PDA

View Full Version : Was the Spitfire this good???



hmkim
01-17-2006, 11:51 PM
I had flown only the BF 109s and Fw 190s until today. Today I flew, for the first time, the Spitfire just to see what it was like... Man, this baby was so agile and so easy to control. Even my 7 year old son had no problem flying this baby. Was the Spitfire this good??????

Jetbuff
01-18-2006, 12:15 AM
*makes popcorn and pulls up chair*

alert_1
01-18-2006, 12:28 AM
IMO, the sim FM favour planes with lower wingloading...
Back to your question and again IMO: yes Spitfire was good in RL.

WOLFMondo
01-18-2006, 12:36 AM
It was a great plane. Just never that quick down low but find 1 single pilot who flew it who didn't like it.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by hmkim:
this baby. Was the Spitfire this good??????

Yes.

antifreeze
01-18-2006, 12:43 AM
I just don't get these recent threads.
Despite reinstalling, editing my hotas sliders to every possible combination, putting 'the missing 0' in my conf.ini, keeping above 400kmph and staying high, I still can't turn any of the Spits in a combat turn without the **** thing flipping over. On *my* PC the Spit is the worst aircraft in the game; virtually unflyable. It makes me very sad to hear how other people are able to get such good performance from it, because it probably means that it is something that won't get 'fixed' in the next patch.

WOLFMondo
01-18-2006, 12:46 AM
If its only you then why should it get fixed in a patch? Sounds more like a controller issue.

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It was a great plane. Just never that quick down low but find 1 single pilot who flew it who didn't like it.


The dead ones!

Friendly_flyer
01-18-2006, 01:06 AM
Depending on where in the world your from, the Spitfires is often said to have been the best fighter of WWII. The Spitfire was streamlined and optimised for fast turning and tight controls. This makes it ideally suited for the kind of flying and dogfighting we are seeing in the game. In real life, it has hampered by low fuel load and lack of pressurised cockpit.

If you like the Spitfire now, you should have flown it a patch or two back. It was a sheer delight to fly, even in tight manoeuvres. Now, it has a nasty stall that I haven't seen mentioned historically, but which seem to be a feature of the global FM (Mustangs are suffering from the same malady).

AustinPowers_
01-18-2006, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Now, it has a nasty stall that I haven't seen mentioned historically,

Disagree

The spitfire gave ample warning of stall, but push it too far and it had a harsh stall compared to the BF-109.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Antifreeze:
I just don't get these recent threads.
Despite reinstalling, editing my hotas sliders to every possible combination, putting 'the missing 0' in my conf.ini, keeping above 400kmph and staying high, I still can't turn any of the Spits in a combat turn without the **** thing flipping over. On *my* PC the Spit is the worst aircraft in the game; virtually unflyable. It makes me very sad to hear how other people are able to get such good performance from it, because it probably means that it is something that won't get 'fixed' in the next patch.

Antifreeze,

That sucks! Take a moment and see how the Spit IX looks on my machine and you can see what people are talking about.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/SpitIX_ntrk.zip

Beautiful through all maneuvers.

Friendly_flyer
01-18-2006, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
The spitfire gave ample warning of stall, but push it too far and it had a harsh stall compared to the BF-109.

Then I guess it's the warning I'm not picking up fast enough. The stall also comes sooner than it used to, but I guess that's true for all aircrafts (it certainly is for Hurricane and Baufighter).

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 01:34 AM
http://files.filefront.com/spit1avi/;4630889;;/fileinfo.html

vid 1

i got another vid too...

GH_Klingstroem
01-18-2006, 01:40 AM
Most reports I have seen by spitfire pilots seem to to say it was a great and very manouverable AC and very easy to fly. Seem to remember that most US aquads in italy were really disappointed when they had to give up their nice nimble spits for p51s before they got used to them instead. Im only an fw190 pilots in this game and can say that I dont fear the spit much as long as I stay fast and use proper tactics. I never stay with them unless I have a wingman. Then it becomes fun to fight even the spit!
The other day though I made a headon a vs a spitfire before I realised that it was one. After we passed each other I continued straight in a shallow climb at maybe 400kph in order not to lose any E. I looked back to see the spit pull a very tight turn and come back on my 6 and then gaining on me... I was very surprised to see this. It was as he didnt lose any speed at all in the turn. Of course AC with lower wingloading dont lose as much speed as AC with higher wing loading but I had never seen it so clearly before. Dunno if it is correct though so I wont argue about it.... Im sure someone will come with numbers soon! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 01:40 AM
http://files.filefront.com/spit2avi/;4630906;;/fileinfo.html

faustnik
01-18-2006, 01:41 AM
Uhhh, that's a short piece of ugly there P1ng. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif You and I have opposite Spitfires. You need new controllers or something. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 02:32 AM
well im a lefty, which makes that more of a issue faus http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

the sad thing is, its often worse than that, fraps seems to cut down fps, and i lose some wobble. does make it seem more sudden tho, the fps loss.

i can make 109s and 190s do similer, if im rough on the stick, if im gentle then its fine.

if it is fps realated, then thats why my spit vc, abit of rudder made it drunken at high alt, higher fps makes it worse

ill watch ur vid while i brush me hair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 02:51 AM
faus, yours is just like slow motion, theres no or very little waywardness at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

your spitfire is dreamlike, mines like a nightmare in comparision

Abbuzze
01-18-2006, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Now, it has a nasty stall that I haven't seen mentioned historically, but which seem to be a feature of the global FM (Mustangs are suffering from the same malady).

The elevator of the spitfire was rated m oversensitive in official british tests, combined with very light forces to move them.
So the behavier we have actuall is not that wrong as many people want to believe.

WOLFMondo
01-18-2006, 03:38 AM
faustnik, what controller do you use and whats your stick settings? Or do you use an app like the CH manager?

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Now, it has a nasty stall that I haven't seen mentioned historically, but which seem to be a feature of the global FM (Mustangs are suffering from the same malady).

The elevator of the spitfire was rated m oversensitive in official british tests, combined with very light forces to move them.
So the behavier we have actuall is not that wrong as many people want to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit had it´s shortcomings as all aircraft of the day. Reading "They gave me a Seafire" ISBN 0905 778 68 5 by Commander R "MIKE" Crosley C, RN, gives a quite other view of the Spitfire and the Seafire in special. In some appendixies in his book the author describes some very leathal(to the pilot) peculiriaties of the Seafire and the Spitfire.

He writes about the light stickforces to be as leathal as enjoyable. Too much on the stick and the pilot could leave his wings behind in a take up. About the Seafire he says it was a ruined Spitfire in means of balance. In order to counter balance the extra weight of the tailhook arrangement there were counterbalance weights added to the control column. This caused many pilots to meet their creator primaturely. In particular in bail out situations they were supposed to roll the aircraft on its back before bailing out ( to avoid hitting the tail). In surtain circumstancies this caused the counter balance arrangement to apply forces on the controls as if the pilot were pulling hard on the stick. No need to say the G-forces trapped the pilot in the cockpit. Tests after war showed if the pilot tried to push the stick(if he were able to) it only worsened the situation. He was trapped! He also mention quality problems causing stability errors in Spit 1 series. Surfaces meant to be flushriveted, wasnt allways so. This caused disturbed airflows and in an aircraft with controlls as light as in the Spit those kind of flaws made the aircraft less agile.

He also mention manufacturing flaws on the wings which made the aircraft dangerous to roll in high speeds as the wings would tear off. This was caused by too thin skinning on upper surface of the wing and this caused a wobble in the wing. Repairmen from the factory arrived and changed the skinning close to wingfairings with alloy sheets of thicker gauge. But the fault had already costed some pilot lives. This is only some examples and if one diggs deeper more surely could be found.
It was a fine aircraft but it surely werent perfect in many ways.

AustinPowers_
01-18-2006, 07:17 AM
Over sensitive controlls must be the key.. especialy with the rudder.

With good use of the rudder all the planes generally hold solid. The P47 for example once trimmed out on the rudder is fantastic.
I was having trouble aiming the Beaufighter correctly and realised I was hamfisting the rudder... it does tend to yaw.

Its difficult when you only have a rudder rocker with tiny amounts of movement to move the rudder... so it requires a softer touch.
Pedals are probably the answer..

Should try my MOMO pedals actually.. never botherd to use them in IL2.

Slickun
01-18-2006, 07:54 AM
I recently read a very interesting book, I think called "Woodbine Red Leader", I think, again.

The pilot was a US guy that flew "reverse lend-lease" Spitfires over Italy in WW2. He flew a Spit 5, loved it. A few Spit 9's came into the group, and these were looked on as a big step up, sort of like the big time compared to their 5.

They flew mostly defensive patrols around beachheads, got a few kills.

After they transitioned to Mustangs, it was as another poster opined, they were kind of wary of the beast they were now saddled with, and the LOOOONG missions they went on, hours instead of half hour flights. Definitely mixed feelings about the change-over.

Kills and losses immediately skyrocketed. The guys loved their Spits, and came to love their Mustangs.

Oh, and yeah, the Spit was that good.

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 09:04 AM
the controls where better balanced as time went on

most pilots favourites in terms of handling where
mkII, mkV, MKIX, VIII (smidge better than IX all round) and XIV

depended on what the pilots like. the mk V was very well sorted..

this is discounting the PR types, most of which where pretty lovely too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

womenfly
01-18-2006, 09:11 AM
..... to bad they do not make a new Force Feed Back stick any more. I have a FFB Sidewinder and with it you get stick shake before the stall. I just http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif it!

Spit .... well, its a dream to fly!

And yes, P-51D has very bad stall FM in the sim ... wish it would be corrected. Cannot see anyone flying her in RL if it acted this way. IMO

SeaFireLIV
01-18-2006, 09:23 AM
The Spit does indeed fly like a dream- ish (I mean no plane flies really like a dream since 4.01). I have no idea how realistic it is, but it does meet the accounts i`ve read of it.

I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?

Interesting to see 2 threads at the moment:

"Was the Spitfire this good???"

and

"What`s wrong with the P51?"

Very loaded questions.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
faustnik, what controller do you use and whats your stick settings? Or do you use an app like the CH manager?

Mondo,

I use a MS FFBII sticks, CH Throttle and CH Pedals. No "manager" program, just setup through the IL-2 HOTAS setup deal. I tweaked my yaw settings back a little with 4.02 and even added some filter on that axis.

The Spitfire and P-51 are two planes frequesntly associated with wobble issues. It's no coincidence that these two a/c have the best control authority in the sim (the Spit got a big boost in elevator authority at high speed in 4.02). With the Spitfire you can easily pull to blackout at any speed, so,it's easy to overcontrol.

Friendly_flyer
01-18-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Interesting to see 2 threads at the moment:

"Was the Spitfire this good???"

and

"What`s wrong with the P51?"

Very loaded questions.

Quite. Notice the far lower temperature in one of them, though.

Triggerhappyfinn, thanks for the references! I guess early Spits must have been a handful, but then again, Spitfires was hardly the only planes to suffer from technical issues back then. It would be very cool if these and other technical failures are modelled in BoB. The odd toss up of some of the aircrafts is something I miss in this sim.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the controls where better balanced as time went on

I thought the only control issues were only with the very early Mk.Vs? They re-weighted the rudder and solved it, right?

SeaFireLIV
01-18-2006, 09:57 AM
Yes, I`d love it if planes suffered problems as they did historically. But of course this would open a whole can of worms, wouldn`t it? People would say that their fave plane never suffered such faults and others would say they did but not to such a such an extent, and others that it was worse, then we`d get country-fighting and about which country`s better than another at making stuff, blah, blah, blah.

rnzoli
01-18-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
http://files.filefront.com/spit2avi/;4630906;;/fileinfo.html

I looked at this, but just to get it correct: you deliberately make fast and hard control movements, and show how much instability (wobbling) they cause, right? (or wrong?)

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Interesting to see 2 threads at the moment:

"Was the Spitfire this good???"

and

"What`s wrong with the P51?"

Very loaded questions.

Quite. Notice the far lower temperature in one of them, though.

Triggerhappyfinn, thanks for the references! I guess early Spits must have been a handful, but then again, Spitfires was hardly the only planes to suffer from technical issues back then. It would be very cool if these and other technical failures are modelled in BoB. The odd toss up of some of the aircrafts is something I miss in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The early Spits were the Spits that corresponded the most to the constructors intentions and therefore were the best balanced ones. Later on different urges for more engine power etc etc made the Spit on occasions to loose it´s priceless balance on controls. This was adressed with adding weights on different places on different models. Goes without saying that adding weights to a from start well balanced aircraft will cause problems. As you mention all the wartime kites were hampered with flaws of different kind. Flaws that made an already dangerous vehicle even more dangerous to the pilot. But as they say..it´s the winner who writes the history.

WOLFMondo
01-18-2006, 10:23 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 WOLFMondo:
faustnik, what controller do you use and whats your stick settings? Or do you use an app like the CH manager?

Mondo,

I use a MS FFBII sticks, CH Throttle and CH Pedals. No "manager" program, just setup through the IL-2 HOTAS setup deal. I tweaked my yaw settings back a little with 4.02 and even added some filter on that axis.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, do you have full or partial authority on all the axis when you put the rudder or the stick to its maximum deflection? Just wondered since it looked pretty smooth.

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
http://files.filefront.com/spit2avi/;4630906;;/fileinfo.html

I looked at this, but just to get it correct: you deliberately make fast and hard control movements, and show how much instability (wobbling) they cause, right? (or wrong?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked at those clips too. None of the flights had the plane trimmed out. Look at the slipindicators, in all circumbstancies the spade was hard on one side...

LilHorse
01-18-2006, 10:45 AM
I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?


Actually, it was a BnZer no matter what altitude it was fighting. It's performance strengths lay in its high speed handling. Meaning it could manuver well at those speeds but that doesn't translate into "manuvering" in the manner one thinks of in dogfighting.

There are a few anectodal accounts of pilots who were both skilled and crazy enough (Bud Anderson) to dogfight with a P-51. There are others who used "non-dogfighting" planes to similar effect. **** Bong and Tommy McGuire used to dogfight in P-38s. Like I said, skilled and crazy.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

ok, do you have full or partial authority on all the axis when you put the rudder or the stick to its maximum deflection? Just wondered since it looked pretty smooth.

Do you mean 100% on the last bar? Yes, the last one or two are 100% for all controls.

lrrp22
01-18-2006, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?


Actually, it was a BnZer no matter what altitude it was fighting. It's performance strengths lay in its high speed handling. Meaning it could manuver well at those speeds but that doesn't translate into "manuvering" in the manner one thinks of in dogfighting.

There are a few anectodal accounts of pilots who were both skilled and crazy enough (Bud Anderson) to dogfight with a P-51. There are others who used "non-dogfighting" planes to similar effect. **** Bong and Tommy McGuire used to dogfight in P-38s. Like I said, skilled and crazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LilHorse,

There are far more more than a few pilot anecdotes of P-51s successfully turn-fighting 109s and 190s. In fact it was considered quite normal to turn fight with Luftwaffe fighters. Granted, the unobserved bounce was the preferred method, but that was true regardless of type flown. Bud Anderson was confident that his P-51 held an advantage over both LW types in that regard- so did many, many other Mustang pilots.

This belief that P-51s have no business turn-fighting 109s and 190s is a myth- Japanese fighters yes, but not Luftwaffe fighters.

