PDA

View Full Version : Is the Spit a better turner than the .............



DIRTY-MAC
02-07-2006, 03:53 PM
Exacly what planes does the Spit out turn? of the known turn and burners yak/Las/P-40s/P39s)etctr
(slow turning that is)

Im not able to play the game so thats why I ask

HayateAce
02-07-2006, 03:55 PM
Everything.

Xiolablu3
02-07-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Everything.



Typical Hayate off the cuff response. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Maybe use that thing in between your ears a little more mate?


Zeros outturn the Spits, Ki43's of course, do you mean just axis or any planes? Zeros gave the Spits a shock in the pacific, they were used to outurning everything and suddenly they were being outurned by the Zeke! They had a tough time until they adopted B&Z tactics against them.

Hurricanes will, I think a 109E will outurn the later Spits. Of course all the biplanes.

109G2 is very close, but it burns energy in the turn a lot more so it cant keep it up like the Spitfir can, Ki84 is pretty close too.

Probably some of the Russian planes too like the la5 and yaks are good turners.

The mk5 should turn a little better than the later mks I think, not sure if this is true in game as I have never tested it. There will be more, but these are the first few I can think of.

Rather than go for sheer speed performance like most other late war aircraft designers (FW190 style), the Spit designers tried their best to keep the plane manouvrable in the turn too, and succeeded very well.

danjama
02-07-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Everything.

bull

Stigler_9_JG52
02-07-2006, 04:11 PM
Spit will likely turn with, or inside any plane that is not:

1) Biplane
2) Zero
3) Oscar
4) I-16 series

Other than that, the Spit should win.

But, if you base your flying based on flat turns, you're asking to get lit up. It's not all about the turn, nor is it, as some proffer, all about sea level dash speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

These are only a couple of facets of the entire equation, and it's likely to be of varying importance several times during any one fight.

So, the question itself is a bit of a red herring in terms of 'deciding which plane you wanna be an ace in', if that's what you're getting at.

Xiolablu3
02-07-2006, 04:20 PM
Agreed, listen to what Stigler says.

Turning should only really be used as a last resort, if you are relying on it a lot then you are not really flying 'correctly' (if you get what I mean by correctly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif there is no real 'correct' way to fly of course) As when you turn you are losing energy in ANY plane.

Horizontal turning is best saved as a defensive manouvre. Also you can Split S in a Spitfire or Zero much easier than many other planes.

You should concentrate on the vertical, not the horizontal. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Especially Axis planes excell in the vertical plane.

nakamura_kenji
02-07-2006, 04:24 PM
ki-61-I-ko/ki-100-I-ko beat
ki-61-I-otsu/ki-61-I-hei equal depend pilot skill

SeaFireLIV
02-07-2006, 04:26 PM
Guess I must agree that Stigler is correct. Although, I`m so much more comfortable disagreeing with him. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MLudner
02-07-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Everything.

Including Hummingbirds and flies?

DIRTY-MAC
02-07-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Spit will likely turn with, or inside any plane that is not:

1) Biplane
2) Zero
3) Oscar
4) I-16 series

Other than that, the Spit should win.

But, if you base your flying based on flat turns, you're asking to get lit up. It's not all about the turn, nor is it, as some proffer, all about sea level dash speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

These are only a couple of facets of the entire equation, and it's likely to be of varying importance several times during any one fight.

So, the question itself is a bit of a red herring in terms of 'deciding which plane you wanna be an ace in', if that's what you're getting at.

no, not that, I pretty well know how to handle my speed and e and dogfight, I just want to know how it is now in the patch 402? cause I cant play it,
, not talking bout Zeros and gladdies,
what about the BF109s Fs and Gs, yaks, Las Ki61/100/84 ,laggs, p40s, p39s, IAR80/81 wildcats/hellcats,brewsters, G50s etctr?

any numbers?

Xiolablu3
02-07-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
ki-61-I-ko/ki-100-I-ko beat
ki-61-I-otsu/ki-61-I-hei equal depend pilot skill

Has anyone worked out who Kenji is yet?

I thought LEBillfish was a good bet, any other suggestions? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Any time I try to get personal with him, 'he' doesnt reply....

