PDA

View Full Version : <<< Spitfire turn times II>>>



TheGozr
07-10-2006, 12:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4431000164

It is scandalous to lock a thread talking about this over-modelism of the Spitfire. SO please keep it going.

WWMaxGunz
07-10-2006, 01:31 PM
I see a lot of You asking for data and telling that the sim is wrong like you have data.
For what you show it is not the same planes, not all Spit VB's were the same for example.
First ones out were not as good as less than one year later, same designation.

Just admit you can't stand the 25lb boost Spit and all Spitfires are that one now.

TheGozr
07-10-2006, 01:49 PM
FYI Guns, it's good for all planes with years and models.
I'm asking for some real data showing the spits turning horizontal performances like in the game since we have a lots of SPits connoisseurs..
I've seen a lots of reflections or thoughts but no one did come out with some real data on scans showing the exeptionel horizontal turning capability of the Spits wich was a great plane in RL but not as the game represent them. I am not an expert in SPitfire far from it but i know well an other plane to compare too.

faustnik
07-10-2006, 02:15 PM
The only data I know of that tried to quantify turn times was the Soviet "TSAGI" data. I sent an email to Mike Williams looking for more data, so, if anybody can come up with more, he can.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/spitruss_turn.jpg

I also have this here from a Mushroom Models book on the P-39:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/LendLeaseACdata.jpg

So, according to this data the turn time for the Spit IX Merlin 66 +18 is 17.5-18.5 seconds.

According to IL-2 Compare the turn time for the Spit IX in PF is 18.3 seconds:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitIXturn.jpg

This looks very accurate.

The Spit IX at +25 in PF drops the best sustained turn time to 17 seconds. This makes sense, as the +25 is producing significantly more power than the +18 version, at the same weight.

So, for the Spit IX, turn times look to modeled very accurately in PF.

TheGozr
07-10-2006, 02:39 PM
Well i have to correct this. Spit9 25 drop at 16.77 sec and the Spit 9LF-9C @ 17.9 secs. during the flight after loosing some weight the planes goes even lower http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/doc/spit25_lf9c.jpg

But like i said earlier in the other post the 9C's are the most closer to correct of what the best Spit shoould turn at max. You can see in the images.

Also can someone explain this to me...?
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/doc/Spit25_vs_yak3.jpg

hop2002
07-10-2006, 03:27 PM
The Tsagi figures are for a Spitfire LF IXE (the E is slightly heavier than the C), and the wing area figures suggest a clipped wing model. The full span C wing aircraft should turn better. So the Spitfire IX times look to be pretty much spot on.


Also can someone explain this to me...?

It looks like the Spitfire LF IX at 25 lbs boost turns better than the Yak 3, and is faster, at 1,000 m.

Is there something wrong with that?

TheGozr
07-10-2006, 03:48 PM
hop2002
yes something very wrong with that..

faustnik
07-10-2006, 03:52 PM
I think the problem is the Yak-3 is undermodeled in turn time, at least according to TSAGI data. The TSAGI data has 17 seconds for the Yak-3.

TheGozr
07-10-2006, 04:06 PM
Same with the 9U and others but this is not the subject on this post, but clearly there is a problem that should be corrected for the newer release. SOmething more exact should make the game closer to a sim that we all hope for. There is many inaccuracies on the FM or performances, retaining energy, acceleration, dive ( US aircrafts ALL incorrect ) etc.. but i don't think this will be corrected for the always same reason of the engine limitation but at list we could have a more exact turn times or climbs rates.

JtD
07-11-2006, 08:42 AM
Spitfire IXC Merlin 66 CW @ 18lbs as tested by TSAGI in real life: 18.5 seconds for a sustained 360 @ 1000m.

Spitfire IXC Merlin 66 CW @ 18lbs as tested by me in game: 19.5 seconds for a sustained 360 @ 1000m.

Spitfire turn is not overmodelled.

WWMaxGunz
07-11-2006, 11:25 AM
Asking for data is good.

The Spitfires sent to Russia, were they new and later-run or used and early-run?
I think that Oleg would take into consideration. Also he has posted about taking best data
for all but Russian planes and maybe with Yak turning it is showing.

For Spitfire 25lb turns, if the weight is not much more then the extra power at full boost
should make faster sustained turns as greater thrust means ability to maintain higher G's
throughout. Just be glad there are no Spit 14's and later! And this in a sim with 109K-4
and 45 FW Dora, no end of war US planes and best data Japanese super fighter, Russian planes
not to the best specs, and still people accuse him of making Russian planes Uber. Some
people just can't stand to lose and will tell you 1000 reasons why.

Look at the models for FW-190D-9. We have two. They are different. So should I haul out a
chart with label FW-190D-9 and say which model is 'wrong'? Same with Spitfire V's, later ones
with same designation were still better.

Things you can do at this time:
-------------------------------------------
1) Don't play on servers with Spitfires.
2) Force the Spits to higher speeds.
3) Get a wingmate to fly 500m behind you. No matter how hard the target turns the wingmate
will only have to turn a little and have a great deflection shot. Hmmm, get a wingmate who
does not have to sit behind the target while going in circles for that!

Maybe Oleg will look at the actual file data one last time, or have someone check against
original numbers written down. Or maybe the process is proofed against that but after the
ammo switch for 151/20 I would not be so sure. It is not like turn time is a value stored,
it is the result of running the FM engine on deeper data. So maybe to get within a second
or so on turn and still not far off on climb and speed is really a lot of work and tests?
Would you bet on that?

TheGozr
07-11-2006, 11:44 AM
Waaoo thank you to remind me to test it and my results are incredible, i don't know how you get those number but i got under 16" -360 @1000m at recommended speed

Spitfire is Horizontaly Overmodelled... period .. and get some new sticks settings! I'll be glad to help.

Thx
===
PS: I like the Spits but alas it make no challenge what so ever to down an ennemy with it and those numbers just kill the sim to me. The only challenge it can get are one or 2 A6m's zero model...

JtD
07-11-2006, 12:37 PM
You were not flying the Spit IXC Merlin 66 CW @ 18 lbs boost.

Unless you start comparing data of the same planes you will get nowhere, really. I could very well claim the I-16 turns to well in game and point to some Focke Wulf 190 data. Same thing.

TheGozr
07-11-2006, 12:40 PM
Yes I was.

But please all data from incorrect spec are all welcome i think.
I can give you a litle hint as well it's about the la7 turn it's just a bit too good and others things. stalls speeds are wrong on many yaks for example the acceleration are all wrong and well under modelled in yaks, the US/ some Axis aircrafts energy all undermodelled, dive forces/weights as well.. but i concidere this as an engine game limit.. but the turns should be corrected, speeds, climbs those are basics settings of data, this is an other long story and not for today's post

JtD
07-11-2006, 01:18 PM
What time do you get if you use the 25lbs Spit in the same test? Like 12 seconds?

And are you talking about 405? Just to make sure... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
07-11-2006, 01:25 PM
Should bring this to CWOS where we can have a real debate.