LRRP

LilHorse
01-18-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?


Actually, it was a BnZer no matter what altitude it was fighting. It's performance strengths lay in its high speed handling. Meaning it could manuver well at those speeds but that doesn't translate into "manuvering" in the manner one thinks of in dogfighting.

There are a few anectodal accounts of pilots who were both skilled and crazy enough (Bud Anderson) to dogfight with a P-51. There are others who used "non-dogfighting" planes to similar effect. **** Bong and Tommy McGuire used to dogfight in P-38s. Like I said, skilled and crazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LilHorse,

There are far more more than a few pilot anecdotes of P-51s successfully turn-fighting 109s and 190s. In fact it was considered quite normal to turn fight with Luftwaffe fighters. Granted, the unobserved bounce was the preferred method, but that was true regardless of type flown. Bud Anderson was confident that his P-51 held an advantage over both LW types in that regard- so did many, many other Mustang pilots.

This belief that P-51s have no business turn-fighting 109s and 190s is a myth- Japanese fighters yes, but not Luftwaffe fighters.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would submit that the total number of anecdotes of pilots dogfighting in P-51s constitutes a "few" pilots. These are the anecdotes that we hear of/read of most often because they are the exception rather than the rule, and because they are exciting. Much more so than: "I dove on the 109, got in range, fired, saw hits and smoke and fire, extended away. I claim this 109 killed, confirmed by Captain John Doe." Not very exciting but probably more like what the grand majority of those pilots who managed a kill or two or even most of those lucky enough to get those five needed to become an ace.

IRL getting into a dogfight in your P-51 with a 109, at low alt especially, you were in a very bad situation. Unless, as I mentioned, you had exceptional skill and daring.

Abbuzze
01-18-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

depended on what the pilots like. the mk V was very well sorted..



First, I don´t doubt that the Spit was a very good plane, the test of the Spitfire V says:



Only 3? up-elevator movement was required to go from level flight at a lift coefficient of about 0.3 to the first sign of the stall. This movement correspondends to a stick geflection of 3/4 inch. This degree of stability is far lower than the 4 inches or rearwar stick movement required in reference 1.


The spitfire was a joy to fly, but we should not forget, warbirdseasy or difficult to fly, are as easy or difficult to drive as different Formula 1 car . It´s not the differnce between a VW and a Ferrari! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
01-18-2006, 12:29 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 WOLFMondo:
faustnik, what controller do you use and whats your stick settings? Or do you use an app like the CH manager?

Mondo,

I use a MS FFBII sticks, CH Throttle and CH Pedals. No "manager" program, just setup through the IL-2 HOTAS setup deal. I tweaked my yaw settings back a little with 4.02 and even added some filter on that axis.

The Spitfire and P-51 are two planes frequesntly associated with wobble issues. It's no coincidence that these two a/c have the best control authority in the sim (the Spit got a big boost in elevator authority at high speed in 4.02). With the Spitfire you can easily pull to blackout at any speed, so,it's easy to overcontrol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does P1ngu have pedals? I have an X-52 which I spent ages tuning to fly Spits and still find them a bit of a nightmare, although by no means impossible.

I'm due to get a set of CH pedals in a few weeks so I'll leave everything else the same and report back, see if it sweetens up.

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?


Actually, it was a BnZer no matter what altitude it was fighting. It's performance strengths lay in its high speed handling. Meaning it could manuver well at those speeds but that doesn't translate into "manuvering" in the manner one thinks of in dogfighting.

There are a few anectodal accounts of pilots who were both skilled and crazy enough (Bud Anderson) to dogfight with a P-51. There are others who used "non-dogfighting" planes to similar effect. **** Bong and Tommy McGuire used to dogfight in P-38s. Like I said, skilled and crazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LilHorse,

There are far more more than a few pilot anecdotes of P-51s successfully turn-fighting 109s and 190s. In fact it was considered quite normal to turn fight with Luftwaffe fighters. Granted, the unobserved bounce was the preferred method, but that was true regardless of type flown. Bud Anderson was confident that his P-51 held an advantage over both LW types in that regard- so did many, many other Mustang pilots.

This belief that P-51s have no business turn-fighting 109s and 190s is a myth- Japanese fighters yes, but not Luftwaffe fighters.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would submit that the total number of anecdotes of pilots dogfighting in P-51s constitutes a "few" pilots. These are the anecdotes that we hear of/read of most often because they are the exception rather than the rule, and because they are exciting. Much more so than: "I dove on the 109, got in range, fired, saw hits and smoke and fire, extended away. I claim this 109 killed, confirmed by Captain John Doe." Not very exciting but probably more like what the grand majority of those pilots who managed a kill or two or even most of those lucky enough to get those five needed to become an ace.

IRL getting into a dogfight in your P-51 with a 109, at low alt especially, you were in a very bad situation. Unless, as I mentioned, you had exceptional skill and daring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Coupled with the fact that being a P-51, it's after the decline in the LW's strength. Most of those accounts were probably against the notorious 10 hour kids who didn't know how to get the most out of their planes, and/or were outnumbered and unable to take a risk of slowing down as a result of out turning the Mustang, lest they be jumped.

There are accounts of 190s out turning Spits. The 109 was far better than most people beleive/want to beleive when it came to turning. The Emil was basically as good as the Spit Mk.1 (I know, that'll cause some flames), and the F was better. The Gs were still **** good - even the Soviets admitted that.

It's also accepted that the 109 was a better turner than the 190. Yet, what is something we see from RAF accounts of the 190 when it first arrived? It "stayed and fought". That doesn't mean that they just stood them on their wings and pulled back on the stick to get kills against the RAF, but, it does mean that they didn't have to hit and run.

Also, Brown said that the Dora had "all the handling of the A series".

So...... are people then to suggest that the Mustang handled as well as the Spitfire? If they beleive it could out turn both the 190 and 109, in such a manner, then they imply that it was basically like a Spitfire.

LStarosta
01-18-2006, 01:32 PM
Was the Spitfire this good???

Short answer: Ya.

Long answer: Yes.

Xiolablu3
01-18-2006, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Antifreeze:
I just don't get these recent threads.
Despite reinstalling, editing my hotas sliders to every possible combination, putting 'the missing 0' in my conf.ini, keeping above 400kmph and staying high, I still can't turn any of the Spits in a combat turn without the **** thing flipping over. On *my* PC the Spit is the worst aircraft in the game; virtually unflyable. It makes me very sad to hear how other people are able to get such good performance from it, because it probably means that it is something that won't get 'fixed' in the next patch.

I had this problem and it was my rudder moving when I banked, just a little bit, enough to make it flip in tight banks.

Sit on the ground and bank left and right, does your rudder move?

Oh, and the Spitfire was not always the fastest(although it was very close), but it was once of the most agile and manouvrable fighters in the world 1939-45

Friendly_flyer
01-18-2006, 02:21 PM
Very interesting, here's a thread about Sputfire performance, and somehow P-51 issues comes up.

Perhaps we should discuss Hurricanes in sted.

triggerhappyfin
01-18-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antifreeze:
I just don't get these recent threads.
Despite reinstalling, editing my hotas sliders to every possible combination, putting 'the missing 0' in my conf.ini, keeping above 400kmph and staying high, I still can't turn any of the Spits in a combat turn without the **** thing flipping over. On *my* PC the Spit is the worst aircraft in the game; virtually unflyable. It makes me very sad to hear how other people are able to get such good performance from it, because it probably means that it is something that won't get 'fixed' in the next patch.

I had this problem and it was my rudder moving when I banked, just a little bit, enough to make it flip in tight banks.

Sit on the ground and bank left and right, does your rudder move?

Oh, and the Spitfire was not always the fastest(although it was very close), but it was once of the most agile and manouvrable fighters in the world 1939-45 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go searchfor DXTweak 2 on the net. Perhaps you have to set the axis?

danjama
01-18-2006, 02:44 PM
Well, coming from a BF109 and FW190, the Spitfire really does feel like a dream to fly (i also fly FW regularly and always enjoy the rare chance to fly the Spit).

I was one of those people who whined after 4.02 about the Spitfire snap rolling in tight turns. But, after a while i learned to recognise it coming and get past it and still turn. After i looked past the sign of a stall and learned to deal with it, the Spitfire was again a dream to fly (as it should be). So now i dont whine anymore (about the Spit at least).

Overall, i think the in game FM justifies the real plane.

Oh and friendly flyer, i would love to discuss Hurri's if you want to, thats another favourite at the moment.

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Oh and friendly flyer, i would love to discuss Hurri's if you want to, thats another favourite at the moment.

That's always seemed an odd plane to me. It looks slick enough (drag-wise), so why was it so slow? What would it be like with another 500 to 800hp? That would really be cool I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 04:27 PM
i have a twist stick, because a)im not that rich, b)i sit on my legs, japanease style, not comfy sitting normaly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

and no, im not poking the stick to get it to wobble all over the place, thats normal movements.

faus's track shows no sign of waywardness, my video shows roughly what i haveto deal with, and other people with the wobble too. besides if my spit handled like faus's, u couldnt get it to fly any better by a decent amount..

those with wobble, i think for some reason the gryo effects are being done over and over again, while faus's track is like its on rails. NO plane is that stable for me.

wobble seems to effect allied rides much more than axis rides, dont know why.

danjama has flown against me in a g6, while i was in a VIII, and it took me a while to finish him off, getting a gun solution in a spit is very difficult for me..

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 04:30 PM
unknow, they took out the meagre merlin, and put in a 1 ton monster, the napier sabre http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

maxium power easly exceeded 2000hp

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 04:33 PM
Twist sticks are the spawn of satan. Be Sure.

Dump the twist stick and get something that doesn't twist (unless you can lock yours in-place), then buy a cheap a$$ USB joystick for $10 or whatever, disect it, and build some rudder pedals around one of the pots, then run the cable to a spare USB port and map the rudder to that axis.

There's dozens of tutorials for doing this on the web too if you need them.

Hell, going without rudder is better than using a damnable twisty-stick.

Jetbuff
01-18-2006, 04:49 PM
Pingu, your 'normal' movements are far too abrupt compared to mine. I've never experienced this so-called wobble issue. What are your control sensitivity settings?

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 05:21 PM
erm

[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=0
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=0 27 38 52 63 69 75 83 88 93 100 0
1Y=0 10 21 33 44 57 70 84 93 96 100 0
1RZ=1 29 40 48 57 66 76 86 93 95 100 0
1U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 91 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

im left handed, so to find a lefthanded stick thats actully good is hard. i have a cyborg 3d "gold"
later saitek sticks are pants in comparison

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 05:32 PM
I write (and draw) and eat with my left hand as well. I also prefer to bat left handed and have to rest a rifle stock on my left shoulder and draw a bow with my left hand. I also throw with my left.

But I've been forced to adapt to a "normal" joystick, and also a right handed shot hockey stick. And of course a mouse.

As a result, holding either of my sticks (hockey or flight) in my left hand would be odd. (and no "stick" comments from the peanut gallery http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif )

But the point is that you may just have to adapt. Once you do it will eventually become natural, and save a lot of hassle. Of course, looking into a way to lock that stick in place could solve the problem too, or putting that grip on another stick (since it's the grip that matters in that case, the pots work the same regardless).

(Of course, that said, I kick with my right foot, can bat right handed if I feel like it, and can shoot handguns with either hand, can use a mouse in my left hand, and can write, albeit very poorly, with my right hand (have to force that last one though). So maybe I'm a bit ambi-dextrous afterall. lol)

Just sayin' - being "left handed" doesn't mean you can't use a "normal" joystick.

danjama
01-18-2006, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Oh and friendly flyer, i would love to discuss Hurri's if you want to, thats another favourite at the moment.

That's always seemed an odd plane to me. It looks slick enough (drag-wise), so why was it so slow? What would it be like with another 500 to 800hp? That would really be cool I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it wud be alot faster!

I wonder does the wooden frame make it slower or faster? Either way it seems to be underpowered.

Not sure why though! However it is a very stable plane, average at most things.

Stachl
01-18-2006, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?


Actually, it was a BnZer no matter what altitude it was fighting. It's performance strengths lay in its high speed handling. Meaning it could manuver well at those speeds but that doesn't translate into "manuvering" in the manner one thinks of in dogfighting.

There are a few anectodal accounts of pilots who were both skilled and crazy enough (Bud Anderson) to dogfight with a P-51. There are others who used "non-dogfighting" planes to similar effect. **** Bong and Tommy McGuire used to dogfight in P-38s. Like I said, skilled and crazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LilHorse,

There are far more more than a few pilot anecdotes of P-51s successfully turn-fighting 109s and 190s. In fact it was considered quite normal to turn fight with Luftwaffe fighters. Granted, the unobserved bounce was the preferred method, but that was true regardless of type flown. Bud Anderson was confident that his P-51 held an advantage over both LW types in that regard- so did many, many other Mustang pilots.

This belief that P-51s have no business turn-fighting 109s and 190s is a myth- Japanese fighters yes, but not Luftwaffe fighters.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would submit that the total number of anecdotes of pilots dogfighting in P-51s constitutes a "few" pilots. These are the anecdotes that we hear of/read of most often because they are the exception rather than the rule, and because they are exciting. Much more so than: "I dove on the 109, got in range, fired, saw hits and smoke and fire, extended away. I claim this 109 killed, confirmed by Captain John Doe." Not very exciting but probably more like what the grand majority of those pilots who managed a kill or two or even most of those lucky enough to get those five needed to become an ace.

IRL getting into a dogfight in your P-51 with a 109, at low alt especially, you were in a very bad situation. Unless, as I mentioned, you had exceptional skill and daring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Coupled with the fact that being a P-51, it's after the decline in the LW's strength. Most of those accounts were probably against the notorious 10 hour kids who didn't know how to get the most out of their planes, and/or were outnumbered and unable to take a risk of slowing down as a result of out turning the Mustang, lest they be jumped.

There are accounts of 190s out turning Spits. The 109 was far better than most people beleive/want to beleive when it came to turning. The Emil was basically as good as the Spit Mk.1 (I know, that'll cause some flames), and the F was better. The Gs were still **** good - even the Soviets admitted that.

It's also accepted that the 109 was a better turner than the 190. Yet, what is something we see from RAF accounts of the 190 when it first arrived? It "stayed and fought". That doesn't mean that they just stood them on their wings and pulled back on the stick to get kills against the RAF, but, it does mean that they didn't have to hit and run.

Also, Brown said that the Dora had "all the handling of the A series".

So...... are people then to suggest that the Mustang handled as well as the Spitfire? If they beleive it could out turn both the 190 and 109, in such a manner, then they imply that it was basically like a Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Additionally it should be kept in mind that a majority of the 109s which the P-51 flew against were saddled with gunpods in 1944. Afterall the Luftwaffe was more concerned about stopping the bombers.

Regarding the Spitfire, I really doubt that the RL Spitfire enjoyed such a huge advantage over it's rivals (109 and 190) in energy retention as it does in this sim. In the real world there is some give and take when it comes to design--all planes have some weaknesses and, aside from controller/computer issues for some, this game spit doesn't seem to have any real weaknesses.

However, all FM arguments aside, I can tell you one thing for sure the RL Spit didn't enjoy the visual stealth it does in this game. On no-icon servers this is it's single greatest advantage over the 109 (and to a lesser extent the 190)!

EPP_Gibbs
01-18-2006, 06:21 PM
In short, yes.