VW-IceFire
02-07-2006, 04:54 PM
Depends on the Spitfire model as well. In general the Spitfire will out turn most of those posted aircraft at higher speeds. Against the Bf109 variants its usually out turning them at higher speeds (the 109 turns better at very low speed close to the stall) and in sustained turn fights. Against the Yak its usually the Spitfires engine power and ease of handling, the LaGG is an oddity and I won't touch it, the P-40 and Spitfire are very close in initial high speed turn but the P-40 lags behind significantly in sustained turns. Wildcat out turns the Spitfire fairly handily...I believe it out turns the Hurricane too. I think the Brewster as well. G-50 definately out turns the Spitfire and mostly everything else except biplanes and I-16's.

The Spitfires excellent turn doesn't mean its superb against everything out there. There are lower, more manueverable, more aerobatic, tighter turning fighters out there. What the Spitfire gives you is a very modern monoplane that is fast, fairly well armed, and yet also has a good turn rate and holds energy well. By no means the best turn fighter...but against its natural opponents it is.

Jetbuff
02-07-2006, 08:10 PM
The F-4 and G-2 will out-turn the Spit IX but not the V. All other 109's are easily out-turned by the Spit and the 190 is no contest of course.

PS: The Emil doesn't really out-turn the Spit (or the hurricane) it just dumps so much speed during the turn thanks to all the bumps and crevices that its turn becomes too tight very quickly for the latter to follow without creating the necessary turning room. (lag pursuit and hi yo-yo's fit the bill for creating the latter)

Badsight.
02-07-2006, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Zeros gave the Spits a shock in the pacific, they were used to outurning everything and suddenly they were being outurned by the Zeke! They had a tough time until they adopted B&Z tactics against them. i suggest you research when Spitfires first met the Zero

they kicked the zeros bad

every time these 2 planes first met the Zero's came off worst

& the Zero pilots let the Spitfire pilots shoot down the escourted Betty's

its a Myth that the Spitfires got wasted when they first met

Badsight.
02-07-2006, 09:29 PM
remember the Spitfires the aussies recieved were used spares

before i researched it , i would also have said the Zero was the better A/C & would have beaten the Spitfires with ease , BUT THEY DIDNT !

Spitfires vrs Zeros over Darwin & the US bomber base near Darwin

.

March 2nd ,spifires downed 3 out of 16 bombers . . . . . W/O LOSS

March 15 , Spitfires downed 7 for . . . . 4 lost

May 2nd , Spitfires downed 6 for . . . . . 5 lost

june 20 , Spitfires downed 5 fighters & 9 bombers for . . . . 2 lost

june 28 , Spitfires downed 4 fighters & 2 bombers for . . . . . 1 lost (forced landing crash)

june 30 , Spitfires downed 6 bombers & 2 Fighters for . . . . . 6 lost

july 6th , Spitfires downed 7 bombers & 2 fighters for . . . . . 8 lost

september 7th , Spitfires downed 5 fighters for . . . . 3 lost

that is the complete record , after sept 7th no more raids were attempted to darwin - instead the focus went off-shore . . . . . . its in the Spitfires favour on each occasion - not only that but the Zeros were in equal or greater numbers , & they failed to protect the bombers , letting some (& on one occasion nearly all) Bettys get shot down

ImpStarDuece
02-07-2006, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
remember the Spitfires the aussies recieved were used spares

before i researched it , i would also have said the Zero was the better A/C & would have beaten the Spitfires with ease , BUT THEY DIDNT !

Spitfires vrs Zeros over Darwin & the US bomber base near Darwin

.

March 2nd ,spifires downed 3 out of 16 bombers . . . . . W/O LOSS

March 15 , Spitfires downed 7 for . . . . 4 lost

May 2nd , Spitfires downed 6 for . . . . . 5 lost

june 20 , Spitfires downed 5 fighters & 9 bombers for . . . . 2 lost

june 28 , Spitfires downed 4 fighters & 2 bombers for . . . . . 1 lost (forced landing crash)

june 30 , Spitfires downed 6 bombers & 2 Fighters for . . . . . 6 lost

july 6th , Spitfires downed 7 bombers & 2 fighters for . . . . . 8 lost

september 7th , Spitfires downed 5 fighters for . . . . 3 lost

that is the complete record , after sept 7th no more raids were attempted to darwin - instead the focus went off-shore . . . . . . its in the Spitfires favour on each occasion - not only that but the Zeros were in equal or greater numbers , & they failed to protect the bombers , letting some (& on one occasion nearly all) Bettys get shot down


Japanese records don't even come close to backing up the claims of the RAAF in the defence of Darwin. The RAAF and Spitfires got well and truly trounced in 1943.