WWMaxGunz
07-11-2006, 02:07 PM
Track... devicelink... log... if it's straight then send to 1C and post here.

p1ngu666
07-11-2006, 04:11 PM
right, to try and get things straight

the LF Ix's at 18lb boost seem fine, yes?

the 25lb boost one can turn tighter, thats what a extra 300hp does http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the yaks are wrong.

ofcourse u could suggest sticking a extra 2 seoonds onto spitfire turn time. please alot of lw jocks, being able to outturn spits..

if theres a problem with the yaks, then the yaks should be fixed, and not every other plane (or just selected planes) get nurfed to a similer amount..

TheGozr
07-11-2006, 04:18 PM
JtD 14's 15...
You are all invited to make those tests it is all in Fun but what more can i say.?

Brain32
07-11-2006, 04:38 PM
I like the Spits but alas it make no challenge what so ever to down an ennemy with it and those numbers just kill the sim to me.
Couldn't say it better myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ofcourse u could suggest sticking a extra 2 seoonds onto spitfire turn time. please alot of lw jocks, being able to outturn spits..
Current difference is far, far, greater than 2secs, Spits would still outturn everything German easily. Only thing that would be different is that E state would mean something to the Spit pilot and to it's attacker, currently it's not like that...

VFS-22_SPaRX
07-11-2006, 05:36 PM
http://www.war-clouds.com/screenshots/ntrk.gif

Daiichidoku
07-11-2006, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Spits would still outturn everything German easily.

including magic 109G2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

TheGozr
07-11-2006, 06:42 PM
Daii.. yes ofcourse you anderstand that we are talking about Horizontal manouver. With the G2 is a different matter.

WWMaxGunz
07-11-2006, 07:44 PM
Track... devicelink... log... ?

Xiolablu3
07-11-2006, 08:29 PM
The last thread was going well, it was closed because of that idiot Protos posting a load of cr*p and it was about to turn into a flame war thanks to his ridiculous post about the community 'not appreciating competition class virtual pilots'

No mate, you are wrong about that, they just dont appreciate d*ckheads, thats all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As long as this one is kept civil and free of ridiculous posts like his, I dont think this one will be locked.

Badsight-
07-12-2006, 12:00 AM
you know if Protos shows up the discussion is already doomed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Well i have to correct this. correct it with what ?

you dont have a nrmal il2compare version - even if you did everybody knows il2compare isnt showing what humans can do

i can bank the Yak-3 thru a 360 turn faster than 19.5 seconds

your argument , as per usual is a house of cards

Badsight-
07-12-2006, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
yes something very wrong with that.. like what ?

we have a 18.5 second turn from a possible clipped wing Mk9

the 25lbs Mk9 is just about 2000 Hp - this is nearly 300 Hp more - if you think the 25lbs boost Spitfire shouldnt turn better then you havent a clue

the Yak-3 was a low-powered small wing fighter - its best turn time of over 17 seconds is optimistic to say the least (especially considering the higher powerload , larger wing La-7 turn time)

face it - the boosted Mk9 Spit is showing the benefits of higher powerload/full wing

Originally posted by JtD:
What time do you get if you use the 25lbs Spit in the same test? Like 12 seconds? he is talking fastest turn - not sustained (16 seconds)

17 seconds for the Yak-3 would not be sustained either - not at that low powerload .

Tusseladden
07-12-2006, 12:40 AM
Jeeze guys, some of you need to calm down. How did you think WWII pilots could down planes that were far beyond superior to their own? Pilot skill, and aircombat experience. Know your enemy's weakness, and know your advantages.

I simply will not complain on the FM's of certain aircraft, and if you guys start pointing out ONE aircraft, why not bring the rest with you? Sounds like whining to me cause your favorite aircraft is being owned by some lucky or skilled spitfire pilots. Try other servers with other planes and see how well you do against yaks or mustangs.

Its only a matter of time before one of those planes gets accused too.

Personally I think this is a great sim with far more planes than you could dream of for a sim, it's hard to keep them all 100% realistic when you add new planes and FM's all the time. But man, 1 or 2 seconds turntime difference? maybe only a half? Honestly...

TheGozr
07-12-2006, 01:02 AM
Yes badsight you are surely right i have no clue... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
During a flight the pilots skills, experiences and body skills is the most important in combat or hard manouvers Tuss you got the point yes.
There is nothing to do with servers or different kind of planes but just a quest for more exact data from RL to Ingame. To make the Ingame planes react as the real ones is a very difficult task. What is very difficult is to test a plane with out real forces and trying to simulate it. if someone come with some different views or infos about any plane why not they are all welcome to do so, it's the beauty of it. Maybe they are wrong maybe not or maybe the are different models/year/month/factory etc...

Badsight a plane turning faculty is not only on wing load and power. One of this days when you will be ready to listen and test i may explain this to you with my poor english.

anarchy52
07-12-2006, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Badsight a plane turning faculty is not only on wing load and power.

True, but two dominant and most easily understood parameters are wingloading and power/weight.

Concerning Yak-3, the main goal of the design was climb, acceleration and speed (consider it a lighter, clipped-wing yak-9). According to pilot's comments(Yugoslav AF had both Spitfires and various Yaks) Yak-3 was a "complicated" aircraft to fly. It was prone to stall even at very high speed, required a lot of manual work by the pilot and was markedly inferior to both the MkV and MkIX in horizontal manuevers. It excelled however in climb and vertical manuevers and easily outperformed Spit (at low to mid alts of course).

Badsight-
07-12-2006, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Badsight a plane turning faculty is not only on wing load and power. & i will never say only they matter either Gozr

but the 25lbs Spitfire has an extra 250+ Hp , that will help its Sustained turn time greatly - the boosted Mk9 Spit turning better than the normal Mk9 isnt wrong

wojtek_m
07-12-2006, 06:04 AM
Hey TheGozr, why do you claim something, especially basing it on il2compare, which is known not to be an exact source, without testing it by yourself? How much time did you spend to "spam" this forum with this? You need something like 5 min for an sustained turn test for 1 aircraft... Here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5311025283/p/1) you will find some sustained turn rate tests I made for the version 4.02 - I don't think much has changed since then in this regard (, but you can test it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) For the Yak3 I've got an average sustained turn rate of 17.2 sec/turn - which seems to be spot on.

regards,

Wojtek

WWMaxGunz
07-12-2006, 06:38 AM
I believe that Gozr has run his own tests though I'd like to see ntrks.

In the meantime it might be a good idea to find out what power settings those TSAGI tests
were run at as I doubt that full all-out power was used.

I tried the IXE full wing and omg just try and get the slip to stay centered and keep the
plane level is a good bit of work! Much harder than say, the Macchi's or any 109! But
then if you don't care about things like flying straight it hardly matters, all the planes
can be compared from none of them being flown correctly with very twisted results. But
then the only thing that counts is kills on DF... right?

If you fly with much slip at all then no wonder the only way to play is follow the target
so close you can't miss and pepper his six till something breaks!