For a WW2 war bird it was easy to fly and had a lovely handling even at low speed near the stall. Good stalling characteristics with ample stall warning, courtesy of the washout built into the wings. A spitfire could be held by a good pilot in a very tight turn in a sort of half stall, on the limit, and it wouldn't lose it. The inner wing would stall but the outer wing, with the ailerons would not, so control would not be lost. A 109 could not stay with that turn.

These traits saved the lives of many pilots caught in a hot situation. People that flew it loved it, and as is well known often regretted moving on to other planes once 'spoilt' by the Spit. Those pilots alive today hold the aircraft in deep affection.

The earlier Marks had the best overall handling. As power, weight, firepower, and performance, went up, the handling suffered to an extent. This is normal with fighter development, but even the late marks were magnificient aircraft to fly, according to Jeffrey Quill, a man who's job was to criticise it, find it's faults, and rectify them.

What comes up time and time again in the testimonials was a feeling of 'one-ness' with the machine when in the cockpit, that you could almost think it through manoeuvers, that it responded to the lightest touch, and that it wouldn't let you down.

It wasn't perfect but it WAS one of the greatest aircraft of all time. When photographed by someone like Charles Brown no piece of machinery is as beautiful, either.

I don't think IL-2/PF does a bad job of representing it.

VW-IceFire
01-18-2006, 07:34 PM
In the spirit of the post....

The Spitfire was so good that during the Battle of Britain the 109 pilots would only need to see Spitfires and just instantly bail out. They would land in the ground in their parachutes, be captured, interrogated by British intelligence officers and be treated to tea and scones.

Such was the power of the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
For a WW2 war bird it was easy to fly and had a lovely handling even at low speed near the stall. Good stalling characteristics with ample stall warning, courtesy of the washout built into the wings. A spitfire could be held by a good pilot in a very tight turn in a sort of half stall, on the limit, and it wouldn't lose it. The inner wing would stall but the outer wing, with the ailerons would not, so control would not be lost. A 109 could not stay with that turn.

That's what the slats were for. They prevented the ailerons from stalling out as early as they would otherwise have.

This "idea" comes from the fact that so few LW pilots actually did turn fight. That doesn't mean it couldn't, but then, just like the myth of concrete controls, this is an idea that so many will fight to keep alive, forever.



What comes up time and time again in the testimonials was a feeling of 'one-ness' with the machine when in the cockpit, that you could almost think it through manoeuvers, that it responded to the lightest touch, and that it wouldn't let you down.

VERY similar to what many LW experten said about the 109, and why they stayed with it rather than moving on to the 190. It's often described as being worn, like a glove.

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Oh and friendly flyer, i would love to discuss Hurri's if you want to, thats another favourite at the moment.

That's always seemed an odd plane to me. It looks slick enough (drag-wise), so why was it so slow? What would it be like with another 500 to 800hp? That would really be cool I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it wud be alot faster!

I wonder does the wooden frame make it slower or faster? Either way it seems to be underpowered.

Not sure why though! However it is a very stable plane, average at most things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it was known to turn better than the Spitfire. It was just too slow. Which is why I'd love to see what it could do with more power. A fast Hurricane would be scary! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

As for wood vs metal, if Oleg-world is any indication, wood is much faster than metal. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (unless it's just special magical soviet wood, rather than all wood. lol)

HellToupee
01-18-2006, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Stachl:

Additionally it should be kept in mind that a majority of the 109s which the P-51 flew against were saddled with gunpods in 1944. Afterall the Luftwaffe was more concerned about stopping the bombers.

Regarding the Spitfire, I really doubt that the RL Spitfire enjoyed such a huge advantage over it's rivals (109 and 190) in energy retention as it does in this sim. In the real world there is some give and take when it comes to design--all planes have some weaknesses and, aside from controller/computer issues for some, this game spit doesn't seem to have any real weaknesses.

However, all FM arguments aside, I can tell you one thing for sure the RL Spit didn't enjoy the visual stealth it does in this game. On no-icon servers this is it's single greatest advantage over the 109 (and to a lesser extent the 190)!

Visual steath? all planes with camo paint jobs are very difficult to spot against the ground, i could comment on the visual stealth of 109s and 190s, just because the american planes are unpainted and standout as if they had lights on dosnt mean the spits some how different, only the mk8 is differnt where lod has one wing. The spitfire does have weaknesses speed mostly, but vs the 109 the spit had few weaknesses, the mk9 was generally slightly better than the g6 in all ways except dive and it equaled the contemporary 190s.

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 08:49 PM
No, I think he means that Spits have LOD issues. Often you will see then with only one wing, and sometimes even with no wings, which really makes them more difficult to see and track in no icon server.

danjama
01-18-2006, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Oh and friendly flyer, i would love to discuss Hurri's if you want to, thats another favourite at the moment.

That's always seemed an odd plane to me. It looks slick enough (drag-wise), so why was it so slow? What would it be like with another 500 to 800hp? That would really be cool I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it wud be alot faster!

I wonder does the wooden frame make it slower or faster? Either way it seems to be underpowered.

Not sure why though! However it is a very stable plane, average at most things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it was known to turn better than the Spitfire. It was just too slow. Which is why I'd love to see what it could do with more power. A fast Hurricane would be scary! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

As for wood vs metal, if Oleg-world is any indication, wood is much faster than metal. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (unless it's just special magical soviet wood, rather than all wood. lol) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

btw all planes have LOD issues, not just spit and 109. I believe this is where the zoom in buttons are useful! Sure it sucks but hey.....

JV44Rall
01-18-2006, 09:45 PM
Was the Spitfire this good??????

No, it was good, but not this good.

Speed and turning are probably correct, but e-retention on the FB spit is reeeeeeediculous. According to the RAF, a Spit IX could "keep up" with the FW 190A3 in a zoom climb. In FB, a Spit IX can easily zoom climb past a FW 190A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9.

Look at some of the other threads on the Spit. It seems that a lot of people think the Spit is overmodeled or the FW is undermodeled.

Overmodeling happens. A couple years ago, Hurricanes dominated and were the overwhelming Allied ride of choice on full real servers. Now it's the Spit.

Consider a server with all pilots on one side flying the same plane a litmus test for overmodeling.

Jetbuff
01-18-2006, 09:58 PM
Pingu, nothing pops up at me as definitively wrong with your settings. However, given that you have a twist stick, perhaps a slightly lower setting on the first slider (even 0 perhaps) will reduce inadvertent inputs? PM me and I can send you a small Excel utility I use to 'see' my response curves.

hop2002
01-18-2006, 10:28 PM
Look at some of the other threads on the Spit. It seems that a lot of people think the Spit is overmodeled or the FW is undermodeled.

Could that be because they keep refering to the rathewr hasty test of Faber's 190 vs an early Spitfire IX, and try to compare it to the later Spitfire IXs in game (which were faster, and climbed much, much better)?

BfHeFwMe
01-18-2006, 10:29 PM
That's the price your going to pay when everyone has their other favorite rides being given the nerf treatment.

Why bother with them when you have a fighter avaliable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 10:31 PM
ta jetbuff, but i think its the game, as the control surfaces dont move, or only very slightly

i will however pm u http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rall, the spits e retention isnt that great, robban did some tests recently, think in orr, 190s do better if i remmber correctly

in combat, the following aircraft will cut into the others turn, and alot of vertical fighting, is basicaly doing turns, but verticaly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and if we had the dive and zoom advantage so many want, something like 100kph very quickly i guess, then clever light pilots will be able to force overshoots much more easily http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

im puzzled about the huge numbers of spits on FR servers, think its mostly the best, by default, like a blehiem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p51 is deadly to its own pilot, p38 flies sweet but is rather a big target, p47 is ok, russian planes are cr4p or uber

Tator_Totts
01-18-2006, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
*makes popcorn and pulls up chair*

need some more popcorn. http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/popcorn.gif

Xiolablu3
01-18-2006, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Oh and friendly flyer, i would love to discuss Hurri's if you want to, thats another favourite at the moment.

That's always seemed an odd plane to me. It looks slick enough (drag-wise), so why was it so slow? What would it be like with another 500 to 800hp? That would really be cool I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The oddest thing about it is the fact that the Field modded Hurri is so much better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif in the game.

I dont think much was changed except the armament? (maybe someone can add more too this) but it just feels a whole lot nicer to handle than the other Hurricanes.

After struggling with 109E's in the Hurri IIb (with human pilots), the Field mod is beautiful for fighting them. hmmmm.

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 10:55 PM
maybe the field mods have secret vodka injection.

works like on girls, add vodka to make it easier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HayateAce
01-18-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Stachl:
Additionally it should be kept in mind that a majority of the 109s which the P-51 flew against were saddled with gunpods in 1944

Awesome. Where are you numbers and what is the source?

Hmmmm.....another myth-hoe.

HellToupee
01-18-2006, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by JV44Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Spitfire this good??????

No, it was good, but not this good.

Speed and turning are probably correct, but e-retention on the FB spit is reeeeeeediculous. According to the RAF, a Spit IX could "keep up" with the FW 190A3 in a zoom climb. In FB, a Spit IX can easily zoom climb past a FW 190A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9.

Look at some of the other threads on the Spit. It seems that a lot of people think the Spit is overmodeled or the FW is undermodeled.

Overmodeling happens. A couple years ago, Hurricanes dominated and were the overwhelming Allied ride of choice on full real servers. Now it's the Spit.

Consider a server with all pilots on one side flying the same plane a litmus test for overmodeling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you hold a zoom to below best climb speed ofcourse the spit will gain on you, the only times ill actually zoom past a 190 in a zoom is when hes been doing flip flop manovers and bled his speed. The merlin 66 spit we have in game has a climb rate much higher than even the best of the 190s. 109s will also out zoom p47s if u do that sorta stuff to.

WOLFMondo
01-19-2006, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stachl:
Additionally it should be kept in mind that a majority of the 109s which the P-51 flew against were saddled with gunpods in 1944

Awesome. Where are you numbers and what is the source?

Hmmmm.....another myth-hoe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I belive its your turn to bust that myth (hoho!)with some evidence supporting your opinion.

La7_brook
01-19-2006, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stachl:
Additionally it should be kept in mind that a majority of the 109s which the P-51 flew against were saddled with gunpods in 1944

Awesome. Where are you numbers and what is the source?

Hmmmm.....another myth-hoe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>try GRAF @ GRISLAWSKI BY BERGSTROM/ as alot on P51 Vs 109,S / 109,S Vs SPITS

stathem
01-19-2006, 03:26 AM
If Mustangs had 4 Hispanos and P-47s had six, do you think that Western front servers would be dominated by Spits? (Imagine a Jug with six hispanos. That would be so sweet.)

If Fw190s had only six 12.7mm would anyone fly them?

The issue is firepower, not over/undermodelling.

LStarosta
01-19-2006, 04:22 AM
6x20mm is overwhelmingly overkill. I'd rather stick with 4x20mm and have more ammo per gun.

luftluuver
01-19-2006, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
If Mustangs had 4 Hispanos and P-47s had six, do you think that Western front servers would be dominated by Spits?

That is why we don't have the 4 cannon Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yes, there was such a Mustang.

stathem
01-19-2006, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
If Mustangs had 4 Hispanos and P-47s had six, do you think that Western front servers would be dominated by Spits?

That is why we don't have the 4 cannon Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yes, there was such a Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, but it didn't have a Merlin, although still fearsome on the deck.

luftluuver
01-19-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
I know, but it didn't have a Merlin, although still fearsome on the deck.

I knew you would know but after reading some of the comments on this board.....

Should be good to about 15,000'.

SeaFireLIV
01-19-2006, 05:48 AM
Why do I get the feeling that a lot of Americans really want to fly a Spitfire, but call it a P-51? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Friendly_flyer
01-19-2006, 07:39 AM
That was not alltogether kind of you SeaFire (but quite possibly true).

p1ngu666
01-19-2006, 10:05 AM
6 hispano's u say?

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///uberspit.jpg

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

MK12, if i remmber correctly, with 6 hispanos, 120rounds per gun. griffon engine too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Vipez-
01-19-2006, 10:21 AM
hmm, what was the word.... overkill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
01-19-2006, 11:27 AM
....is a sure killhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

SeaFireLIV
01-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
That was not alltogether kind of you SeaFire (but quite possibly true).

Sorry, it just sorta happened! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
6 hispano's u say?

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///uberspit.jpg

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

MK12, if i remmber correctly, with 6 hispanos, 120rounds per gun. griffon engine too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

heh imagine the whines of ub3r spit if we had that beast, hell the main issue the mk12 pilots had was the lw refused to come down and fight them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, i didnt know they had mk12s with 6 cannons i know some spit 21s were trialed with it.

GR142-Pipper
01-19-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by JV44Rall:
Consider a server with all pilots on one side flying the same plane a litmus test for overmodeling. ...Or that the alternatives are undermodeled.

GR142-Pipper

Monty_Thrud
01-19-2006, 04:31 PM
...and of course the Biffers are 100% correct...they were reknowned for being such good handling A/C from the G up, as in game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MercilessFatBoy
01-19-2006, 04:35 PM
i respect more a p51, p38, or p47 more than a spit.... the spit is very agile.. good climb rate... but it is slower than all german fighterst the trick is just to be careful u dont met one wiht speed disaventage..... yaks and la5s are more dangerous that spit aswell... what we have is many traying to turn wiht the spitfires.. thats not gona happen at least u are very experienced

Brain32
01-19-2006, 04:36 PM
...and of course the Biffers are 100% correct...they were reknowned for being such good handling A/C from the G up, as in game
Biffers? Is that BF-109? Are you implying they handle too well?If you do, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif ROTFLMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 04:45 PM
Compare its low speed handling with the spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 109 is very stable, able to jerk around, where as spits a handful stalls easly, tends to depart if u roll and use rudder or roll and turn or turn and rudder .... most other slat planes are the same

tomtheyak
01-19-2006, 04:49 PM
I tend to regard the opinion of the late Mark Hannah on the 109 handling issue. He always said that they were a handful (and as an experienced Spitfire and 109/Buchon [he flew Merlin and Daimler powered 109s] he's more qualified than most to comment on this).

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
Compare its low speed handling with the spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 109 is very stable, able to jerk around, where as spits a handful stalls easly, tends to depart if u roll and use rudder or roll and turn or turn and rudder .... most other slat planes are the same

You can NOT jerk *any* plane around in this game. Such claims are not only as$inine, they also do nothing but cause problems.

faustnik
01-19-2006, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
spits a handful stalls easly, tends to depart if u roll and use rudder or roll and turn or turn and rudder .... most other slat planes are the same

Not on my machine. Spit is great through all maneuvers at all speeds. Bf109 is too.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-19-2006, 04:54 PM
Well, I've never come across the phrase "Any idiot can fly a 109".....

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Compare its low speed handling with the spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 109 is very stable, able to jerk around, where as spits a handful stalls easly, tends to depart if u roll and use rudder or roll and turn or turn and rudder .... most other slat planes are the same

You can NOT jerk *any* plane around in this game. Such claims are not only as$inine, they also do nothing but cause problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can infact, the g2 i could hold my stick at 100% full back and hold a turn permantly, at most speeds i cannt stall a 109 even with mad stick manovering, as with a spit i can force a stall with few small movements, hell i can stall it in a dive using just the rudder an alerons. Any idiot can fly any plane in the game, but the 109 is a plane that takes much effort to stall. The spit is great thru all manovers on my machine it still outturns a 109 at most speeds sustained, just its very easy to cause it to fall into a spin at alot of speeds.