March 2nd, the Japanese record no losses. The RAAF claimed 3 destroyed and 1 damaged. The Japanese claimed 2 P-39s and 1 Buffalo destroyed, and others damage. For 6 claims made neither side actually recorded any losses.

March 7th, the Japanese record 8 damaged bombers and 1 fighter lost. RAAF claims are 9 destroyed, 4 probables and 6 damaged for 4 Spitfires lost.

May 2nd, Japanese records give no outright losses but 7 fighters and 7 bombers damaged. 14 Spitfires failed to return from this action, most due to exhausting their fuel or CSP unit problems. 3 Spitfire pilots were lost.

May 9th, Japanese records give two Zero losses against RAAF claims for 2 destroyed and 1 probable. RAF losses were 1 Spitfire.

June 20th, Japanese records show that 2 bombers were lost and 3 were later written off. RAAF claims are 9 bombers and 5 fighters destroyed, and 8 bombers and 2 fighters damaged. RAAF losses were 3 Spitfires.

June 28th, Japanese records show all fighters and bombers returned from action, but 1 was written off after crashing on return. Japanese claims were for 16 fighters destroyed. RAAF losses were 5 shot down and two force landed (one later written off).

June 30th, Japanese losses suffered a single G4M lost, in return for 16 destroyed , 3 probables. RAAF claims were for 7 destroyed, 9 probably destroyed and 11 damaged. RAAF losses were 6 Spitfires lost and 2 forced landed with engine failure.

July 6th, Japanese losses were 4 bombers (2 crash landing on return) and 2 fighters damaged. RAAF claims were for 9 destroyed, 3 probables and 4 damaged. RAAF losses were 6 Spitfires in combat and 2 from engine failure.


Japanese losses in 8 operations were 14 bombers and fighters lost with a further 24 heavily damaged, in return for the destruction of nearly 50 RAAF Spitfires, whether through action or engine failure/running out of fuel. RAAF claims were roughly 5 times actual losses.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-07-2006, 10:35 PM
Do factor in that the Zeros were trying (unsuccessfully, it seems) to protect those Betties, which they couldn't really do that well the whole war. That pretty much cedes your speed advantage to the enemy right at the outset.

In a pure fighter sweep scenario, the ratios might've been a bit different.

ElAurens
02-08-2006, 12:11 AM
The Spits got hammered.

Arrogance kills.


Be sure.

alert_1
02-08-2006, 01:19 AM
Last night on WC a had *some* fun with SpitsIXE CW tryiing to turn with my Me109G2. They were good, I never got my guns on them but they was keeping stalling and crashing. Unfortunatelly this fun scenarion was fianlly spoiled by bunch of annoying Jugs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

PikeBishop
02-08-2006, 01:38 AM
Dear All,

As far as turning is concerned, look at the relative wing loadings. The turn rate is directly proportional to the wing loading and if you compare any aircraft you can see instantly whether it has the potential to out out-turn another aircraft.
Best regards,
SLP

WOLFMondo
02-08-2006, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:


But, if you base your flying based on flat turns, you're asking to get lit up. It's not all about the turn, nor is it, as some proffer, all about sea level dash speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

These are only a couple of facets of the entire equation, and it's likely to be of varying importance several times during any one fight.

So, the question itself is a bit of a red herring in terms of 'deciding which plane you wanna be an ace in', if that's what you're getting at.

The nice thing about the Spitfire is it has many facets which are worthy of a fighter plane, which is why the Spitty is a legend, but IMHO its one down side is its top speeds at all heights. Its a very slow plane, at least what I look for in a fighter is speed and its ability to build speed up.