Monty_Thrud
07-12-2006, 08:13 AM
I wasn't going to touch this...but as Lemmy says...Just in case...my own experience online and on different servers on HL is this...
The Bf109G2 turns with the MkV Spitfire and outturns the MkIX and VIII...all Bf109s outturn me in my Hurricane...is this correct?

IMO..no

However...although i've flown this Sim since the day it came out, online and offline(i have 600+ online Ntrks dating back 4 years)...i don't fly as much online anymore due to the above...

Now then...it might be my incapability...or...it might be because i don't game the game, i don't use flaps in a turn on the Spitfire nor do i fly with the joystick settings at 100...i have them at default settings.

I prefer the historically accurate settings...after all...i'm just trying to get an idea of what WW2 aircombat was like for my fellow countryman...i dont tend to experience that due possibly to the above.

But i still think this is a fine fishing trip you're on

And...more importantly...the finest WW2 Sim that i have flown, to date.

hop2002
07-12-2006, 08:23 AM
Gozr posted an avi. However, it doesn't seem to show sustained turn times.

The avi shows two complete circles. In the first one, speed drops from 340 km/h at the start of the turn to 260 - 270 km/h at the end (the text is a bit unclear). Altitude also drops, from 900m at the start to 810m at the end. The turn takes about 12 seconds.

In the second one, speed remains stable at 270 km/h, but the altitude continues to drop, from 810m at the start to 680m at the end. This turn takes 17 seconds.

JtD
07-12-2006, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

In the meantime it might be a good idea to find out what power settings those TSAGI tests
were run at as I doubt that full all-out power was used.

Usually they were done at full all-out power.

JtD
07-12-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

but the 25lbs Spitfire has an extra 250+ Hp ...

250? Correct me if I am wrong, (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg) but I think it's a bit more.

justflyin
07-12-2006, 08:38 AM
Just for grins, I'm going to do some testing, too. I will make NTRKs, but I think Gozr is speaking about more manipulating the stick settings, using much elevator trim and flaps to improve his turn times, like we all do...well, those that game the game.

I will review wojtek's thread link and just so I'm clear and not losing anything due to a language barrier, we are talking SUSTAINED turning ability, not INSTANTANEOUS turning ability, correct?

JtD
07-12-2006, 08:42 AM
Sustained turn. Do three full circles, do not lose alt or speed in the process. That's what I do for sustained turn times.

Also, take 100% fuel, standard loadout and use Crimea map at noon.

justflyin
07-12-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Sustained turn. Do three full circles, do not lose alt or speed in the process. That's what I do for sustained turn times.

Also, take 100% fuel, standard loadout and use Crimea map at noon.

Very good, thanks. I'll try to also do them with my different joystick setups, with and without trim and with and without flaps, just to be sure we're comparing apples to apples.

I'm still at V4.04m, but that shouldn't matter, as nothing was supposed to have changed in V4.05m, right?

I also notice in wojtek's thread, he did NOT use trim and he said flaps did not help. He was also on Okinawa and maintained a speed of 280km/h???!? Hmmm....or is that the turn enter speed?

justflyin
07-12-2006, 08:52 AM
I'm thinking though, from my past 6 years experience, there are still a few glitches, but for the most part, performance of Spitfires hasn't been proven to be that far off the posted numbers it's supposed to be at, yet. ;^)

Other planes, too. I admit the Yaks got chopped back a ways and the 109-G2 is definitely wrong, but I will include them in the test as well. La-7 lost a bit over time as well, so it is nowhere near the uber status it once held. It used to be the most-whined about, now it is Spitfires. :^)

faustnik
07-12-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:
It used to be the most-whined about, now it is Spitfires. :^)

I have not flown online for months, is the Spitfire dominating servers or something?

The only change from when I did fly online is the addition of the Spit IX +25. The Doras should still be able to handle them????? I did fly a little 4.05 with a couple TX squad guys and we were still able to use the Dora's speed to drag and bag the +25s. Why has this Spitfire "turn" become such an issue?

justflyin
07-12-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
It used to be the most-whined about, now it is Spitfires. :^)

I have not flown online for months, is the Spitfire dominating servers or something?

The only change from when I did fly online is the addition of the Spit IX +25. The Doras should still be able to handle them????? I did fly a little 4.05 with a couple TX squad guys and we were still able to use the Dora's speed to drag and bag the +25s. Why has this Spitfire "turn" become such an issue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't think it is an issue, as a Dora is still fast enough at altitude to stay above or run a bit to gain an advantage before engaging the Spitfire. However, since a Spitfire is fast and maneuverable at altitiude, the Dora has to stick to it's rules of engagement and not try to get crazy.

Still, back in WWII, they feared the Spitfires for good reason. It is one of the best all-around performing birds of the war and the later models got better and better.

Granted, the Spit +25lb is a climbing demon (the only plane I'll match on my 1 vs 1 server if my guest uses it out of the gate, all others I fly my trusty Mk. VIII CW against) and all late-war Spits perform very well at high-altitude, as they did in RL.

IMNSHO, the turn rate differences are going to boil down to "gaming the game" versus some RL numbers that were achieved in RL tests. Using IL2-Compare is also tainted as there are many, many discrepancies.

I think Gozr just wants his old Yaks back. ;^)

I've always loved Spitfires for their grace, beauty and lethality, but if there is something seriously wrong, then I vote to fix it. But, they better fix the 109-G2 and a few other strange things at the same time or my whining shall begin.

And as most know, I'm like a dog with a bone when I'm making a point....grrr....grrrr. lol ;^)

faustnik
07-12-2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:


I think Gozr just wants his old Yaks back. ;^)

But, they better fix the 109-G2 and a few other strange things at the same time or my whining shall begin.



Yeah, I'm with Gozr on the Yaks, especially the Yak-3.

Spit are fine.

Bf109 G2 is fine too, another victim of witch hunts. Soviet data has G2 turn time of 20-21. IL-2_Compare time has 20.5. Spit pilots who push the turn until the G2 can use its slats get what they deserve. At all normal combat speeds, the Spits will out-turn the G2.

justflyin
07-12-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:


I think Gozr just wants his old Yaks back. ;^)

But, they better fix the 109-G2 and a few other strange things at the same time or my whining shall begin.



Yeah, I'm with Gozr on the Yaks, especially the Yak-3.

Spit are fine.

Bf109 G2 is fine too, another victim of witch hunts. Soviet data has G2 turn time of 20-21. IL-2_Compare time has 20.5. Spit pilots who push the turn until the G2 can use its slats get what they deserve. At all normal combat speeds, the Spits will out-turn the G2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the 109-G2's climb rate that I referred to. That bird changed starting in V4.0x (can't remember which), but it should not turn better than an F4, but it does and outclimbs G6 - G10 with MW50. I don't have a link to the chart, but I want to say it was done by one of the more-respected testers like robban75 or similar.

The strange part I find about the 109-G2 is it's constant state of energy. I know a Spitfire will out turn it eventually, but it seems able to slow down and speed-up strangely. Maybe it's instantaneous turn rate is what I'm seeing.