Stachl
01-19-2006, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stachl:

Additionally it should be kept in mind that a majority of the 109s which the P-51 flew against were saddled with gunpods in 1944. Afterall the Luftwaffe was more concerned about stopping the bombers.

Regarding the Spitfire, I really doubt that the RL Spitfire enjoyed such a huge advantage over it's rivals (109 and 190) in energy retention as it does in this sim. In the real world there is some give and take when it comes to design--all planes have some weaknesses and, aside from controller/computer issues for some, this game spit doesn't seem to have any real weaknesses.

However, all FM arguments aside, I can tell you one thing for sure the RL Spit didn't enjoy the visual stealth it does in this game. On no-icon servers this is it's single greatest advantage over the 109 (and to a lesser extent the 190)!

Visual steath? all planes with camo paint jobs are very difficult to spot against the ground, i could comment on the visual stealth of 109s and 190s, just because the american planes are unpainted and standout as if they had lights on dosnt mean the spits some how different, only the mk8 is differnt where lod has one wing. The spitfire does have weaknesses speed mostly, but vs the 109 the spit had few weaknesses, the mk9 was generally slightly better than the g6 in all ways except dive and it equaled the contemporary 190s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean to tell me that you find the blocky/ thick LOD of the 109s as hard to spot as the small/thin LOD of the Spitfires???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I would of thought this obvious too all, but I guess predjudice trumps all and that's why there's not much point in posting in here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. This visual inequity is one of the biggest problems for 109 fliers, but you won't even admit it. Absolutely amazing!

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 05:28 PM
well no i have no more seeing spitfires than 109s 190s, ive flown against them and im usually flying with them and i have no issues seeing them. The only suspect model is the mark 8 with has a missing wing on one of its LODs. 190s 109s are just as impossible to see against the ground clutter as every other plane apart from the US planes, if your moaning about 109 190 inequity, i suggest you try flying the US planes to see what visual inequity really is.

Brain32
01-19-2006, 06:04 PM
if your moaning about 109 190 inequity, i suggest you try flying the US planes to see what visual inequity really is.
OK, that's true. I'll just add that Mk8 is almost completely invisible against the forrest, while other Spits are OK, they are still a bit less visible than 109/190 which are darker...

p1ngu666
01-19-2006, 06:31 PM
cammo aircraft are hard to spot against the ground, that is after all, the point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if u have wobbles, (see my video, then watch faus's track) u will see the *HUGE* difference. fausniks is like hes on rails, mine is like ive got colin mcrea, and no dampers, in a rwd car, on something slippy

with wobbles, flying luft seems like a piece of cake, planes wobble, but less so, more stable, more forgiving, the dora i just flew was more forgiving than the spit in terms of chucking the stick around.

some of us are playing a completely different game from others, and dont even know it.

btw, ive tried all the wobble fixes ive come across http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
You can infact, the g2 i could hold my stick at 100% full back and hold a turn permantly, at most speeds i cannt stall a 109 even with mad stick manovering, as with a spit i can force a stall with few small movements, hell i can stall it in a dive using just the rudder an alerons. Any idiot can fly any plane in the game, but the 109 is a plane that takes much effort to stall. The spit is great thru all manovers on my machine it still outturns a 109 at most speeds sustained, just its very easy to cause it to fall into a spin at alot of speeds.

Incorrect. And I just tested it. Even up to 350kph, stand it on it's wing and jerk the stick back and it stalls.

It does the same below that speed, and it doesn't matter which wing you are on when you do it.

I did the same thing with the J8A. And got the same results.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can not jerk *any* plane around in this game. At all.

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 06:52 PM
perhaps ur standards of jerk are differnt to mine, but by my standards 109 = jerk friendly

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 07:05 PM
Because it gives you opportunity to complain about it.

Stick centered to immediately full back. Immediately as in instantly - neutral to full authority in less than a second. (probably only a couple tenths if one was to time it, how long does it really take to move any joystick from the center to all the way back?)

This also is with the last slider being at 100%. I have the rest of the sliders *really* low too on a nice almost linear curve starting at about 10. If they were all at 100% it would be far worse.

Also, when putting a total n00b behind the stick, all that happens is stalls, no matter what speed, or plane. He couldn't keep anything in controlled flight, and many planes were tried.

DIRTY-MAC
01-19-2006, 07:13 PM
short answer:
the Spit wasn´t that good that most historians say. but the pilots loved it.

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Because it gives you opportunity to complain about it.

Stick centered to immediately full back. Immediately as in instantly - neutral to full authority in less than a second. (probably only a couple tenths if one was to time it, how long does it really take to move any joystick from the center to all the way back?)

This also is with the last slider being at 100%. I have the rest of the sliders *really* low too on a nice almost linear curve starting at about 10. If they were all at 100% it would be far worse.

Also, when putting a total n00b behind the stick, all that happens is stalls, no matter what speed, or plane. He couldn't keep anything in controlled flight, and many planes were tried.

Im not complaining just stating a fact of the game, thatu can jerk the 109 alot more than a spit, i have my sliders set very senstive, i still find it very jerkable weather u stall at every turn or not. N00bs could find away to put a tb3 in a spin and crash so who cares about what a n00b does.

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 08:01 PM
It's simply incorrectly stated, and intentionally so - at this point. It's more than just a little disingenuous.

BfHeFwMe
01-19-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Because it gives you opportunity to complain about it.

Stick centered to immediately full back. Immediately as in instantly - neutral to full authority in less than a second. (probably only a couple tenths if one was to time it, how long does it really take to move any joystick from the center to all the way back?)

This also is with the last slider being at 100%. I have the rest of the sliders *really* low too on a nice almost linear curve starting at about 10. If they were all at 100% it would be far worse.

Also, when putting a total n00b behind the stick, all that happens is stalls, no matter what speed, or plane. He couldn't keep anything in controlled flight, and many planes were tried.

There's your problem right there Vern. At 100% with all sliders is a truely linear pull. No wonder you snap out, your end loaded getting a majority of deflection where you need it least.

A 10% setting in slot one is giving you 1% stick deflection since slot one can have a max of 10% pull at 100%. Don't believe it, read the original readme.txt when it was changed, or better yet set the last 9 sliders to 0% and pull your first 10%. Watch closely though, you may miss it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gustavflyer
01-19-2006, 08:35 PM
The spit is a tie fighter for sure, and what spit could take a 108 from close range and keep on flying like nobody's business, what spit can do this....................Oleg's spit.

BfHeFwMe
01-19-2006, 08:42 PM
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Because it gives you opportunity to complain about it.

Stick centered to immediately full back. Immediately as in instantly - neutral to full authority in less than a second. (probably only a couple tenths if one was to time it, how long does it really take to move any joystick from the center to all the way back?)

This also is with the last slider being at 100%. I have the rest of the sliders *really* low too on a nice almost linear curve starting at about 10. If they were all at 100% it would be far worse.

Also, when putting a total n00b behind the stick, all that happens is stalls, no matter what speed, or plane. He couldn't keep anything in controlled flight, and many planes were tried.

There's your problem right there Vern. At 100% with all sliders is a truely linear pull. No wonder you snap out, your end loaded getting a majority of deflection where you need it least.

A 10% setting in slot one is giving you 1% stick deflection since slot one can have a max of 10% pull at 100%. Don't believe it, read the original readme.txt when it was changed, or better yet set the last 9 sliders to 0% and pull your first 10%. Watch closely though, you may miss it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You apparently didn't read that closely enough. Be Sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BfHeFwMe
01-19-2006, 09:12 PM
Sorry, but linear curve is a straight line, curve is just that. You claim to have a linear curve, but by your own discription you don't.

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 09:17 PM
I have the rest of the sliders *really* low too on a nice <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost</span> linear curve starting at about 10

Does that make it easier for you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've been at this for over 4 years now, just like the rest of us. Don't let the registration date fool you.

I'm well aware of what the sliders do and how they work. As well as the fact that you clearly haven't understood me. (or perhaps chose not to, instead)

HellToupee
01-19-2006, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Gustavflyer:
The spit is a tie fighter for sure, and what spit could take a 108 from close range and keep on flying like nobody's business, what spit can do this....................Oleg's spit.

ever tried fooling around in 109 vs 109 online? u will find its hardly a spitfire issue.

Xiolablu3
01-19-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JV44Rall:
Consider a server with all pilots on one side flying the same plane a litmus test for overmodeling. ...Or that the alternatives are undermodeled.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very very true, esp concerning the P51. Not one single area is far off but it has unhistorical 'quirks' which added togther make it a poor performer.
In the game at the moment the Spitfire is the best chance that the Allies have against the awesome power of a 109/FW190 combo, the P38 and P51 are not really good for dogfighting over targets. The West Allies have no real option but to use the Spitfire in greater numbers.

Maybe if the P51 didnt wobble all over its axis, fire unhistorical synched 50 cal, etc etc(I could go over all these again but you get the idea) you would see more different planes in the air.

Xiolablu3
01-19-2006, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have the rest of the sliders *really* low too on a nice <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost</span> linear curve starting at about 10

Does that make it easier for you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I've been at this for over 4 years now, just like the rest of us. Don't let the registration date fool you.

I'm well aware of what the sliders do and how they work. As well as the fact that you clearly haven't understood me. (or perhaps chose not to, instead) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He dare not use his real name and post....he is in disguise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif He finds it easier to pretend to be someone else incase someone finds out his real views. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
01-20-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stathem
01-20-2006, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
perhaps ur standards of jerk are differnt to mine, but by my standards 109 = jerk friendly

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-20-2006, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe if the P51 didnt wobble all over its axis, fire unhistorical synched 50 cal, etc etc(I could go over all these again but you get the idea) you would see more different planes in the air. Coupled with the fact that it just about takes an act of Congress to bring down a 190 the way Maddox has it currently modeled in the game. Russian aircraft aside, the Hispanos are the only available weapon that will do the job in a reasonable amount of time and ammunition.

As an aside, this game would take on an entirely new dimension if the P-51, P-47, P-38 could reach the same airspeeds in the same amount of time as their 190/109 counterparts (which, of course, in real life they could do...and then some). It would force blue to stand and fight instead of doing their usual running act. The game would change overnight...and the howls of protest from the blue bench would be deafening.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-20-2006, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
You can infact, the g2 i could hold my stick at 100% full back and hold a turn permantly, at most speeds i cannt stall a 109 even with mad stick manovering, as with a spit i can force a stall with few small movements, hell i can stall it in a dive using just the rudder an alerons. Any idiot can fly any plane in the game, but the 109 is a plane that takes much effort to stall. The spit is great thru all manovers on my machine it still outturns a 109 at most speeds sustained, just its very easy to cause it to fall into a spin at alot of speeds.

Incorrect. And I just tested it. Even up to 350kph, stand it on it's wing and jerk the stick back and it stalls.

It does the same below that speed, and it doesn't matter which wing you are on when you do it.

I did the same thing with the J8A. And got the same results.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can not jerk *any* plane around in this game. At all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully disagree, Unknown. The 109 is extremely tolerant to fairly rough stick input as well as being capable of sustaining very high angles of attack...yet still remaining stable. In addition, it all the while retains unnatural amounts of rudder authority.

GR142-Pipper

danjama
01-20-2006, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by JV44Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Spitfire this good??????

No, it was good, but not this good.

Speed and turning are probably correct, but e-retention on the FB spit is reeeeeeediculous. According to the RAF, a Spit IX could "keep up" with the FW 190A3 in a zoom climb. In FB, a Spit IX can easily zoom climb past a FW 190A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9.

Look at some of the other threads on the Spit. It seems that a lot of people think the Spit is overmodeled or the FW is undermodeled.

Overmodeling happens. A couple years ago, Hurricanes dominated and were the overwhelming Allied ride of choice on full real servers. Now it's the Spit.

Consider a server with all pilots on one side flying the same plane a litmus test for overmodeling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like the La7/I185.

danjama
01-20-2006, 05:20 AM
I know for a fact in4.01 you could hold the G2 stick back all the way and hold it in a turn without stalling. When i get home ill try with 4.02 and post a video if it, that will settle the "is the 109 stallable" argument.

I suspect the 109G2 is still non stallable.

Brain32
01-20-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jds1978
01-20-2006, 06:32 AM
i've yet to stall or spin a spitfire (granted i don't try to stall or spin any plane)

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 08:14 AM
Being tolerante to stick input is not the same as being able to be "jerked around". I recorded tracks of that G2 and J8A quicky test. That's actually why I did it, because I knew what would happen anyway.

"Jerk the stick back" means pull it all the way back in one, *fast*, motion. Any plane will stall when you do that - IF it has enough elevator authority. Some planes do not have that much at certain speeds (or will black you out first (VVS), or will shed their wings (P-51, G0-229)). But fly those particular planes slow enough to get full deflection and they will stall.

A friend of mine really likes jets. He got good at LOMAC, and I love to put him behind my Cougar in whichever version of Oleg-world is out at that given time. The first time I tried this was when FB was out and he was unable to take off in a P-39. Was rather humorous to watch actually. lol

So it's been something of an ongoing thing. Shortly after 4.02 was released, he stopped by and I told him I wanted to see how he got on with the current patch.

Same as always. Give him an airstart, and he can't keep the thing in the air. Tried many planes, all with the same result.

So after he left, I decided to take a different approach and teach him the game by getting a friendly plane and having him do basic things like fly around an airbase, work the view, etc.

I started going through all the best turners to try to find something that wouldn't bite him. Yak3, Ki-43, A6M, I-153, J8A they were all tried, and all of them did the same thing - unless you were going fast enough to stiffen the controls, pull too hard too quickly on the stick and it will stall.

The 109 is no exception. And it's far less forgiving than the I-153 or J8A nad can't hope to turn with those or the other planes I mentioned.

The claims being made are patently false due to their wording. And the nature of this place is such that one must suspect the words are intentionally chosen for that specific reason.

ploughman
01-20-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yesterday I flew a QMB against a pair of Fw-190 F8s in a clipped Spit IXE with arcade on to view hits, convergence set to 250. In six missions I got 3 PKs/12 shootdowns and the most number of hispano hits required to bring down an F8 was 3, plus miscellaneous .50 cal strikes.

One of the PKs was a .50 cal headshot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WOLFMondo
01-20-2006, 10:01 AM
Your aim is clearly overmodelled. Therefor the Spitfire should be undermodelled to appease the blue naysayers.

EPP_Gibbs
01-20-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
short answer:
the Spit wasn´t that good that most historians say. but the pilots loved it.

Upon what do you base you claim? Did you fly one? Do you know something the professional airmen and 'most' professional historians don't?

Pray tell.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the damage model front, it seems to me that the 190A performs better in this latest patch than it did, which is as it should be, and at the same time seems a bit more vulnerable to being flamed or losing a wing to cannon fire.

HellToupee
01-20-2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
"Jerk the stick back" means pull it all the way back in one, *fast*, motion.

Fast varies from person to person, theres fast throwing ur stick around the table almost snapping it in two, and theres just general quick movements, i dont move my stick from netural to full back in under a second because A requires much effort with my stick and B it tends to lift of the table when doing stupid stuff like that,

HellToupee
01-20-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yesterday I flew a QMB against a pair of Fw-190 F8s in a clipped Spit IXE with arcade on to view hits, convergence set to 250. In six missions I got 3 PKs/12 shootdowns and the most number of hispano hits required to bring down an F8 was 3, plus miscellaneous .50 cal strikes.