F19_Ob
02-08-2006, 02:32 AM
Olli and I tested the earliest spit vb against 109 E, F and G2.
Only the G2 had enough power to compete with the spit.
We tested for a while and then switched planes, so in our minds the spit vb wins over the 109's up to G2 in most situations.
One of the main reasons for it's success is the vb's armament of 2cannons and the mg's wich is very good to damage planes in the fight.
Minor damage causes drag and takes 30-40 kph off the 109 wich allows the spit to gain the advantage.

My experience online so far is that 109's up to F get's ****uhtered by the spits.
A 109 G2 with energy is a dangerous opponent though and mantaining the energy in the spit is what u have to work with most of the time.
A spit at stall is very flippy and accelleration is slow.

When 109's get the 30mm cannon a group of 109's may kill a group of spits because of the '1 hit 1 kill, aspect of the cannon.

a few thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tigertalon
02-08-2006, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,

As far as turning is concerned, look at the relative wing loadings. The turn rate is directly proportional to the wing loading and if you compare any aircraft you can see instantly whether it has the potential to out out-turn another aircraft.
Best regards,
SLP

Disagree.

There are A LOT more other factors that affect turning ability, power loading being (horse powers per kilogram) among most importatnt ones (imagine two identical planes turning to each other when one has its engine off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Frontal drag, construction of wing, overall weigth of a plane...

Match between I-16 type 18 and type 24 is a great example. You claim they should turn exactly the same, right? Well, they don't, it seems that type18 has much weaker engine (maybe it is modelled with M25 engine with 750hp, and not M62 with 1000hp) and is not able to keep up with type 24 in turns. It simply bleeds speed off too fast to be able to sustain turn.

tigertalon
02-08-2006, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Exacly what planes does the Spit out turn? of the known turn and burners yak/Las/P-40s/P39s)etctr
(slow turning that is)

Im not able to play the game so thats why I ask

I almost agree with HayateAce, out of planes that you ask (yak/Las/P-40s/P39s), spit will turn out everything, maybe not yak3 (pilot skill decides this one IMO). La planes should be outturned with ease at slow speeds, but you have to be carefull at high.

Also flaps are another issue, all this planes can select combat and take off flaps to tighten your turn, while spit pilot can select only landing ones (if you do not have them binded to a slider).

jblaverick
02-08-2006, 05:42 AM
Flaps are a good example of the spitfires turn capability - the lack of need for fiddling with drag inducing flap settings.

Spits are fun to fly because of their ease of handling (except landing characteristics -due to undercarriage). In the turn you get ample stall warning and you are unlikely to snap roll - a la corsair or mustang

PikeBishop
02-08-2006, 06:06 AM
Dear Tiger....,
I must confirm what I stated earlier about wing loading. Power loading has NO effect on the radius of turn. It will only affect:
a)Whether or not an aircraft can maintain the speed (power versus drag) at which a specific 'g' can be pulled.
b)Whether or not the aircraft can accelerate or climb whilst turning (reserve power).
Factors that CAN influence the radius of the turn are those which alter the lift Coeficient of the wing such as flaps or slats, but the effect only lowers the stall speed by a few miles per hour in the majority of cases and can cause a great deal of drag. The stall speed is the critical factor when working out the radius of turn at any given speed. The calculation fundamentally involves the Square root of the wing loading, with factors such as lift coeff and air density modifying the answer i.e. the stall speed.
Best regards
SLP

vanjast
02-08-2006, 06:12 AM
If I take my luvvly FW190 and use it's superior roll rate to out-turn the spitfire, I've effectively out-turned the spitfire .... and this is what counts, is it not ?

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

tigertalon
02-08-2006, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear Tiger....,
I must confirm what I stated earlier about wing loading. Power loading has NO effect on the radius of turn. It will only affect:
a)Whether or not an aircraft can maintain the speed (power versus drag) at which a specific 'g' can be pulled.
b)Whether or not the aircraft can accelerate or climb whilst turning (reserve power).

Agreed completely.


Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Factors that CAN influence the radius of the turn are those which alter the lift Coeficient of the wing such as flaps or slats, but the effect only lowers the stall speed by a few miles per hour in the majority of cases and can cause a great deal of drag.