All I know is, that's the only 109 that I can fly exactly like a Spitfire and not worry about anybody but the best Spitfire jocks. ;^)

It was always good, but something changed starting around V4.0x. I'm going to make it my main comparison plane in all the Spitfire tests I'm going to perform this weekend.

I mean seriously, if it was that good in 1942, why did the LW even bother building later models? lol ;^)

faustnik
07-12-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:


I mean seriously, if it was that good in 1942, why did the LW even bother building later models? lol ;^)

The LW built later models because of the requirement for heavier armament.

The G2 is just another whine-magnet, like the Spitfire, because it is a lightweight, high-power fighter. The lightweights have an advantage in the overall "physics" model in PF. The said case is that a lot of Blue pilots get shot down by Spits and a lot of Red pilots get shot down by Bf109G2s. As always, it seems easier to complain on the forums and blame the modeling than to work on tactics online.

p1ngu666
07-12-2006, 10:34 AM
i think the problem is with the yaks, there certainly not as good as they once where..

and i think with the 109s outturning hurri's, they gave some planes huge ebleed in turns, so hurri is very quickly going slow... same with il2..

zero may suffer similery. cos its very easy to turn fight against a zero and win, imo..

TheGozr
07-12-2006, 10:35 AM
The good point of the G2 versus the the spit is to be able to turn with a climb not horizontaly and not in circle, difficcult to explain but this is one of the weakness of some Spits pilots vs the G2 109. I really think it's very important to fly your ennemy planes to be able to know their weakness and know their strengh.
--
I Did the test some time ago in an entering a turn at 460km/h at 960 m ending at 320 km/h 920m simulate an attack turn (100% ammunition and fuel ) the turn touk me 12.5 seconds ( Spit9C-cw )

(100% ammunition and fuel Spit9C-cw )
The other in the avi is 2x turns starting at 340km/h at 900 m ending first turn at 270km/h @810m 12.8~( 13 sec at most) sec - and second @ 810m 270 km/h to 670m 270km/h in 12.8~(13 sec at most)

I think is good to question the data of the game as well Il2compare (3.02).

It is true that i like the yaks . I like all aircrafts and fly and combat in them. Many of you that fly In the sim know more about aircrafts specs and history in general than many real pilots owner of real aircrafts of the ww 2 era, i can certified this for sure. But a total lack of real effects and forces or many others real things while flying a 1200/2000 + hp aircrafts.

Regarding the yaks flight FM many of them have a wrong reactions in some points too good and in the others FM way way off. But this is an other matter. I wish that will be better in the BOB upcoming sim.
PS: Please while in Real mode servers you should look if the server have Turbulances turn off or on using ASE not HL for this check up. When turning the Turbulance off the planes will not react the same way at all The server by doing this is changing the plane reaction and make it very unreal. My advice is for you to look at this closely.

justflyin
07-12-2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:


I mean seriously, if it was that good in 1942, why did the LW even bother building later models? lol ;^)

The LW built later models because of the requirement for heavier armament.

The G2 is just another whine-magnet, like the Spitfire, because it is a lightweight, high-power fighter. The lightweights have an advantage in the overall "physics" model in PF. The said case is that a lot of Blue pilots get shot down by Spits and a lot of Red pilots get shot down by Bf109G2s. As always, it seems easier to complain on the forums and blame the modeling than to work on tactics online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It isn't about tactics or whether I know how to beat it or not. It changed in a V4.0x patch. Be sure.

However, as I said, if it is the way it is meant to be, I can deal with it. I always take what is given and use it to the best I can. I get lemons, I make lemonade. The 109-G2 changed, that is my only point.

If what I say is true, then my test-running shall also include loading up earlier versions of thegame and testing. This will help prove or disprove my theories. Either way, NTRKs shall be provided and I will continue to fly each as it is presented to me.

I don't have issues beating 109-G2s, I just question their performance and why they were changed.

Monty_Thrud
07-12-2006, 11:22 AM
And just for your information Faustnik, i'm not whining...that was my response to Gozr on how i find these matchups online...other people have different experiences, makes me think we are all playing a different game

...and personally i couldn't care less if MG changes it

faustnik
07-12-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
...that was my response to Gozr on how i find these matchups online...other people have different experiences, makes me think we are all playing a different game


Yeah, I agree, everybody has their own perceptions and they are all different.

(Wasn't aiming anything at you BTW, just speaking in general.)

p1ngu666
07-12-2006, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
...that was my response to Gozr on how i find these matchups online...other people have different experiences, makes me think we are all playing a different game


Yeah, I agree, everybody has their own perceptions and they are all different.

(Wasn't aiming anything at you BTW, just speaking in general.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think its not *just* perceptions, remmber how your spit flew compaired to mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

so there are differences between ppl get when they fly, through no aprent fault of there own http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

justflyin
07-12-2006, 11:49 AM
Skill level is a most-determining factor, not the most if there is an overmodelling issue, but I TOTALLY agree with that, p1ngu. That is why it is so important that all tests are done to the same exacting criteria, on the same maps, at the same settings and based on the same methods.

I want whatever is best for the sim in general and for the planes to be as exact as they can be, given that we are flying a virtual combat simulator on our computers.

I will always find a way to get the most out of whatever I am given to fly. Granted, excessive time in one plane series or another is going to yield a more experienced pilot in that series, but there are always little tidbits that people pick-up on about their favorite rides over time, that others may not be aware of.

Like, maybe a 6 year 109 veteran knows certain things about where to put prop pitch or have flaps deployed to get the most out of a turn or situation. Or knows how to work the RPMs vs. pitch a certain way to gain more climb power.

The main point I make is that we need to be sure we are testing the planes and not the pilots. ;^)

BBB_Hyperion
07-12-2006, 12:16 PM
Now you have done it ! I feel the need to down some of these to show how ueber they really are getting downed by inferior planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
07-12-2006, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
The Tsagi figures are for a Spitfire LF IXE (the E is slightly heavier than the C), and the wing area figures suggest a clipped wing model. The full span C wing aircraft should turn better. So the Spitfire IX times look to be pretty much spot on.

The Tsagi figures are for 3351 kg, which is 7381 lbs. However the takeoff weight of the IXC was 7450 lbs, and as you said, the E was even heavier. Funny you didn't notice that, eh? The Tsagi Spitfire is missing 100-200 lbs, which explains the results. Outturning the Yak3, well that makes an interesting addition to Hop's Spitfire fictions (in which the IX can outclimb the 109K, outdive the P-47, outroll the FW190 and outrange all etc. etc. - I've seen him arguing it all). The physics part is though that the Spit is a draggy, rather heavy airframe with a powerful engine OTOH. Given the wingloading I'd expect the turn radius to be better than the Yak-3, but turn times - nah. The Yak 3 is lightweight and extremely clean, with a very very impressive power to weight ratio despite the weak engine.