One of the PKs was a .50 cal headshot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see theres the problem offline, ai pilots are quick to bail out, they also take less dammage, even the mustang 3 lights up 190s like firecrackers offline, yet online they rarely catch fire to any gun i use on them. The ta is the worst, my records are 76 hits with a spitfire bailed out fuel leak and control loss, 128 hits p47 he finally caught fire.

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
"Jerk the stick back" means pull it all the way back in one, *fast*, motion.

Fast varies from person to person, theres fast throwing ur stick around the table almost snapping it in two, and theres just general quick movements, i dont move my stick from netural to full back in under a second because A requires much effort with my stick and B it tends to lift of the table when doing stupid stuff like that, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, jerking the stick is stupid, and that is exactly what it means. Disingenuous language. Pure and simple. The only question is if it's intentional or not.

One thing is is not is a matter of perspective. Jerkin' it back, is jerkin' it back. Period. And that's clearly NOT what you are doing, despite your continued insistance in calling it that.

I also doubt that your stick puts up much more counter movement force than a Cougar.

ploughman
01-20-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yesterday I flew a QMB against a pair of Fw-190 F8s in a clipped Spit IXE with arcade on to view hits, convergence set to 250. In six missions I got 3 PKs/12 shootdowns and the most number of hispano hits required to bring down an F8 was 3, plus miscellaneous .50 cal strikes.

One of the PKs was a .50 cal headshot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see theres the problem offline, ai pilots are quick to bail out, they also take less dammage, even the mustang 3 lights up 190s like firecrackers offline, yet online they rarely catch fire to any gun i use on them. The ta is the worst, my records are 76 hits with a spitfire bailed out fuel leak and control loss, 128 hits p47 he finally caught fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's just insane. Is there something about on-whine frying that prevents correct DM calculation? 76 hispano hits would leave you frying a pair of under-pants. I'm not sure the off-whine frying is the problem going by your figures. Do you get useless ping? Are you on some phone modem from Mars?

---*(Rhyming slang used to enrage Kurfurst)*---

BfHeFwMe
01-20-2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yesterday I flew a QMB against a pair of Fw-190 F8s in a clipped Spit IXE with arcade on to view hits, convergence set to 250. In six missions I got 3 PKs/12 shootdowns and the most number of hispano hits required to bring down an F8 was 3, plus miscellaneous .50 cal strikes.

One of the PKs was a .50 cal headshot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's so cute, QMB? LOL

BfHeFwMe
01-20-2006, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lemmme guess, QMB? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-20-2006, 07:46 PM
I suppose you guys do know that you can configure a stick so that no plane stalls no matter how hard you pull...

Of course, you won`t be outturning many fighters... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

of course you know.

I`ll get my coat then...

danjama
01-20-2006, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I suppose you guys do know that you can configure a stick so that no plane stalls no matter how hard you pull...

Of course, you won`t be outturning many fighters... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

of course you know.

I`ll get my coat then...

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

you funny, lets get a beer....

HellToupee
01-20-2006, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Strange stuff happens across the boards, takes me on average 10 solid hispanio hits to get a 190 to disengage. Throw in another half dozen to drop it, but so what. Don't see us crying to nerf your rides. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We just out manouver and eventually our guns do work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
HayateAce's younger brother?
BTW, with this reply I'am officialy calling you a liar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yesterday I flew a QMB against a pair of Fw-190 F8s in a clipped Spit IXE with arcade on to view hits, convergence set to 250. In six missions I got 3 PKs/12 shootdowns and the most number of hispano hits required to bring down an F8 was 3, plus miscellaneous .50 cal strikes.

One of the PKs was a .50 cal headshot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see theres the problem offline, ai pilots are quick to bail out, they also take less dammage, even the mustang 3 lights up 190s like firecrackers offline, yet online they rarely catch fire to any gun i use on them. The ta is the worst, my records are 76 hits with a spitfire bailed out fuel leak and control loss, 128 hits p47 he finally caught fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's just insane. Is there something about on-whine frying that prevents correct DM calculation? 76 hispano hits would leave you frying a pair of under-pants. I'm not sure the off-whine frying is the problem going by your figures. Do you get useless ping? Are you on some phone modem from Mars?

---*(Rhyming slang used to enrage Kurfurst)*--- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i ping 150-200 to most servers i play on with 256k adsl. These records where when i engaged a guy pretty much just after joining a server where i start with 0 gunstat, so there might have even been occasions where ive hit them more :P, sometimes they go down with a few hits but then so do he111s and often they dont.

JV44Rall
01-21-2006, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Look at some of the other threads on the Spit. It seems that a lot of people think the Spit is overmodeled or the FW is undermodeled.

Could that be because they keep refering to the rathewr hasty test of Faber's 190 vs an early Spitfire IX, and try to compare it to the later Spitfire IXs in game (which were faster, and climbed much, much better)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the RAF test with the FW 190 A3 with no boost and the fouled spark plugs?

Yes, that's the one.

JV44Rall
01-21-2006, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
As an aside, this game would take on an entirely new dimension if the P-51, P-47, P-38 could reach the same airspeeds in the same amount of time as their 190/109 counterparts (which, of course, in real life they could do...and then some). It would force blue to stand and fight instead of doing their usual running act. The game would change overnight...and the howls of protest from the blue bench would be deafening.
GR142-Pipper

C'mon Pip - you've reached a new level of obfuscation.

FB's FW 190As have terrible acceleration except when you point them straight down. You know it, and I know you know it. No allied fighter has worse level acceleration. As for dive acceleration, P47s, P38 "lates" and Mustang IIIs dive better than FWs.

The reason FW 190As hit and run is that they have no other option - they get slaughtered in turn fights and can't zoom climb away.

If the FW 190A in game could zoom climb like real life, they'd stick around and fight. But the howls of protest from the red bench . . . yadda, yadda, yadda.

jimDG
01-21-2006, 04:26 AM
No. Hurry pilots could take girlfriends for a ride (on their laps). Spit cockpits were too tight for that. No good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
01-21-2006, 04:51 AM
Lemmme guess, QMB? LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
No, mainly WC, during my "Spitfire tour", I rearly needed more than 1(One) bursts to make 109/190 go down, Ta152 was only problem, although I PK'ed two of them with also only one burst. While I fly FW190 99% of time I go down after only one encounter with hispano. 10 hits are brutal overkill, and complete nonsence...

Friendly_flyer
01-21-2006, 05:18 AM
This is amazing! This thread has fully deteriorated into whining about FW-190 and P-51s. Sigh.

Yupp, you where absolutely right SeaFire.

As to the pilots loving their Spitfires, I have read a few books on airplanes. While I can not say all of the pilots expressly stated they loved their plane, none stated they did not.

hop2002
01-21-2006, 05:23 AM
You mean the RAF test with the FW 190 A3 with no boost and the fouled spark plugs?

Yes, that's the one.

No, I mean the A3 that the RAF overboosted during the tests, and got some rather remarkable climb figures from.

Here's a graph, original is a German test of the A3 at climb power. Red is the RAE test of Faber's A3 at what they then knew was WEP, but was assumed to be climb power for the comparison test against the Spitfires etc. Blue is the Spitfire Vb also at climb power.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1137845667_190a3spitvb.jpg

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 06:51 AM
Climbing power being 1.32 ATA, and WEP 1.42 ATA LRRP?
The Faber results seem somewhat different to German data, no?

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
This is amazing! This thread has fully deteriorated into whining about FW-190 and P-51s. Sigh.

Yupp, you where absolutely right SeaFire.

As to the pilots loving their Spitfires, I have read a few books on airplanes. While I can not say all of the pilots expressly stated they loved their plane, none stated they did not.

not always http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
spitfires where probably the best handling aircraft of the war.

and however good or bad they where, they defeated teh luftwaffe a few times http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and however good or bad they where, they defeated teh luftwaffe a few times http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Winning a war, especially this war, has no bearing on capabilities of aircraft.

This is just nonsensical anti-LW chest pounding - "My side won, so they *must* be better". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 09:32 AM
hehehe

I get what pingu is saying though.

The spitfire wasn't something you could do a merry jig with and expect to beat by default.

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 09:39 AM
BOB, malta
both pivatel battles, and in both the spitfire did its job very well indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

in both, the spitfire was vital to winning those battles.

the situation on malta was pretty dire, the AA guns where limited to 12 rounds per DAY, per gun. and there was always a truck on standby to rush ppl to the craters in the runway, to fill them in again.

food was also in sort supply..

lw also had the numbers advantage too, i belive

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
hehehe

I get what pingu is saying though.

The spitfire wasn't something you could do a merry jig with and expect to beat by default.

yeah, basicaly. it was a very good bomber interceptor/fighter
its got twice the guns of the 109f (but less ammo)
109s could take gunpods but that ruined them according to many lw pilots

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 09:49 AM
The Fokker D.VII was the best plane of the war. Yet the Central Powers lost.

The Siemens Schukert D-III was revolutionary and would have likely proven itself better than even the Fok D.VII. Especially up high.

They still lost.

Your argument is pointless and completely unfounded.

The 190 outclassed the Spitfire where it counted, in multi on multi combat. Didn't make the LW win.

The Allies best weapon in the war was the idiocy of Nazi's (the guys at the very top). That is what won the war. Period.

WOLFMondo
01-21-2006, 10:17 AM
You can blame it on allot of things, thats just once of them. Lets not go there and stay on topic.

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 10:29 AM
yep the 190 was better at multiplane stuff.

wasnt better at photo recon tho, for example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
01-21-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yep the 190 was better at multiplane stuff.

wasnt better at photo recon tho, for example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

190s did OK at low altitude photo recon.


Hop2002,

Please visit the "Focke Wulf Consortium" linked in my sig below. Phillipe and Crumpp are having some discussions that I know you will be interested in.

GR142-Pipper
01-21-2006, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by JV44Rall:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
As an aside, this game would take on an entirely new dimension if the P-51, P-47, P-38 could reach the same airspeeds in the same amount of time as their 190/109 counterparts (which, of course, in real life they could do...and then some). It would force blue to stand and fight instead of doing their usual running act. The game would change overnight...and the howls of protest from the blue bench would be deafening.
GR142-Pipper


C'mon Pip - you've reached a new level of obfuscation. My remarks were staightforward and clear...no obfuscation at all.


FB's FW 190As have terrible acceleration except when you point them straight down. You know it, and I know you know it. No allied fighter has worse level acceleration. As for dive acceleration, P47s, P38 "lates" and Mustang IIIs dive better than FWs. You must be talking about another flight game. The German fighters in this one have much better acceleration characteristics than their Allied counterparts.


The reason FW 190As hit and run is that they have no other option - they get slaughtered in turn fights and can't zoom climb away. 190 drivers are scavengers. They have no other option because they want no other option. Guys that fly these typically can't handle themselves in a 109 so they try to legitimize this by flying 190's or TA-152's. It's also known that the 190 has a very forgiving damage model. So there you have it. Sorry if your feelings are hurt by this but I call 'em like I see 'em.


If the FW 190A in game could zoom climb like real life, they'd stick around and fight. But the howls of protest from the red bench . . . yadda, yadda, yadda. Riiiiiight.

GR142-Pipper

danjama
01-21-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
BOB, malta
both pivatel battles, and in both the spitfire did its job very well indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

in both, the spitfire was vital to winning those battles.

the situation on malta was pretty dire, the AA guns where limited to 12 rounds per DAY, per gun. and there was always a truck on standby to rush ppl to the craters in the runway, to fill them in again.

food was also in sort supply..

lw also had the numbers advantage too, i belive

Lets not forget the Spitfire's role later in the war with the TAF in Normandy and Belgium etc etc

The Spitfire truly is a great aircraft, and was even more so when it counted. Theres no denying it!

*edit*

". Guys that fly these typically can't handle themselves in a 109" by Pipper

^^^^ This is absolute bull! 190 pilots are usually a hell of alot better in 109's, caus 109's are so **** easy to fly effectively. In fact, most of your response pipper is Bull. To expect 190 pilots to fight how you want them to is ridiculous, that goes against the whole essence of air combat. What next, should we be sure to stay below 1000m so we cant have altitude advantage either?

The 190 does suck at zoom climbing compared to its real life counterpart.

Anyway, the Spitfire is great!

WOLFMondo
01-21-2006, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
190 drivers are scavengers.

At least there not full of hot air and biased opinion like the kind of biased red whiners on here at the momenthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Some of the best online virtual pilots are 190 drivers, and they all work in pairs if not more. You really should put some time in the 190's and fly with some 190 jocks because all you write points to you never ever flying one and knowing nothing about tactics used to fly them, historical or otherwise. The best Mustang and P47 pilots online fly those planes exactly the same as you'd see a FW190 flown. Are you going to say they do this cause the can't handle the Spitfire? bah!

you sound like you expect everyone to turn and burn which was an outdated tactic in 1940. Disengaging is a tactic, using superior speed is a tactic and energy managment is a tactic, this is the way the 190 is flown. Its also the way many US types should be flown, not turning and burning like a 109 on the deck.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-21-2006, 12:02 PM
One of the things to take into consideration when discussing the Spitfire is it's place in the British psyche. It normally appears in any top ten list of great things about Britain. Can the same be said for the Bf109 or Fw190 when making a top ten list of great things about Germany? Or of the P-51 when making a list for the U.S.A? They are all very good fighter aeroplanes, but none can even come close to rivalling the Spifire in the affections of her native population. I'm not talking about flight-sim geeks and planespotters here - I'm talking about the entire literate population.

Want to test this theory out? Walk into a British pub wearing a Spitfire lapel pin or carrying a book/magazine with a Spifire on the cover. You will find people of all ages and both sexes willing to instigate conversation with you. Now try it with steam trains or airliners - feeling a little lonely? Attracted a weirdo? I rest my case.

To the British, the Spitfire is much more than a very good fighter aeroplane (which it undoubtedly was), it's a symbol of national identity; a beautifully potent reminder of a glorious past, a cherished memento of a time when - against all the odds - Britain stood up to a dark threat to humanity and played a leading role in making the world a better place. It's a part of British national heritage - you might as well try and belittle Shakespeare or real ale. The Spitfire is up there with a decent cup of tea, fish and chips, curry, Churchill, Nelson and the Beatles - you'll never convince the British otherwise. And quite rightly so.

Bear that in mind next time you dis' the Spit.

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
you sound like you expect everyone to turn and burn which was an outdated tactic in 1940.

It was an outdated tactic in 1917. See - SPAD VII, and XIII.

HellToupee
01-21-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by JV44Rall:
C'mon Pip - you've reached a new level of obfuscation.

FB's FW 190As have terrible acceleration except when you point them straight down. You know it, and I know you know it. No allied fighter has worse level acceleration. As for dive acceleration, P47s, P38 "lates" and Mustang IIIs dive better than FWs.

The reason FW 190As hit and run is that they have no other option - they get slaughtered in turn fights and can't zoom climb away.

If the FW 190A in game could zoom climb like real life, they'd stick around and fight. But the howls of protest from the red bench . . . yadda, yadda, yadda.

They have terrible low speed acceleration, they are heavy with a poor power to weight ratio, the faber 190 would probly out accelerate the late 190As and outclimb. At higher speeds they generally out accelerate many fighters.