Not agreed. Fw190A3 had a stall speed of 110 mph with flaps and gear fully retracted, and only mph less, so 105 mph with both fully deployed. Which is exactly what you stated.

However, flaps do NOT ONLY lower stall speed a bit and add a lot of drag, they also increase (by considerable margin) amount of G you can pull at a specific speed without stall. And that's what counts.

Fw190A2/A3 pilots were known to deploy 15 degree flaps and turn-fight with spitfires (MkV that is), because BMW801 provided power in abudance and was able to compensate for increased drag, so they retained their speed.

However, initial posters question was:"Exacly what planes does the Spit out turn?"

SpitMkIXc with full power will always outturn SpitMkIXc with 50% power, exactly because of your a) point. The one with 50% power will, indeed, still turn with the same radius, but it will become slower, so, running on virtually the same circle, the one with full power will soon catch the other, right?

Like two toy-trains (dunno english expression) running the same circle, but one being slower...

ImpStarDuece
02-08-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear Tiger....,
I must confirm what I stated earlier about wing loading. Power loading has NO effect on the radius of turn. It will only affect:
a)Whether or not an aircraft can maintain the speed (power versus drag) at which a specific 'g' can be pulled.
b)Whether or not the aircraft can accelerate or climb whilst turning (reserve power).
Factors that CAN influence the radius of the turn are those which alter the lift Coeficient of the wing such as flaps or slats, but the effect only lowers the stall speed by a few miles per hour in the majority of cases and can cause a great deal of drag. The stall speed is the critical factor when working out the radius of turn at any given speed. The calculation fundamentally involves the Square root of the wing loading, with factors such as lift coeff and air density modifying the answer i.e. the stall speed.
Best regards
SLP

Turn radius and wingloading are only half of turn performance. The other half is powerloading and turn time.

Powerloading effects sustained angle of bank, thrust and speed, all of which effect turn radius and turn time. Wingloading is a key factor, but its far from the only one.

You need to look at turn radius, turn time and turn force (Gravities) in order to determin turn performance.

PikeBishop
02-08-2006, 08:53 AM
Dear Imp......,
It seems that you have missread my post. Stall speed is a direct indicator of potential 'g' at any given speed e.g. 50mph to 5000mph.....yes, 5000mph. If you are assuming maximum speed then unless you can reach the speed in the first place you cannot pull the 'g'. So you will always lose speed or height if the turn is pulled at maximum speed. But in combat (unless you are diving and zooming on an adversary in a surprise attack) the speeds are usually in the middle of the flight envelope. At this point it is ONLY wing loading that affects radius (and flap adjustment) if the speed is constant. If the speed increases the radius increases unless excess power is used to climb in the turn,but the maximum angle of attack is 15 or so degrees and the ability to pull 'g' is reflected in at WHAT speed you can attain the 15 degree angle of attack. Beyond 15 degrees you will stall and too slow a speed will force a stall if you pull too much 'g' so you have to keep the speed up by losing height if you have no excess power left e.g. you are at max speed.
Best regards,
SLP

tigertalon
02-08-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear Imp......,
It seems that you have missread my post. Stall speed is a direct indicator of potential 'g' at any given speed e.g. 50mph to 5000mph.....yes, 5000mph. If you are assuming maximum speed then unless you can reach the speed in the first place you cannot pull the 'g'. So you will always lose speed or height if the turn is pulled at maximum speed. But in combat (unless you are diving and zooming on an adversary in a surprise attack) the speeds are usually in the middle of the flight envelope. At this point it is ONLY wing loading that affects radius (and flap adjustment) if the speed is constant. If the speed increases the radius increases unless excess power is used to climb in the turn,but the maximum angle of attack is 15 or so degrees and the ability to pull 'g' is reflected in at WHAT speed you can attain the 15 degree angle of attack. Beyond 15 degrees you will stall and too slow a speed will force a stall if you pull too much 'g' so you have to keep the speed up by losing height if you have no excess power left e.g. you are at max speed.
Best regards,
SLP

Ok, once again...

Yes, it is only airspeed that determines turning radius INITIALY. If you have two equal planes, both flying with say 200mph, but one with engine off or idle, they will INITIALY (only first few fractions of second) have same parameters of turning (speed, radius).