Otherwise, the comments of faustnik etc. are correct, the increase of power does inluence sustained turn times, altough turn radius is only minimally effected - so the 25lbs Spitfire should indeed have less turn time, at least until the engine compressor does not run out of juice, and loosing power - which occured already at 500 feet IRL..

JtD
07-12-2006, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The Tsagi figures are for 3351 kg, which is 7381 lbs. However the takeoff weight of the IXC was 7450 lbs, and as you said, the E was even heavier. Funny you didn't notice that, eh? The Tsagi Spitfire is missing 100-200 lbs, which explains the results.

Didn't the IXe have the same max. weight as the IXc? The 7450 are a figure for the IX model, actually a figure that does not even make any differences between engines or weapons installations. So why do you argue the TSAGI Spit was too leight?


Outturning the Yak3, well that makes an interesting addition to Hop's Spitfire fictions

Yak-3 turning ability should be in the range of the 109 F-4. It has a worse wingloading than the Spit and a similar powerloading. Judged on these two basic numbers, it should not turn worse, meaning it should not have a worse turn time.

faustnik
07-12-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

i think its not *just* perceptions, remmber how your spit flew compaired to mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Good point, I forgot about that. Did you get it sorted?

justflyin
07-12-2006, 01:09 PM
IMO, the most glaring thing that happened to the Yak 3's is their lack of ability to retain energy in a sustained turn. They run out of oomph much quicker than they used to.

Back when this series started and right up through AEP somewhere, the Yak 3 was the preferred fighter on most dogfight servers. You rarely see a Yak 3 these days, and even then, it's the 3P.

Just my observations. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled Spitfire Turn Times thread.

PikeBishop
07-12-2006, 01:18 PM
Dear All,

The easiest way to compare data is to get the stall speeds flying level no flaps no gear. Then divide the stall speed into the speed you want to look at. Then square this number. This is the max 'g' that can be pulled at that specific speed assuming it is maintained. Then square the speed (feet/sec) and divide by the 'g' expressed in feet/sec. 1'g' = 32 feet /sec squared .This will give you the radius of the max turn possible at that constant speed. Then you can work out how long it takes in seconds to do a full turn. Please note that depending on the weight of the aircraft at that moment....this will affect the radius since the weight affects the wing loading and thus the stall speed. If you want of course you can do it in meters/sec. (I think for that 1'g' = 9.81 dynes or it might even be newtons - I'm not sure).
best regards,
SLP.

Xiolablu3
07-12-2006, 01:21 PM
I htink the Spitfire turn time is fine, personally.

Yes they turn better than all the LW planes, bu tthey did, there is not THAT much difference between the 109F4/109G2 and the Spit V/SpitIX turn. You have plenty enough turn to pull lead on a Spit.

Spits are nothing really compared to La5FN's in 1943 scenarios. Now THERE is a dangerous plane for the Luftwaffe 109G6/Fw190A6/A8. Its as fast as both, excellent under 3000m and turns better too. Dont get me wrong, I love the Anton and it rules in 1942, early 1943, but once the La5FN comes along, I cant do anything.
I have real problems in a contemporary Anton verses La5FN. There doesnt see to be anything you can do in 1943 except for dive for the deck as fast as possible. At least with a Spitfire you can outrun him without too much trouble.

For an experiment, let an La5FN get on your 6 in a FW190A6 (same year plane) and pls share any tactic to turn things into your advantage. I am dying to know if there is anyhting I can do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I htink the La5FN is actually a 1944 plane, or so I have been told, but its listed as 1943 in IL2.

Spits are a picnic compared to that beast in 1943.

luftluuver
07-12-2006, 01:22 PM
The Spitfire IXE

take-off > 7185.5lb
max > 7500lb
max o/ld > 9500lb

Spitfire: The History.

faustnik
07-12-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

For an experiment, let an La5FN get on your 6 in a FW190A6 (same year plane) and pls share any tactic to turn things into your advantage. I am dying to know if there is anyhting I can do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



There are 2 solutions:

1) Drag the La5FN for your wingman.

2) Drag the La5FN to friendly flak.

Problem solved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

justflyin
07-12-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I htink the Spitfire turn time is fine, personally.

Yes they turn better than all the LW planes, bu tthey did, there is not THAT much difference between the 109F4/109G2 and the Spit V/SpitIX turn. You have plenty enough turn to pull lead on a Spit.

Spits are nothing really compared to La5FN's in 1943 scenarios. Now THERE is a dangerous plane for the Luftwaffe 109G6/Fw190A6/A8. Its as fast as both, excellent under 3000m and turns better too. Dont get me wrong, I love the Anton and it rules in 1942, early 1943, but once the La5FN comes along, I cant do anything.
I have real problems in a contemporary Anton verses La5FN. There doesnt see to be anything you can do in 1943 except for dive for the deck as fast as possible. At least with a Spitfire you can outrun him without too much trouble.

For an experiment, let an La5FN get on your 6 in a FW190A6 (same year plane) and pls share any tactic to turn things into your advantage. I am dying to know if there is anyhting I can do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I htink the La5FN is actually a 1944 plane, or so I have been told, but its listed as 1943 in IL2.

Spits are a picnic compared to that beast in 1943.

In-game the Mk. VIII is a 1943 plane. It compares very well with planes up to that year as it should. Most 109s enter a turn and can instantaneously pull the first 180? of the turn faster than the Spitfires.

Most experten 109s that get me, when not coming from above, do it at the beginning of the turn. They are awesome at the first part of the turn and getting that snap-shot on the Spitfire.

You say you have trouble with La-5FNs under 3000m? Then, drag them above 3000m, where their performance drops off significantly. When in a FW on a DF server, I am rarely below 3000m and only dip down to get a snap-shot on Spits, La-7s and Yaks and go right back up.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Of course, I take a long look around first, for nearby enemies to make sure I can get back up again without getting an unexpected Spitfire zoom-climbing up me arse.

I use her dive strength and phenomenal guns to wound my prey into submission. I follow stirct engagement rules when flying a FW. I am not as good as other FW flyers, so their mileage may vary. I fly the FW like I'm really in WWII.

I fly the Spitfire like a nancy boy because as much fun as B and Zing is in a Spitfire, and I love to B and Z in a Spitfire, if I get caught low, I have a better chance of out-turning my foe and going back up into the clouds. ;^)

p1ngu666
07-12-2006, 01:49 PM
i think 109s are so good at the start of turn cos of the slats, with spits and yaks and other planes, i normaly haveto ease it into turns, otherwise it would just stall..

the slats enable u to get away with alot ingame, so..

faus-, its gotten less worse, and i havent flown in ages like loadsa guys :\/. playing guild wars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Kocur_
07-12-2006, 01:59 PM
Faustnik, Gozr!