Of course they lose in turn fights as they did in real life, as for zoom, just how far do u expect to outzoom a plane with equal E up past the point where the faster climbing plane wins? Zoom dosnt equal engage rocket boosters. p47s were supposed to outdive and outzoom 190s to, but will u survive zooming with a 190 on ur six? no you wont, neither will the spitfire.

SeaFireLIV
01-21-2006, 12:19 PM
Excellent post, Low_Flyer_MkII. I tried a little test on my daughter in the middle of reading her girl magazine, she says:

"It`s British and that it won the World war. And it has wheels."

There ya go, what more do you need?

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
a cherished memento of a time when - against all the odds - Britain stood up to a dark threat to humanity and played a leading role in making the world a better place.

.... Britain never fought the commies. That was our gig - and victory.

As for the rest - just more irrelevant chest thumping. The US, for example, has always had a love affair with the road, and cars. When you have Duesenbergs, Packards, Cords, Auburns, Cadillacs, and Muscle Cars available to be interested in and proud of.... it's hard to ignore. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So actually, "Mustang" would be high on such a list - just not that Mustang.

For you, it's the Spitfire. For us, it's the Declaration and Constitution and Liberty Bell and Old Glory.

After that, we simply have far too many outstanding machinery milestones to obsess over any single one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-21-2006, 12:21 PM
oh, and that it`s an airplane.... ahem.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-21-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
a cherished memento of a time when - against all the odds - Britain stood up to a dark threat to humanity and played a leading role in making the world a better place.

.... Britain never fought the commies. That was our gig - and victory.

As for the rest - just more irrelevant chest thumping. The US, for example, has always had a love affair with the road, and cars. When you have Duesenbergs, Packards, Cords, Auburns, Cadillacs, and Muscle Cars available to be interested in and proud of.... it's hard to ignore. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So actually, "Mustang" would be high on such a list - just not that Mustang.

For you, it's the Spitfire. For us, it's the Declaration and Constitution and Liberty Bell and Old Glory.

After that, we simply have far too many outstanding machinery milestones to obsess over any single one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ever heard of Malaya? A few 'commies' there methinks. Korea? A few Britons there, likewise.

As for Old Glory etc, I wouldn't dream of belittling them. You seem intent on a p1ssing contest. I refuse. Have a nice day.

And Seafire, thanks for the impromptu test and your kind words - but it will always be an aeroplane to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
As for Old Glory etc, I wouldn't dream of belittling them. You seem intent on a p1ssing contest. I refuse. Have a nice day.

Not hardly. This "dark threat to humanity" stuff is ridiculous. It's socialists and commies that are the threat to humanity. You people forget that because they "won the war". Never mind that their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart.

Not that the defeated was anything good, but nobody likes to call a spade a spade.

As for the rest, it's a "pi$$ing contest" if someone disagrees with you? I see. lol Not surprising in the least either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

carguy_
01-21-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Excellent post, Low_Flyer_MkII. I tried a little test on my daughter in the middle of reading her girl magazine, she says:

"It`s British and that it won the World war. And it has wheels."

There ya go, what more do you need?


Heheh

I remember back in the past when I was like 5yr old dad showed me the T34 and said it was the tank to destroy Germany http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

danjama
01-21-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
As for Old Glory etc, I wouldn't dream of belittling them. You seem intent on a p1ssing contest. I refuse. Have a nice day.

Not hardly. This "dark threat to humanity" stuff is ridiculous. It's socialists and commies that are the threat to humanity. You people forget that because they "won the war". Never mind that their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart.

Not that the defeated was anything good, but nobody likes to call a spade a spade.

As for the rest, it's a "pi$$ing contest" if someone disagrees with you? I see. lol Not surprising in the least either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're really sounding like an ar$ehole right now...

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Britain never fought the commies.



If your statement can be interpreted as "Britain never engaged in military action against communists" then it is an incorrect assumption.
Regardless of what your political views may lead you to believe, you are wrong.

If you would like to continue to be wrong, please take it to Private Topics.

Xiolablu3
01-21-2006, 12:59 PM
Unknown pilot, you are totally clueless.

HOw can you call communism a threat to humanity? It is much more 'human' than capitalism!

Its dictatorships which are inhuman, not communism. You really do beleive all that anti-communism propaganda that some people in your country spout, dont you?

I am not a communist in any way, but I know what it is, and what it stands for. The world doesnt need 'saving' from communism, some ideas of communism are far more preferable to some parts of capitalism!

Remember, the idea of communism is everybody working togther to make the country/world a better place regardless of payment/riches. Capitalism is 'capitalising' on every situation for profit and gain.

I know communism doesnt usually work in big states/countries (you need a leader and organisation and some sort of reward for superior effort, so that people try and better themselves), and I wouldnt want to live in a communist state, but I can see the good points of it, you have just been suckered in to all that anti communist cr*p that you read everyday.

Try and have a balanced view and make up your own mind, rather than believing bullSh*t.


(If you are going to come back with some flaming post, ridiculing every sentence in that gay way that you do, then please have the balls to tell us your name before you became this 'unknown' dude, otherwise you are just hiding behind an anonymous persona and it means nothing)

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-21-2006, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
As for Old Glory etc, I wouldn't dream of belittling them. You seem intent on a p1ssing contest. I refuse. Have a nice day.

Not hardly. This "dark threat to humanity" stuff is ridiculous. It's socialists and commies that are the threat to humanity. You people forget that because they "won the war". Never mind that their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart.

Not that the defeated was anything good, but nobody likes to call a spade a spade.

As for the rest, it's a "pi$$ing contest" if someone disagrees with you? I see. lol Not surprising in the least either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We seem to be misunderstanding each other here - the original "chest-thumping" post was about an observed perception - although if Nazism wasn't a dark threat to humanity then what was? Speaking of which, your American perception of 'socialist' seems more threatening than my English one. Must be like sidewalk and pavement.

And what did "their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart" mean, exactly? Call a spade a spade, old chap. Spell it out.

Tell you what - google search 'Reliant Robin' and get back to me on muscle cars.

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 01:01 PM
Please don't discuss political theory, especialy in a thread about the performance of the Spitfire.

That is what private topics are for.

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 01:03 PM
Xio, you're an idiot. And you just love to show it off. lol

Spend some time learning about reality, nature, and humans. A little history won't hurt you either.

You talk like a socialist. Which also would not be surprising. The single largest threat to this country right now, and humanity as a whole. The antithesis of freedom, nature, and reality.

You'll no doubt have more major cramps over this, and pi$$ and moan about it. You're predictable. Just like a certain group of people.....

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 01:04 PM
btw, u may like to know that a scottishman invented the v8.

the biggest threat to humanity is money.

money will destroy us all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

danjama
01-21-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
As for Old Glory etc, I wouldn't dream of belittling them. You seem intent on a p1ssing contest. I refuse. Have a nice day.

Not hardly. This "dark threat to humanity" stuff is ridiculous. It's socialists and commies that are the threat to humanity. You people forget that because they "won the war". Never mind that their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart.

Not that the defeated was anything good, but nobody likes to call a spade a spade.

As for the rest, it's a "pi$$ing contest" if someone disagrees with you? I see. lol Not surprising in the least either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We seem to be misunderstanding each other here - the original "chest-thumping" post was about an observed perception - although if Nazism wasn't a dark threat to humanity then what was? Speaking of which, your American perception of 'socialist' seems more threatening than my English one. Must be like sidewalk and pavement.

And what did "their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart" mean, exactly? Call a spade a spade, old chap. Spell it out.

Tell you what - google search 'Reliant Robin' and get back to me on muscle cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what he said! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 01:08 PM
cubans have a lower infant mortality rate than americans, plus very good health setup. alot grow there own fruit and veg.

communism done right would be cool, shame its done wrongly fairly often. still human rights are libary violated in capatolist countries

Xiolablu3
01-21-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Xio, you're an idiot. And you just love to show it off. lol

Spend some time learning about reality, nature, and humans. A little history won't hurt you either.

You talk like a socialist. Which also would not be surprising. The single largest threat to this country right now, and humanity as a whole. The antithesis of freedom, nature, and reality.

You'll no doubt have more major cramps over this, and pi$$ and moan about it. You're predictable. Just like a certain group of people.....

Nope, I usually ignore your posts, just because they are so full of BS, I skip right through them.

I just hate to see people claiming that communism is the enemy of the world, when the person talking obviously knows nothing about it.

I only answered this in case some other young guy read what you wrote and actually beleived what you said (which could happen) The reply was not for your benefit, but for others. (I know thatyou are so far up your own a*se that you think you know everything, I will just leave you to die a slow death http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif)

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
And what did "their most prominent leader did far worse stuff than the defeated counterpart" mean, exactly? Call a spade a spade, old chap. Spell it out.

10 million is greater than 6 million. Or... do you play favorites and assume one kind of person is more valuable than another?

And that's just for starters.




Tell you what - google search 'Reliant Robin' and get back to me an muscle cars.

A 3 wheeler? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"And it's not the usual American, enormous saloon with an engine out of a battleship" - Richard Hammond, Top Gear (talking about the C6)

He says it with a sneer (as they all do when talking abou anything American), but he'd be hard pressed to come up with a better compliment (other than the saloon part, big or not, they were still all coupes). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-21-2006, 01:12 PM
10 million is greater than 6 million. Or... do you play favorites and assume one kind of person is more valuable than another?

And that's just for starters.

Carry on....

danjama
01-21-2006, 01:16 PM
Communism is ideal within small communities IMO, could work very well, presuming none of the wives decide to have affairs...

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
cubans have a lower infant mortality rate than americans, plus very good health setup. alot grow there own fruit and veg.

communism done right would be cool, shame its done wrongly fairly often. still human rights are libary violated in capatolist countries

This rock can't support 6 Billion. You're advocating more.

Regardless, it's sadly no surprise to see you saying such vile things. Sacrificing rights and freedoms is not "cool".

Communism can not work. Period. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of human nature would realize that. Maybe with small groups you can pull it off, but not with populations the size of say - NY State, or more.

There's a reason Franklin gave up on you guys, even though he didn't want to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-21-2006, 01:24 PM
I remember (many moons ago) asking my teacher why commmunism was seen as so bad by everyone. the idea of it seemed a good one, but he said it could never work because someone has to be the boss, and Communism isn`t suppose to have a boss.

I agree with Xiolablu3 on a basic level. the idea of Communism itself is not a bad one, it is quite idealistic and maybe that`s it problem. In a perfect world it would work, but in this world... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

So capitalism wins because the darker greedier side of man wins. but it could be worse. At least it`s not fascism. (Guess I`ll get the indignant posts now...)

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
cubans have a lower infant mortality rate than americans, plus very good health setup. alot grow there own fruit and veg.

communism done right would be cool, shame its done wrongly fairly often. still human rights are libary violated in capatolist countries

This rock can't support 6 Billion. You're advocating more.

Regardless, it's sadly no surprise to see you saying such vile things. Sacrificing rights and freedoms is not "cool".

Communism can not work. Period. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of human nature would realize that. Maybe with small groups you can pull it off, but not with populations the size of say - NY State, or more.

There's a reason Franklin gave up on you guys, even though he didn't want to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it can support 6 billion actully. just depends on how many resources a person uses. a "global footprint" is one of the names such a idea is described.

but, yes, if everyone in the world went through resources like americans, then the world wouldnt be able to support that. ud need 4 worlds for that.

a quick look at our finacal system, and the way us capatists do things, and ull realise we are heading towards our own destruction.

besides, i dont think the communist system u would haveto give up freedoms, heck we have given up freedoms here. whos worried about saying things incase there "investigated"?

ploughman
01-21-2006, 02:56 PM
UP's got Spitfire envy. Tragic really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
01-21-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
190 drivers are scavengers. They have no other option because they want no other option. Guys that fly these typically can't handle themselves in a 109 so they try to legitimize this by flying 190's or TA-152's. It's also known that the 190 has a very forgiving damage model. So there you have it. Sorry if your feelings are hurt by this but I call 'em like I see 'em.



GR142-Pipper


Wow Pipper, way to make a jerk out of yourself.

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 03:45 PM
The best pilots are Focke Wulf pilots.

And his name is Fish... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

danjama
01-21-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
The best pilots are Focke Wulf pilots.

And his name is Fish... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 04:02 PM
oh and danjama is ok.. sorta. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kettenhunde
01-21-2006, 04:47 PM
Here's a graph, original is a German test of the A3 at climb power.

You posted a graph of the FW-190Aa-3 in comparision to a FW-190A3. Not the same aircraft.

The FW-190Aa-3 is the export version sold to Turkey and not the FW-190A3 in Luftwaffe service.

All the best,

Crumpp

carguy_
01-21-2006, 05:40 PM
Communism is in fact supposed to have a boss - the party.The party knows what is best for the nation,the party protects the nation and ensures no one tries to destroy the system.

Socialism depends entirely of human`s will to share with others.Everyone shares with everyone,so everybody is happy.

From a mere university student`s perspective its all bollocks though.Human nature lies in keeping himself and evetually his family good.

A belief that human is anything more than a very intelligent specie,meaning that every human is able to walk against his nature, is false.

It would be funny to go back in time and see when was the very first time when a Homo Sapiens (Sapiens) killed another of his specie to get his goods.

GR142-Pipper
01-21-2006, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Some of the best online virtual pilots are 190 drivers While you're certainly entitled to your point of view, I think they happen to be the weakest players in the game.
You really should put some time in the 190's and fly with some 190 jocks because all you write points to you never ever flying one and knowing nothing about tactics used to fly them, historical or otherwise. I'm very familiar with the tactic (singular) and we've certainly flown them sufficiently in this game to get an idea of what they're about. Here's the tactic...drive-by, run....drive-by, run. It's as easy and as risk-averse as it gets. They're not even close in ability to those who fly 109's. You feel differently...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-21-2006, 06:23 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 GR142-Pipper:
190 drivers are scavengers. They have no other option because they want no other option. Guys that fly these typically can't handle themselves in a 109 so they try to legitimize this by flying 190's or TA-152's. It's also known that the 190 has a very forgiving damage model. So there you have it. Sorry if your feelings are hurt by this but I call 'em like I see 'em.



GR142-Pipper


Wow Pipper, way to make a jerk out of yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah. What I said is true.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
01-21-2006, 06:37 PM
You sound like a bitter loser. Too bad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JG5_UnKle
01-21-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
190 drivers are scavengers. They have no other option because they want no other option. Guys that fly these typically can't handle themselves in a 109 so they try to legitimize this by flying 190's or TA-152's. It's also known that the 190 has a very forgiving damage model. So there you have it. Sorry if your feelings are hurt by this but I call 'em like I see 'em.



GR142-Pipper

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Oh man, this is a computer game - get over yourself

Von_Rat
01-22-2006, 01:15 AM
I'm very familiar with the tactic (singular) and we've certainly flown them sufficiently in this game to get an idea of what they're about. Here's the tactic...drive-by, run....drive-by, run. It's as easy and as risk-averse as it gets. They're not even close in ability to those who fly 109's. You feel differently...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper


hit and run is a very good and even more important a very HISTORICAL AND REALISTIC tactic.

the gamey low level turn n bank tactics that most 09 and spit pilots use, are not very good, or very historical, or realistic tactics.

if your life really was on the line, you'd be "risk adverse" too.

except for a handful of 09, spit, p51 or 47 drivers, the vast majority of ace pilots in this game fly the fw.

