because the "propaganda-weapon" was used on both sides and btw is still in use!!
Nobody can claim, that he can proof the real flight abilitys because the documents are locked in archives in the states till 2060 since the "operation paperclip"! So the best thing is just to enjoy that flightsim and have fun. And if somebody is not satisfied with it, nobody is forced to use it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to agree with this post more than any post I've read in this thread so far. It's not quite the same, but I just shot down an A6M5 in My P-38L at low altitude in a turning battle. I used to have lots of problems with zeros. Then I read a book from the Viet Nam period about how F-4 pilots defeated MiG-17s in manoever battles. Now it is easy. Energy wins. The slow one dies.

BlackStar2000
10-28-2005, 11:28 AM
USING THE SAME SOURCR

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/#myths

Case: Bf.109E
RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html
Messerschmitt Me (sic) 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests, M.B. Morgan and D.E. Morris, Communicated by the Principal Director of Scientific Research - Air, Reports and Memoranda No. 2361, Great Britain, September 1940. (Probably also using data from RAE Jan 1941 testing).
Comparitive Trials between Me109E and British Fighter Aircraft, RAE (?), 14 August 1941
Here we have two interesting reports. They're actually a 1941 report from tests conducted in September of 1940 from an aircraft that was captured by the French in 1939 (see next chapter). At the time the tests were conducted in 1940, they didn't have oxygen bottles for the 109, so test could only be done at low to medium altitude, where they thought combat would take place anyway. At these altitudes the result was indeed that both the Spitfire and Hurricane could out-turn the Bf109, and this was reported to the squadrons, whose pilots would have reacted in combat according to this perceived strength. Later, well after the Battle was over, testing at higher, "combat" altitudes showed the opposite to be true at these heights.
There is even more confusion. The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1. So what have they tested? E-1? E-3? E-4? Did they test one of the crash landed, damaged planes? So we got major confusion with the tested plane. Also, Bf 109 E-3 WNr. 1304 (RAF AE 479) was at one point crash landed, among other things, and it received a new tail section from a Bf 109 E-4 WNr. 1980.

CHECK ALSO

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=31&L=1 (http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=31&amp;L=1)