Originally posted by Cube:
Yak series.
Again we have a lot of modifications with considerable fluctuation between results.
TsAGI book "Samoletostroenie V SSSR":
Yak1 - 20-21sec turntime, 275m turnradius
Yak1B - 17-19sec turntime, 275m turnradius
Book A.T.Stepanets "Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoj otechestvennoj vojny":
Yak1 prototype - 24sec turntime
Yak1'41 M-105P engine - 20-21sec turntime
Yak1'42 M-105PA engine - 19-20sec turntime
Yak1B'43 M-105PF engine - 19sec turntime
Yet theres one thing what helps to find true relative performance - NII VVS made multiple testfights between various Yak modifications and captured Bf109F2 and G2 and these test reports are quoted in book "Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoj otechestvennoj vojny" alongside Yaks improvement history.
These test fights revealed that Bf109F2 had advantage in horizontal and vertical turning against all Yak1 models both with M-105PA and more powerfull M-109PF engine.
The only Yak1 what overcome Bf109 (only Bf109G2) in turnrates were 1943 year Yak1 models with improved aerodynamics and M-105PF engine and 1943 year Yak1B with M-105PF engine.
Keeping in mind that Yaks were best turning russian planes of that time it shows that german planes had advantage in turnrates over russian planes till 1943 year. So while Yaks in the game looks most realistic from all the russian planes, turnrates are boosted enough to give them advantage over all contemporary german fighters thus destroying relative historic performance.

(...)

Situation is very similar with other models of Yaks with two exceptions. The first is Yak9 (plain Yak9 not later models D, T, K and U). In fact thats the only russian plane what meets its real life performance, so if somebody wants historically realistic fight it should be Bf109G2 vs Yak9.

The second plane is Yak3 only this time its hugely overmodelled - another aerodynamics anomaly in the game. Again like in La case theres a lot of myths about Yak3 performance - the best of Yaks, most agile and maneuverable fighter of ww2, etc, what makes people to think that it should be the best turning plane. In fact there is truth in such claims - it was very good and maneuverable but only in vertical (for example Brits fought of FW190 as very maneuverable plane too). Yak3 is modification of Yak1 and all the improvements done were aimed for better speed, climb and zoom but they only hurt turnrates. It had thinner wing with max Cl of 1.0 (source V.S.Pishnov "Iz istorii letalelnych aparatov") less wing area and worse aspect ratio, weight was reduced but because of even bigger reduction in wing area wingloading actually increased and the only positive thing turnratewise was more powerful engine, yet increase was very little - only 60hp. But in the game this plane shows huge advantage in turnrates over all other models of Yaks and comes with second best absolute result - 17.3sec turntime.
Another cause of such speculations about Yak3 turning abilities is 17sec turntime shown by Yak1M (Yak3 prototype) - a lot of books catched this number and automatically assigned it to Yak3, when NII VVS test results of serial Yak3 showed only 21sec turnrate (source A.T.Stepanets "Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoj otechestvennoj vojny").


http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876;p=0

I dont have the book mentioned by Cube, that says Yak-3 had thinner wing compared to other Yaks, but I can confirm, that Stepanets has 21s 360deg turn for Yak-3.
17s is probably valid for Yak-1M, the Yak-3's "technology demontrator", which most probably flew the without full combat equipment - it is certain, that the plane did not have full armour. Also it made its first flights with M-106 engine at 1350PS - 17s, i.e. less than Yak-1b makes sense in that plane case. Not so much in case of Yak-3: it had worse wingloading, worse Clmax, worse aspect ratio. Would better powerloading of 2,17kg/PS compared to 2,44kg/PS of late Yak-1b make the difference in favour of Yak-3, despite worsened aerodynamical data? I dont know, but still Stepanets says 21s, not 17 for serial Yak-3.

faustnik
07-12-2006, 02:20 PM
Thanks Kocur, great info. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kocur_
07-12-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by justflyin:
It used to be the most-whined about, now it is Spitfires. :^)

I have not flown online for months, is the Spitfire dominating servers or something?

The only change from when I did fly online is the addition of the Spit IX +25. The Doras should still be able to handle them????? I did fly a little 4.05 with a couple TX squad guys and we were still able to use the Dora's speed to drag and bag the +25s. Why has this Spitfire "turn" become such an issue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

25lbs Spits ARE popular in DF servers indeed!

I also wonder why their turn should be such a issue... Anything faster than them, and that means more than one type, say Fw-190 D-9, P-51D, not to mention Mustang Mk.III or Tempest can outrun power-Spits, if only keep their speed high enough all the time (not to get cought trying to outaccelerate them at low to mid speeds...) and can hold their own even in 1vs1 by separation at distance long enough to, after making ~180deg turn, have considerably higher speed than the Spit when he is met in HtH. Popularity of power-Spits means, that quite often their pilots do not what they should and after passing at HtH they can be coped with in vertical.
The only probable issue would be E retention, but its difficult for me to judge it: after all it was a 2000PS plane, with absurdly low, for late WW2, wingloading. Another one would be low speed-high power stability, but I guess large portion of the problem lays in the general "phisics" of the game, not in that particular model.

TheGozr
07-12-2006, 03:09 PM
Well Kocur NO scans again, like i told you, you must study more the yaks in general and different factories for the same plane if you like real things. I am not a fantastic fan of the yak 3 but there are a lots to read about and many different scources.

Well the yak3 that you are talking about is a test conducted NII VVS on the Yak 3 c/n 11-12 ( the 11th aircraft of the batch 12 ) in August 1944 weight of 2675kg the same Yak attained a speed of 555km/h at sea level and 631 km/h at 4200m and climbing to 5000m in 4.5 minutes. it performed a full circle in 21 seconds, combat turn 1200m for this serie of aircraft and was concidered of a bad production. many Yak3 were not in good shape for sure in that period it varied a lots from wich factory they were from. Many yak3's even weighted more on that period.
LII,TsAGI and production plants, The Yakovlev OKB conducted serious work for the purpose of improving the fighter performance. As a result, from october onwards teh performance was, in effect, improved to match the characteristics of the "Doublyor".. wich you should know that the under production of the 1M or Doublyor or Yak 3 was made for the battle of Kurk in 1943 and because the name basicly was taken for an earlier yak 3 proto version flew under the name of Yak1B/M..

Kocur i can post scans and back up all that.
All series of aircrafts have good and some bads now it would be good to know wich they want to represent in the sim. The Yak 9 first serie was the best turner horizontaly and had also different wings. You can see in the server NormandieNiemen" i use a lots the G2 and yak9. Anyway my personel preference goes for an even better fighter interceptor the "Yak9U 105 and 107's"

The yak3 107 is a total different machine and look even different but it is closer to the yak9U.

BBB_Hyperion
07-12-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

For an experiment, let an La5FN get on your 6 in a FW190A6 (same year plane) and pls share any tactic to turn things into your advantage. I am dying to know if there is anyhting I can do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



There are 2 solutions:

1) Drag the La5FN for your wingman.

2) Drag the La5FN to friendly flak.

Problem solved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or model it to 43 standard not 44 prototype .)

Xiolablu3
07-12-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

For an experiment, let an La5FN get on your 6 in a FW190A6 (same year plane) and pls share any tactic to turn things into your advantage. I am dying to know if there is anyhting I can do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



There are 2 solutions:

1) Drag the La5FN for your wingman.