GR142-Pipper
01-22-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
except for a handful of 09, spit, p51 or 47 drivers, the vast majority of ace pilots in this game fly the fw. Let's not hide behind the skirts of "historics" as this is a game. In this game, the truly skilled and respected blue pilots fly 109s. The others fly 190s.

That's the way I see it. You feel differently. So, ok.

GR142-Pipper

JG5_UnKle
01-22-2006, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
except for a handful of 09, spit, p51 or 47 drivers, the vast majority of ace pilots in this game fly the fw. Let's not hide behind the skirts of "historics" as this is a game. In this game, the truly skilled and respected blue pilots fly 109s. The others fly 190s.

That's the way I see it. You feel differently. So, ok.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My guess is you don't fly either the 109 or the 190. If you think the 109 takes more skill to fly anf fight with vs the 190 then I would have to disagree, in my mind the 190 is the more challenging platform.

190 vPilots have had a tough ride in this sim and those that stuck with it, learned to live with its shortcomings and mastered its advantages are the same guys that are kicking your ***.

that's the way I see it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Manuel29
01-22-2006, 05:04 AM
I'm not so good pilot like was before the latest patch (serius wobble issue), but if I want to stay alive for more than 5 minutes and HAVE FUN, I choose a MkIXe.

I think FW's pilots need more patience than others; look at the climb rate and you'll see that 109s can combat few minutes after takeoff, FWs need a lot more time to reach the good altitude... and if you make a little mistake you are DEAD (sometimes it's very frustrating).

Like you I could say that MkIX pilots are "cowards", but I think this's a game and people want to have fun... so I respect them the same.

Bye

EDIT: I think the RL Spit wasn't SO good comparing the others planes (LOL, I think the La-X is more similar to RL, but it's only my feeling). IMHO the spits have too much e-retention OR the Axis haven't enough (also if I lean toward the first), I'm not an expert like most of you but this is my opinion.



PS: First post, Hi all!!!

Friendly_flyer
01-22-2006, 05:34 AM
Excellent posts SeFire and LowFlyer!

One learns something every day. Today I learned I am a menace to humanity. I used to think I was a fairly upstanding law-abiding citizen, give money to poor people, working to educate children etc. Luckily Unknown Pilot brought me out of my dilutions. Come Monday, I€ll buy myself a black wardrobe to go with my evil ways.

As for the Spitfire vs. Mustang:

Spitfire was an excellent fighter, and it appeared in a time and place in history where its excellence let it play a pivotal part in history. The same can't really be said of the Mustang. Despite being a good fighter, frankly, the P-47 could have done the same job. The daylight bombing did not hang on the Mustang.

Brain32
01-22-2006, 05:47 AM
EDIT: I think the RL Spit wasn't SO good comparing the others planes (LOL, I think the La-X is more similar to RL, but it's only my feeling). IMHO the spits have too much e-retention OR the Axis haven't enough (also if I lean toward the first), I'm not an expert like most of you but this is my opinion.
I don't think Spitfire is to blame, it's really not(or atleast it doesen't seem so) a UFO or anything uber, my opinion is that manouvering E penalty in FW is overdone, and while I'm ranting the 109 and P38's controls are too stiff, or other planes controls are not stiff enough at high speed. All in all maybe I like(and hate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) the Spitfire too much to give unbiased opinion but I don't think it's uber at all...

p1ngu666
01-22-2006, 06:21 AM
if in trouble in a 190 u can run, u can probably live longer in a 190..

Manuel29
01-22-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
if in trouble in a 190 u can run, u can probably live longer in a 190..

"alive for more than 5 minutes and HAVE FUN"

Running away is not HAVING FUN... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
01-22-2006, 06:34 AM
if in trouble in a 190 u can run, u can probably live longer in a 190..
A good pilot can run in any plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. But let's look at it from FW perspective, you can't see(as good as your opponent), you can't turn, you can't climb, I mean WTF should I suppose to do, only thing left is crusing fast at good altitude, jump the deck-turnning sucker, extend and run like hell watching somebody else finnish him off, wow what a superiour plane...

p1ngu666
01-22-2006, 08:28 AM
well, apart from the fact it turns and climbs well, just not in the sub 340kph area.

its superiour in thatll keep u alive, and u can leave the battle when u want.

and ofcourse any pilot can run away. u take a tb3, and ill take a fw190, u try and run away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and manuel, indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

panther3485
01-22-2006, 08:37 AM
Hi there, Friendly_flyer,

Quote:

"....The same can't really be said of the Mustang. Despite being a good fighter, frankly, the P-47 could have done the same job. The daylight bombing did not hang on the Mustang."

You're joking, right? Please tell me you were only joking!!!!!


Best regards,
panther3485

p1ngu666
01-22-2006, 09:21 AM
its only really range that made the p51 teh war winner

performance was good, but it was teh range. p47N had a even longer range.

p47n weighed more than a do17 2 engine(german bomber used at the start of teh war) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

panther3485
01-22-2006, 10:14 AM
Hi there, p1ngu666,

Quote:

"....its only really range that made the p51 teh war winner
performance was good, but it was teh range. p47N had a even longer range.
p47n weighed more than a do17 2 engine(german bomber used at the start of teh war)"

All the great 'war winning' weapons that come to my mind were great not for one attribute only, but for the way they combined and balanced two or more key attributes .

In the case of the P-51 Mustang (B/C onwards), these key attributes were:

(a) Sufficient range to escort bombers in daylight to the furthest reaches of the Reich.
(b) Combat efficiency that made it equal to or better than the principal German fighter types in most situations. (Excellent balance of Firepower , Speed and Maneuverability .)

Eventually, a very select number of Allied fighters met requirement (a) and some had already met requirement (b) but I believe the P-51 was the only Allied type that met both requirements to anything like full satisfaction .

Even if you give some consideration to the P-47N, this variant didn't begin to become available until the very end of 1944, by which time the P-51 had already well and truly swung the balance in the skies over Germany. There was also an extreme-ranged version of the P-47D but if memory serves, even that was not available in any great numbers until late '44. Too late!

In any case, neither the P-47 nor the P-38 (which had always enjoyed very long range), great planes as they unquestionably were, could engage German fighters quite as effectively as the P-51.

For want of a truly effective long-range escort fighter, the USAAF had suffered appallingly through most of 1943 and at one point almost considered abandoning deep penetration daylight bombing.

The P-51 B/C entered the escort role in the nick of time. It was the perfect tool for the job and proved instrumental both in assuring the continued viability of the daylight bombing offensive and in wresting control of the skies over Germany from the Luftwaffe.


Best regards,
panther3485

Friendly_flyer
01-22-2006, 10:30 AM
The P-47 was a heavy fighter. Its faults was more or less the same at Mustangs, only more so. However, to counter the Mustangs shortcomings, operational doctrine was tailored to counter it. The same could be done to accommodate the Thunderbolt, it could even possibly have a better survival rate than the Mustang.

Granted, had I been flying over Germany in 1943-44, I would rather have a Mustang than a Thunderbolt (though I am sure a few on this forum would disagree with me). There where planes that could have taken the Mustangs place in 43/44. There where no plane to take the Spitfires place in the BoB.

faustnik
01-22-2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

...in my mind the 190 is the more challenging platform.



I think every a/c in this sim has some difficult aspect. I can't think of one where you can jump in and dominate against experienced pilots. We have a few small and bitter people here who try to justify their own shortcomings by insulting others. If you can't show a little respect for other joining you in flying this sim, then you are a truly pathetic individual. Every plane in the sim has it's strengths and weaknesses, the good pilots can work with that and do well. The rest it seems, just jump on the forums and whine.

p1ngu666
01-22-2006, 11:36 AM
indeed faus http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther, i agree with u, i just mean theres nothing really that puts the p51 head and shoulders better than others apart from range.

it was **** fast, and good highspeed control.

and it arrived on time too.

but a p47 with the same range would have been just as good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

panther3485
01-22-2006, 11:40 AM
Hi again, Friendly_flyer,

Quote:

The P-47 was a heavy fighter. Its faults was more or less the same at Mustangs, only more so. However, to counter the Mustangs shortcomings, operational doctrine was tailored to counter it. The same could be done to accommodate the Thunderbolt, it could even possibly have a better survival rate than the Mustang.

Granted, had I been flying over Germany in 1943-44, I would rather have a Mustang than a Thunderbolt (though I am sure a few on this forum would disagree with me). There where planes that could have taken the Mustangs place in 43/44. There where no plane to take the Spitfires place in the BoB.


The Mustang didn't fly its first long-range escort mission until mid December 1943. So, you can pretty much forget 1943 for comparison here. The options during almost all of that difficult year were very limited, the P-47 being good for short to medium+ range only , leaving just the P-38 for true long-range escort work.

1944 is best considered in two halves, the first half already conclusively demonstrating the effectiveness of the P-51. During this time the P-47, by and large, could still not truly contest it for range.

As for the second half of 1944, improvements had been made to the range of the P-47D such that, in the period following D-Day, some sub-types that could rival the P-51 for range were now available in numbers. However, by then the P-47 was in increasing (and very important) use as a tactical support aircraft.

Also, in the period following the D-Day landings, the tide of the air fighting over Germany had already begun to decisively turn, thanks to the Mustang. Under these circumstances, it would have made very little sense after that, to start using P-47's as long-range escorts.

And in the truly crucial period (December 1943 to July 1944), there had really been nothing available that could properly have been substitued for the Mustang in that role.


As for the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, yes, it was the only British fighter that could meet the Bf109 on near equal terms. In that sense at least, its contribution was vital.

Having said this, we should not forget that the Hurricane shouldered the lion's share of the burden of defending Britain and shot down the great majority of the bombers that the Luftwaffe lost in that crucial battle.


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
01-22-2006, 11:59 AM
Hi again, p1ngu666,

Quote:

"panther, i agree with u, i just mean theres nothing really that puts the p51 head and shoulders better than others apart from range.

it was **** fast, and good highspeed control.

and it arrived on time too.

but a p47 with the same range would have been just as good"


I think I can almost agree with you.

Had a model of the P-47 with the required range been available 9-12 months earlier, I believe it would have been adequate for the role.

But it don't think it would have been 'just as good'. IMHO, the P-51 was clearly better suited. Not 'head and shoulders' better but nevertheless; still better.

However, most importantly here, such a version of the P-47 was not available in numbers during the critical period, December 1943 to July 1944. And neither was anything else that could do the job to proper satisfaction. That single fact assures the P-51 of it's well-deserved place.


Best regards,
panther3485

Friendly_flyer
01-22-2006, 02:24 PM
I don't think our disagreement is that big, Panther. Without the very capable Mustang getting there to do the job, the Battle over Europe may have been 3 or 4 moths delayed, waiting for the appropriate P-47. And while the Hurricane is my favourite plane in this game, the Spitfire likely swayed the balance so that the battle was not lost.

We might speculate how a lack of Mustangs would have influenced the war. Other fighters would have risen to prominence, perhaps Lightings with Merlins, perhaps the Thunderbolt would hold the status now held by the Mustang. A British design might have proven suited to conversion for long range fighting. However, none of these scenarios contain any major deviation from the overall picture of the war. Luftwaffe would eventually have been broken, Mustang or no Mustang.

danjama
01-22-2006, 02:32 PM
Facts are facts.

AustinPowers_
01-22-2006, 03:22 PM
I've had a cathartic brain wave


I'm now inclined to believe turn and burn fighters will always have a strong advantage in Flight sims, due to the nature of the game.

Dogfight servers just aint like real life.

We simply aren't limited by real life human paramaters in game.

Turn Fighters always have and always will be better at dogfighting.

The strength of energy fights can be exploited if you hit and run.. but trying to dogfight against a pilot which will never feel fatigue, has a high g tolerance and isnt afraid to use it, knows no pain or fear, and has noreal threat of death, and infact finds fighting amusing as opposed to a matter of life or death.... its going to lead to unrealstic things happening, regardless of how well Oleg models planes.

hmmm... that was a nice break from writing a 3000 word assignment.

ok back to work

Von_Rat
01-22-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
except for a handful of 09, spit, p51 or 47 drivers, the vast majority of ace pilots in this game fly the fw. Let's not hide behind the skirts of "historics" as this is a game. In this game, the truly skilled and respected blue pilots fly 109s. The others fly 190s.

That's the way I see it. You feel differently. So, ok.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh sorry i didn't understand that your just a gamer.

i on the other hand like this game because of its ability to simulate, as closly as currently possiable on pcs, historical and realistic aerial combat.

so i try to fly the fw as close as possiable to the way it was flown in real life. and wow i guess it must be working because it seems to really pliss off the gamers.

OberUberWurst
01-22-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Unknown pilot, you are totally clueless.

HOw can you call communism a threat to humanity? It is much more 'human' than capitalism!

Its dictatorships which are inhuman, not communism. You really do beleive all that anti-communism propaganda that some people in your country spout, dont you?

I am not a communist in any way, but I know what it is, and what it stands for. The world doesnt need 'saving' from communism, some ideas of communism are far more preferable to some parts of capitalism!

Remember, the idea of communism is everybody working togther to make the country/world a better place regardless of payment/riches. Capitalism is 'capitalising' on every situation for profit and gain.

I know communism doesnt usually work in big states/countries (you need a leader and organisation and some sort of reward for superior effort, so that people try and better themselves), and I wouldnt want to live in a communist state, but I can see the good points of it, you have just been suckered in to all that anti communist cr*p that you read everyday.

Try and have a balanced view and make up your own mind, rather than believing bullSh*t.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

p1ngu666
01-22-2006, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
except for a handful of 09, spit, p51 or 47 drivers, the vast majority of ace pilots in this game fly the fw. Let's not hide behind the skirts of "historics" as this is a game. In this game, the truly skilled and respected blue pilots fly 109s. The others fly 190s.

That's the way I see it. You feel differently. So, ok.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh sorry i didn't understand that your just a gamer.

i on the other hand like this game because of its ability to simulate, as closly as currently possiable on pcs, historical and realistic aerial combat.

so i try to fly the fw as close as possiable to the way it was flown in real life. and wow i guess it must be working because it seems to really pliss off the gamers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

pipper favours close in dogfighting, while a 190 jock will avoid that (in theory anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)
i can see his point, a dfin pilot will have the skill in the dfin, while a 190 driver, its in the preporation.

190 drivers love the unobserved bounce, but tbh theres no great skill involved, uve got johnny plodding along below u, and u dive down and shoot him, gunnery is the hardest part of it.

a df would haveto get a firing position, then may have more aiming problems.

bnz is more effective, and "better", but a dogfighter can need more skill, a bnz attack needs more preporation, and patience and judgement

EPP_Gibbs
01-22-2006, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Unknown pilot, you are totally clueless.

HOw can you call communism a threat to humanity? It is much more 'human' than capitalism!



I always thought Capitalism was based on the exploitation of one human by another human, and that Communism was exactly the opposite http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In Communism all men are equal, just that some are more equal than others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ImpStarDuece
01-22-2006, 04:51 PM
Essentially, macroeconomic capitalism is a system by which the ownership of the means of production are in the hands of private individuals. In this system economic actors (ie people) attempt to maximise their self-intrest and in doing so end up serving the collective interest as well. Basically, this is Smith's 'invisible hand' theorum, which left out previous assumptions of benevolence and essentially works off the notion that what is best for the individual is best for society as a whole, mostly through respending and the capital multiplier effect.