2) Drag the La5FN to friendly flak.

Problem solved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or model it to 43 standard not 44 prototype .) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what I have been told too, that its actually got the speed of the La7, which was still called the La5FN (tho much improved from the original) up until it was put into the field.

I agree with both points Faustnik, they work well, I was just wondering if I was missing any tactic vs the La5FN which I could do.

JustFlyin :- The problem with always flying above 3000m on the servers I fly on is that you are useless for anything other than lone wolfing. You need to get below 3000 to cover the bombers and dive bombers who are doing the hard work of trying to win the map for your team. You cannot always choose to be over 3000m if you actually want to help your team (and I always do) I usually take a bomb on my fighter, drop it on the targets, and then cover the target area while the bombers come in and hit it, until my ammo runs out. The only way to bomb effectively in a fighter is to dive bomb, so right away I am under 3000m. Therfore I was just wondering if there was anything I could do when facing a fighter which can turn better and is faster/as fast. I think sticking close to a teamate is the best thing to do in these situations as Faustnik has already suggested, then you can drag any attacking planes to each other and put them under the fire of the FW190A's terrific firepower. This worked very well tonight. I flew the FW190 almost all night on one of my fav servers,

190A6/109G2/G6/Me110/He111 versus Spitfire IX's/P38's/Mosquitos/A20's and
FW190A4 vs Yak9's/i16's/P39's/Lagg3's on another map.

I was not shot down once in the 190 and ended up with over 1500 points, playing for the team, not for stats. I was quite impressed as I am not a great FW190 driver.

The FW190A is very good vs SPitfire IX's if you work togther. (and lets face it the Luftwaffe always flew with a wingman, if not more 190's) Although I didnt face any La5FN's.

VW-IceFire
07-12-2006, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

For an experiment, let an La5FN get on your 6 in a FW190A6 (same year plane) and pls share any tactic to turn things into your advantage. I am dying to know if there is anyhting I can do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



There are 2 solutions:

1) Drag the La5FN for your wingman.

2) Drag the La5FN to friendly flak.

Problem solved. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or model it to 43 standard not 44 prototype .) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Late model...not prototype.

BBB_Hyperion
07-12-2006, 08:10 PM
http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc546/th_42687_la5fn_546lo.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=42687_la5fn_546lo.jpg)

43 prototype for la5fn .)

But you are right 44 standard proofes my point as well .)

BfHeFwMe
07-12-2006, 09:16 PM
Don't forget the roll rate dropped also on chopped wing Yak-3's. Ailerons had to be moved in quite a distance comparatively to full wing models which hurt roll ability. Combine that with decreased turn times, a different picture begins to emerges in the manuover department against Yak-1's and even 9's.

Badsight-
07-12-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by justflyin:
It's the 109-G2's climb rate that I referred to. That bird changed starting in V4.0x (can't remember which), but it should not turn better than an F4, but it does and outclimbs G6 - G10 with MW50. not for one hard 360 - the F4 will edge its nose around just before the G2 will - flying them both the smae way / same E

the G2's climb times were heavily tested in v4.02 - using finnish numbers it reaches 6K too quickly (from SL)

but thats missing the fact thats its 0 to 4000m time is the same as what the Fins managed from their low-boost G2's

so the G2 in v4.02 at least was retaining too much climbing ability once it got over 4000m , but up to 4K it was correct

manuel pitch boosted the times again above the test numbers

Bf-109s turn advantage isnt in the beginning - & especially not in the 180 , not even the F can 180 faster than a Spitfire - their turn advantage comes once both near the slower-speed stall limits

back to the topic , Gozr's il2compare jpeg has a 19.5 second time for the Yak-3 . i can beat that , & anyone else can too because thats not the correct sustained turn time for the Yak-3

& the Yak-3 didnt have much more power than the Yak-1b & had smaller wings - the Yak-1b's turn time from soviet data was around 19.5 to 21.5s . for sure a flat 17 second sustained turn for the Yak-3 is optimistic

Yak-1M is the Yak-1b , they are the same thing/same modifications to the Yak-1

Badsight-
07-13-2006, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and i think with the 109s outturning hurri's, they gave some planes huge ebleed in turns, so hurri is very quickly going slow... same with il2.... well an Emil cannot beat a Hurri in a turn , it can hang with the Hurri once it goes under 25% fuel . . .. .

but your observation is exactly how i feel about flying Hurricanes

you have one good turn , then your fighting to gain your E back as well as against the bandit

TheGozr
07-13-2006, 12:25 AM
badsight re-read my post.

Gumtree
07-13-2006, 12:54 AM
One of the greatest frustrations I have with the virtual pilots in this community is that,If their chosen favourite mount does not make them into an immediate Galland/Molders/Bader then the Fm of their or the opposing plane must be wrong in relation to theirs.

Whilst I agree that the models are not infallible and that they may have genuine gripes here or there ,it seems we just can't take a trick with this game.

We have had patches were the high wing loaded 109's out sped and out turned the lower wing loaded allied fighters and when some dared question this, we assailed with offerings, all sort of reasons/arguments why this was just,by the same pilots that screamed blue murder (pardon the pun) when any allied fighter came close to catching their Me's and Fw after they foolishly blew all their reserve energy in a turn fight at zero altitude.

This community is filled with many many good (Very very good ) blue pilots who know not to get slow with a plane that may well out turn them.These same pilots also get regular kills in diving blind side attacks and if the situation is unfavourable extend away giving the intended recipiant of their attentions little or no chance to retaliate.

These same pilots know that a 25 lb Spit is not to be messed with on the deck without a massive energy advantage.They have learnt that the secret of the energy attack ,they have learnt the art of patience and team work !!

Whilst others who prefer to get invloved in low level bruising brawls, scream long and hard when their energy fighters fail to get the same results others do.

The answer is obviously not one of poor choice, but that the intended target (Spitfire's in this case)are wrong.Wrong that the Spit with lower wingloading could possibly turn thus! Wrong that the 2000+ hp could possibly accelerate/climb thus.....

I must admit I dont seem to hear the virtual experten scream as loud,Hmm.....probably smiling too hard knowing that a real threat is scorned in the virtual sky's, thus relegated to obscurity..Bet the real WW2 Experten wished the same had happened.

Just my opinion,but then again I tend to lose interest in the virtual air war after 1943 as all it seems to do is divide this community.

Xiolablu3
07-13-2006, 02:28 AM
I agree that most of my favourite scenarios are 1943 and before right now.

109F4 vs Spitvb
Zero vs Wildcat
FW190A4 vs Spit vb LF 1942/SpitVc(4)
109G2/FW190A5 vs La5(not FN)/Yak9
109E4 vs Tomahawk/Hurricane IIc

I do like Spit IX/Tempest/P51 vs FW190D9/109K4/190A9, but its just a small part of this sim. People focus on this late 1944 scenario far too much, especially when complaining about the FW190 and Spitfire turn times etc.