Communism, on the other hand, is a system where by the invetiable concentration and centralisation processes of capitalism form a system of planned production. Each person, instead of being a economic actor working to maximise self-interest, is now remunerated according to his own productive contribution to the collective process. In theory, this eliminates exploitation of workes as they collectively control production and hence profit.

As an aside, classical Socialist thoery has fallen by the wayside, much like classical capitalist theory. The best way to describe the currrent economic orthodoxy is "constrained neo-institutional conglomeratism" whereby large-scale economic actors (corporations) are forced to work within basic social frameworks (laws, 3rd party agreements, governing strictures) to partially redress the power imbalance between the small scale economic actor and itself. At the same time, financial capitalism and monetary capitalism are now almost the exclusive province of large scale economic actors and are starting to supplement traditional production capitalism as a means of increasing the capital multiplier effect.

BfHeFwMe
01-22-2006, 04:52 PM
They never mention the B&Z that fails because the victom himself knows the game. All he's got to do is hook him along and equalize speeds, easily done. If the B&Z goes for the shot, he's a great chance of getting the full treatment, another aircraft at equal speed and also equal or better manouverability.

Some act as if it's a given the B&Z'r always wins, nonsence. A verticle fight is not the only way to win. The fully three dimensional pilot can beat both types without breaking a sweat. If it's an either or sum game between B&Z or horizontal turn, your not operating at full ACM ability.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/german-luftwaffe/spitfire_in_german_markings.sized.jpg

Where's ours? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

EPP_Gibbs
01-22-2006, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I don't think our disagreement is that big, Panther. Without the very capable Mustang getting there to do the job, the Battle over Europe may have been 3 or 4 moths delayed, waiting for the appropriate P-47. And while the Hurricane is my favourite plane in this game, the Spitfire likely swayed the balance so that the battle was not lost.

We might speculate how a lack of Mustangs would have influenced the war. Other fighters would have risen to prominence, perhaps Lightings with Merlins, perhaps the Thunderbolt would hold the status now held by the Mustang. A British design might have proven suited to conversion for long range fighting. However, none of these scenarios contain any major deviation from the overall picture of the war. Luftwaffe would eventually have been broken, Mustang or no Mustang.

Regarding the Hurricane. In performance it was outclassed by the 109E in almost every area except turn and if bounced was at a serious disadvantage. Its lower speed and rate of climb compared to the Spit meant relatively more bounce opportunities for the LW fighters. However, if there was a mix-up and a dogfight developed the differences were not so great, the biggest probably being that the 109 pilot could disengage at will and run with a good chance of escape. The Hurricane could not run it down from a starting position of equal energy.

Although the Hurricane is rightly quoted as the plane that shot down most LW aircraft in the BoB, or as said above 'a lot of bombers'. They also shot down a lot of fighters too. The highest scoring unit in the whole Battle, on either side, was RAF 303 Sqn (Polish) with a confirmed claims to loss ratio of 14-1. During the battle of France No 1 Sqn shot down 155 LW aircraft, 114 of them in only 10 days for the loss of 3 killed, 2 wounded, and 1 POW. In one combat 5 No.1 Sqn planes took on 15 ZG26 'Horst Wessel' ME110's and shot down 10 of them, all confirmed, for the loss of 1 plane, pilot baled out. Both these units were flying Hurricanes at the time, with plenty of fighters in their tally of kills.

One of the biggest advantages the Hurricane had was that the LW pilots were often dismissive of it, and overconfident as a result. This was often a fatal mistake. One LW pilot referred to the Hurris as 'Tired old Puffers' presumably right up to the point when he and his Staffel commander, the up and coming 19 victory ace Horst Tietzen, were both shot down and killed by them in the same action.

Regarding your idea about what would replace the Mustang had it not existed. The saying 'Neccesity is the mother of invention' comes to mind. I think that one of the things that would have happened is that they would have sorted out the short range on Spitfire fighters variants much earlier. The problem was one of longitudinal stability. Piling extra fuel into fuselage tanks shifted the C of G too far aft and badly affected the aircraft's controllability. What happened is they eventually found the cure very late in the war in the shape of the much larger tail surfaces as used on the Mk21/22/24. By then there was no real need for a very long range Spitfire fighter, but all the same they had finally found the way to give it range comparable to the Mustang. My guess is that if the need was pressing, ie, no Mustangs, they'd have found it much sooner. Don't forget, they always did have long range Spits. The Mk VIII already had range well in excess of 1000 miles anyway and the photo-recon ones could go to Berlin and back. However, to include armament and have very long range the tankage had to be re-designed with extra fuselage tanks giving rise to the aforementioned stability problems.

The Mustang also suffered similar stability problems when full and handled like a pig from takeoff to the point where the fuel in the aft fuselage tank was used up. Fortunately that generally happened before they were compelled to engage the LW.

EPP_Gibbs
01-22-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
One of the things to take into consideration when discussing the Spitfire is it's place in the British psyche. It normally appears in any top ten list of great things about Britain. Can the same be said for the Bf109 or Fw190 when making a top ten list of great things about Germany? Or of the P-51 when making a list for the U.S.A? They are all very good fighter aeroplanes, but none can even come close to rivalling the Spifire in the affections of her native population. I'm not talking about flight-sim geeks and planespotters here - I'm talking about the entire literate population.

Want to test this theory out? Walk into a British pub wearing a Spitfire lapel pin or carrying a book/magazine with a Spifire on the cover. You will find people of all ages and both sexes willing to instigate conversation with you. Now try it with steam trains or airliners - feeling a little lonely? Attracted a weirdo? I rest my case.

To the British, the Spitfire is much more than a very good fighter aeroplane (which it undoubtedly was), it's a symbol of national identity; a beautifully potent reminder of a glorious past, a cherished memento of a time when - against all the odds - Britain stood up to a dark threat to humanity and played a leading role in making the world a better place. It's a part of British national heritage - you might as well try and belittle Shakespeare or real ale. The Spitfire is up there with a decent cup of tea, fish and chips, curry, Churchill, Nelson and the Beatles - you'll never convince the British otherwise. And quite rightly so.

Bear that in mind next time you dis' the Spit.

Hear hear! It is the top British aviation icon by a long chalk and posibly the most widely revered piece of British machinery ever...oh hang on..there's the television.

Kettenhunde
01-22-2006, 08:00 PM
The the FW-190 is a "team" fighter is rather silly and one dimensional assumption.

The classical FW-190 vs Spitfire fight develops into the FW190 in the verticle while Spitfire controls the horizontal. This is due to sound science, the engineering tradeoffs behind the designs, and the pilot applying them to the fight.

"Empty Sky Syndrome" was a common occurrance and any WWII fighter pilot was apt to find himself seemly completely alone with his advesary. All sides fought in organized units however many fights once began became individual contest's.

Best climb speeds of the Spitfire Vc:

http://img41.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=757e6_spit22.jpg

Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66:

http://img147.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=ed1ef_spit19.JPG

Spitfire Mk XIV, the first Spitfire which could challenge the FW-190A in the verticle:

http://img139.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=ab33d_spit15.jpg

Mustang III or P51B/C:

http://img139.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=e35b1_must17.jpg

FW-190A:

http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=61f...0bestclimbspeed2.jpg (http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=61f66_190bestclimbspeed2.jpg)

Hope this helps,

Crumpp

luftluuver
01-22-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Best climb speeds

Spitfire Mk XIV, the first Spitfire which could challenge the FW-190A in the verticle:

FW-190A:

http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=61f...0bestclimbspeed2.jpg (http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=61f66_190bestclimbspeed2.jpg)


The XIV was?
The XII's climb speed was 190mph (IAS) till 16,000ft. At 20,000ft, 177mph (IAS) which is the average of the 280-290kph for the Fw190.

The ~285kph is the best speed to get the best sustained climb rate. A slower flying a/c with better roc will be above the Fw but the Fw would open up a greater horizontal distance.

heywooood
01-22-2006, 11:01 PM
"Was the Spitfire this good?"


No - no it wasn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Friendly_flyer
01-22-2006, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
The saying 'Neccesity is the mother of invention' comes to mind. I think that one of the things that would have happened is that they would have sorted out the short range on Spitfire fighters variants much earlier.


I was thinking along the same lines. It might eventually have turned into a contest as to whether the Spitfire or Thunderbolt would be the first fighter equipped to escort bombers. I am quite sure it would have been one of the two.

In the end, industrial might broke the Luftwaffe. It would have happened one way or the other.

ImpStarDuece
01-22-2006, 11:48 PM
Typhoon pwns you all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

185 mph A.S.I climbing speed to 16,000 feet reducing by 3 mph per 1,000 feet above this height.

panther3485
01-23-2006, 04:45 AM
Friendly_flyer and EPP_Gibbs,

Good points made by both of you. I agree with most of what you have said.


Best regards,
panther3485

Jetbuff
01-23-2006, 06:47 AM
*happily munching on popcorn, suddenly almost suffocates*

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif In which universe is the 190 the easier plane to fly than the 109? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

190 pilots, please take note, when encountering dear Pipper, be sure to obligingly turn and bleed off your speed so he can catch you. It would also help if you expended all your cannon ammo beforehand as that armament is a weeny advantage that no real man would use. Oh yeah and always engage him in mano-a-mano duels, preferably from an E disadvantage and never as a team. That's the only gentlemanly thing to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

HayateAce
01-23-2006, 07:41 AM
Maybe he says grow a pair and quit fighting like 190-natasha's all the time.

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

HayateAce
01-23-2006, 07:47 AM
Dear Run-Ninety pilots, when encountering enemy or friendly, twirl your plane thusly:

http://www.catalystdesigngroup.com/site/oldspin/logos/pinwheel-animated-.05.gif



until another nancy-boy 190 comes by to save your panties.

WOLFMondo
01-23-2006, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
except for a handful of 09, spit, p51 or 47 drivers, the vast majority of ace pilots in this game fly the fw. Let's not hide behind the skirts of "historics" as this is a game. In this game, the truly skilled and respected blue pilots fly 109s. The others fly 190s.

That's the way I see it. You feel differently. So, ok.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You been getting pwned by 109's turning and burning on the deck in your Mustang again? Or was your energy state so bad cause you've been turning and burning its 190 open season on you and you can't catch them?

Your just embarrising yourself dude.

You could choose to beat the 190's at there own game but you seem intent to persuade everyone that this sim or game should be played the way you want them too, much like Hayatetroll who also prefers to turn and burn then cries when 190's use actualy tactics which take advantage of there pro's and don't play to there cons, which in turn frustrates both of you.

GR142-Pipper
01-23-2006, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
190 pilots, please take note, when encountering dear Pipper, be sure to obligingly turn and bleed off your speed so he can catch you. It would also help if you expended all your cannon ammo beforehand as that armament is a weeny advantage that no real man would use. Oh yeah and always engage him in mano-a-mano duels, preferably from an E disadvantage and never as a team. That's the only gentlemanly thing to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Maybe one day you'll be a big boy too and step up to the 109. (Nah, you might get hurt. 'Better stick with the 190.)

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ugbKfbnDfDi2gM:http://www.minitots.com/i/di.asp%3Fimage%3D/i/AR1002.jpg%26w%3D96%26h%3D112 A brave 190 driver at the ready....

Brain32
01-23-2006, 08:54 AM
EDIT: Bah, why do I bother with children, that's a nanny's job http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

faustnik
01-23-2006, 10:02 AM
The sad clowns are out in force. Cry for us clowns, cry for us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Lucius_Esox
01-23-2006, 01:33 PM
In a word,,, yep, it was that good,,,

Ignorance is what is gonna wipe this world out eventually. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Kettenhunde
01-23-2006, 06:35 PM
What roll rate actually does in a fight:
http://img127.imagevenue.com/loc114/th_758b3_airplane_roll.jpg (http://img127.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc114&image=758b3_airplane_roll.jpg)

http://img141.imagevenue.com/loc198/th_89069_agility.jpg (http://img141.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc198&image=89069_agility.jpg)

ADM standard comparision between the Spitfire and the FW-190 is a good way to see the results. The measured time is the important one. Assuming a velocity of 300fps, the Spitfire travels 150 feet further than the FW-190 before it can match the new direction of lift.

ADM Standard:

http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc21/th_469d8_ADMstandard45.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc21&image=469d8_ADMstandard45.jpg)

That is why the FW-190 is listed as being more manuverable than the allied aircraft it was tested against.

It simply had more agility.

All the best,

Crumpp

Jetbuff
01-24-2006, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Maybe one day you'll be a big boy too and step up to the 109. (Nah, you might get hurt. 'Better stick with the 190.)
I'm not sure what's funnier, your pitiful attempts at trolling or the possibility that you might actually believe the cr@p you're spewing. Either way, I feel very, very sorry for you. Carry on... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-24-2006, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Maybe one day you'll be a big boy too and step up to the 109. (Nah, you might get hurt. 'Better stick with the 190.)
I'm not sure what's funnier, your pitiful attempts at trolling or the possibility that you might actually believe the cr@p you're spewing. Either way, I feel very, very sorry for you. Carry on... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, a real "thinker". LOL No wonder you're a 190 driver.

GR142-Pipper

MercilessFatBoy
01-24-2006, 01:39 AM
pipper whines of evrything... onces he whinned of some one fighting in a bf110

Von_Rat
01-24-2006, 02:34 AM
bf110 is the new best,,,, be sure.

GR142-Pipper

Von_Rat
01-24-2006, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
190 pilots, please take note, when encountering dear Pipper, be sure to obligingly turn and bleed off your speed so he can catch you. It would also help if you expended all your cannon ammo beforehand as that armament is a weeny advantage that no real man would use. Oh yeah and always engage him in mano-a-mano duels, preferably from an E disadvantage and never as a team. That's the only gentlemanly thing to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Maybe one day you'll be a big boy too and step up to the 109. (Nah, you might get hurt. 'Better stick with the 190.)

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ugbKfbnDfDi2gM:http://www.minitots.com/i/di.asp%3Fimage%3D/i/AR1002.jpg%26w%3D96%26h%3D112 A brave 190 driver at the ready.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



actually though i usually fly fw190, i also am pretty good at tnbing spits and p51s to death in a 109 too.

danjama
01-24-2006, 06:28 AM
The quality of this thread decreased at some point, and i dont know why.....

Brain32
01-24-2006, 07:57 AM
At the point we stopped discussing about one of the greatest and most versatile planes in WW2, we were brutally interrupted by standard "I suck at flying my Pony" whiners.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WOLFMondo
01-24-2006, 09:55 AM
It happens in every thread. We'll have to learn to live it with.

p1ngu666
01-24-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
At the point we stopped discussing about one of the greatest and most versatile planes in WW2, we were brutally interrupted by standard "I suck at flying my Pony" whiners.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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

190 seems to have overtaken teh 109 in the being dragged off topic

danjama
01-24-2006, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
At the point we stopped discussing about one of the greatest and most versatile planes in WW2, we were brutally interrupted by standard "I suck at flying my Pony" whiners.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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

190 seems to have overtaken teh 109 in the being dragged off topic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-24-2006, 03:06 PM
I quote from the box (AEP) - " meet the the active and passionate online community..."

danjama
01-24-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
I quote from the box (AEP) - " meet the the active and passionate online community..."

Well said!