I think I am right in saying that the Spitfire Vb turns about the same as the Spitfire IX, and the 109F4 vs SpitVC(2) matchup just feels so 'right' for a Spitfire vs 109 fight. SO why should the SPit IX be so wrong? Same airframe (better if you take the SPitfire VIII), more powerful engine.

ALso if you are FW190 fan, forget the late war for a while and try flying in 1942, early '43 maps when the FW190A4 really was Uber and a cut above the rest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You shouldnt really be turning with Spits anyway, becasue they CAN turn better than the Axis planes. Why even take the risk? Vertical fighting is where its at for Axis fighters, not horizontal. If you are fighting SPitfires in the horizontal turns, then you are going to die most of the time.

I see a sustained turn rate of 18.5 secs for the Spitfire IX in game and thats what the data says, so where is the problem? Sure oyu can turn faster if you yank and lose all your speed down to stalling, but thats not sustained turning. Thats turning until you lose almost every bit of speed.

The 109G2 is king of that kind of slow speed turn anyway, it is also faster than the Spitfire, has a central gun, and can turn plenty enough to pull lead on a SPitfire. which is all you should be doing anyway.

Trying to stay with a SPitfire in a sustained turn with a 109 or 190 and then complaining when you get shot down, I would imagine will make the veterans here chuckle. There is just no need for it, its far too dangerous staying in sustained turns in ANY plane, even if it turns better. You lose all your speed and are a sitting duck for the guys wingman/teamates.

EDIT: Geez did I really ramble on that much? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I htink its time for bed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

TheGozr
07-13-2006, 03:21 AM
Ok here it goes one test on subtained So the spit 9Ccw turn 7.5 sec better than the given sustained speed at 250 km/h
IL2 compare say at 24.5 seconds i wanted to test an other speed lower than the best given.
No flaps,no rudders,clean turn .
I take the Spitfire-9c (cw) because i think it is the closest to the real time.

Enter 1 turn @ 260/250 km/h 1050m = 16 sec
2 turn @ 250 km/h 1030m = 17 sec
3 turn @ 250 km/h 1010 = 17 sec
Same with turn 4.
This is wrong pure and simple.

So the spit 9Ccw turn 7.5 sec better than the given sustained speed ..

Ofcourse many others are as well weird..

Xiolablu3
07-13-2006, 03:32 AM
Turn time is very hard to test correctly. Who knows what the parameters that are used to time the turn, and what controlled conditions.

I recommend you try the same thing you did in a 109G2 and see what time you get. Then compare the results.

I think you will find that you turn the 109G2 using 'your method' much faster than IL2 compare/the real tests say too.

A Clipped wing Spit does not outurn a 109G2 in the game, I tried just the other day and he gained on me in the turn. Therefore if you are saying the clipped wing Spit turns at 16secs, then the 109G2 turns at around 13-14 seconds using 'your method'.

Before you bother saying anything else is wrong, you should ask Oleg how he measures turn correctly, and the controlled conditions for the test, as you are obviously doing something wrong, if you have the 109G2 turn time as 13-14 seconds.

BBB_Hyperion
07-13-2006, 03:51 AM
Sustained turn is almost non existing in df .)

Gozr i looked up ixcclipped in 4.05 m ilc and it fits good on first look ?

Best turnspeed is given in ias or tas maybe a reason for your interpretation on the test results .

WWMaxGunz
07-13-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Ok here it goes one test on subtained So the spit 9Ccw turn 7.5 sec better than the given sustained speed at 250 km/h
IL2 compare say at 24.5 seconds i wanted to test an other speed lower than the best given.
No flaps,no rudders,clean turn .
I take the Spitfire-9c (cw) because i think it is the closest to the real time.

Enter 1 turn @ 260/250 km/h 1050m = 16 sec
2 turn @ 250 km/h 1030m = 17 sec
3 turn @ 250 km/h 1010 = 17 sec
Same with turn 4.
This is wrong pure and simple.

So the spit 9Ccw turn 7.5 sec better than the given sustained speed ..

Ofcourse many others are as well weird..

Yah, very wrong. Go look at a 20m tall building sometime. You are using the weight of the
plane falling that height on every turn from the drop and same time losing from turn G's due
to the falling --- and then trying to compare to FLAT TURN time.

Are you watching instruments during your turns? What does VSI tell you? 20m drop in 17 sec
is over 70m/min sink rate!

This 'test' is as phoney as the Buzzsaw 109 stall speed test also done with constant sink.
You can't do a 1G stall speed test at less than 1G and you can't do a flat turn test while
losing alt. It's no wonder Oleg doesn't chime in (or probably bother to read) since most
claims are based on easily seen false presumptions even for me, quicker for him by far.
Do grown men stop and discuss serious matters with a group of children that argue back? No.
In matters of aviation, almost all here are children compared to him and some wear diapers.

Xiolablu3
07-13-2006, 05:06 AM
Before you test things, make sure you know the parameters and conditions of the test FIRST Gozr, before you start posting things are wrong.

justflyin
07-13-2006, 08:00 AM
I hear what you were saying about the servers you fly on Xiolablu. I was mostly referring to lone wolfing on a DF server that is just for fighting.

On the servers you fly, I'd be barking into comms at my wingman so often, he wouldn't dare leave my six unchecked. It can be a biatch getting caught low in FW against an LA though, I totally agree. :^)

hop2002
07-13-2006, 08:08 AM
So the spit 9Ccw turn 7.5 sec better than the given sustained speed

Even if you'd tested in a sustained turn, all it would prove is that IL2 Compare was wrong.

The Tsagi tests appear to be for a clipped wing Spitfire IX, your result is very close to the Tsagi figures, especially considering you are trading altitude for energy throughout the test.

JtD
07-13-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Are you watching instruments during your turns? What does VSI tell you? 20m drop in 17 sec
is over 70m/min sink rate!

That's an extra power of say 40kW or 3%. Really not that much. Certainly not enough to make the test invalid.

VW-IceFire
07-13-2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by justflyin:
I hear what you were saying about the servers you fly on Xiolablu. I was mostly referring to lone wolfing on a DF server that is just for fighting.

On the servers you fly, I'd be barking into comms at my wingman so often, he wouldn't dare leave my six unchecked. It can be a biatch getting caught low in FW against an LA though, I totally agree. :^)
Yeah thats a brutal place to be....its nasty and dangerous. If the La pilot is good then you're in real trouble. If he's not then you have a chance.

Try and run for as long as possible and if he catches upto you start a rolling scissors and hope that he can't match the manuever. The La can usually cut inside of the FW190 making this sort of move but...as I said...if he's not that good then its possible to force an overshoot and prolong the fight. Negative knife edges usually work pretty well too...confuses all but the most experienced gunners. Even I get suckered by a negative knife edge.

Ratsack
07-13-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Before you test things, make sure you know the parameters and conditions of the test FIRST Gozr, before you start posting things are wrong.

Mate, check your PMs.

cheers,
Ratsack