But, again, initial poster was asking about sustained turn, and here powerloading becomes very important, since such turnfighting can last many many seconds.

Unknown-Pilot
02-08-2006, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear Imp......,
It seems that you have missread my post. Stall speed is a direct indicator of potential 'g' at any given speed e.g. 50mph to 5000mph.....yes, 5000mph. If you are assuming maximum speed then unless you can reach the speed in the first place you cannot pull the 'g'. So you will always lose speed or height if the turn is pulled at maximum speed. But in combat (unless you are diving and zooming on an adversary in a surprise attack) the speeds are usually in the middle of the flight envelope. At this point it is ONLY wing loading that affects radius (and flap adjustment) if the speed is constant. If the speed increases the radius increases unless excess power is used to climb in the turn,but the maximum angle of attack is 15 or so degrees and the ability to pull 'g' is reflected in at WHAT speed you can attain the 15 degree angle of attack. Beyond 15 degrees you will stall and too slow a speed will force a stall if you pull too much 'g' so you have to keep the speed up by losing height if you have no excess power left e.g. you are at max speed.
Best regards,
SLP

Ok, once again...

Yes, it is only airspeed that determines turning radius INITIALY. If you have two equal planes, both flying with say 200mph, but one with engine off or idle, they will INITIALY (only first few fractions of second) have same parameters of turning (speed, radius).

But, again, initial poster was asking about sustained turn, and here powerloading becomes very important, since such turnfighting can last many many seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you here, but it's more on an "intuitive" level.

The thing that bugs me is 109F4 vs 109G2. What you're saying means that the G2 should be the better sustained turner in that it's better power loading enables it to maintain a higher AoA, and therefore, greater lift, compensating for the drag that would cause the F4 to slow down too much to maintain that AoA, and stall out.

However..... I'm under the impression that it's generally accepted that the F4 was the better turning plane.

The question is - where does that come from? A "source" like Brown who started the myth of the "concrete controls" in *all* 109s (when it applied only to the Emil), or any pilot memoirs for that matter.... or was it from actual test reports. And if so, under what conditions? (as it may be a case similar to climb tests where we do it differently in game than it was actually done IRL)

tigertalon
02-08-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

The thing that bugs me is 109F4 vs 109G2. What you're saying means that the G2 should be the better sustained turner in that it's better power loading enables it to maintain a higher AoA, and therefore, greater lift, compensating for the drag that would cause the F4 to slow down too much to maintain that AoA, and stall out.

However..... I'm under the impression that it's generally accepted that the F4 was the better turning plane.


If they weighted the same, I see absolutely no reason for F4 to turn better than G2.

alert_1
02-08-2006, 10:25 AM
Me109F4 weight/power was 2890kg/1350hp, Me109G2 was 3100/1475. F4 had better wingloading and only very slightly worse powerloading and historically should turn better (360turn at 1000m at constant speed=19s, G2=20-21s)

Unknown-Pilot
02-08-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

The thing that bugs me is 109F4 vs 109G2. What you're saying means that the G2 should be the better sustained turner in that it's better power loading enables it to maintain a higher AoA, and therefore, greater lift, compensating for the drag that would cause the F4 to slow down too much to maintain that AoA, and stall out.

However..... I'm under the impression that it's generally accepted that the F4 was the better turning plane.


If they weighted the same, I see absolutely no reason for F4 to turn better than G2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't though. As Alert1 pointed out, the G2 is heavier than the F4. (one of the reasons it has more power)

However, Alert1, where did those #s come from, and under what exact circumstances were the acquired?

Xiolablu3
02-08-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Zeros gave the Spits a shock in the pacific, they were used to outurning everything and suddenly they were being outurned by the Zeke! They had a tough time until they adopted B&Z tactics against them. i suggest you research when Spitfires first met the Zero

they kicked the zeros bad

every time these 2 planes first met the Zero's came off worst

& the Zero pilots let the Spitfire pilots shoot down the escourted Betty's

its a Myth that the Spitfires got wasted when they first met </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, maybe I was wrong, I'm not sure. Will try and find out for sure.

Xiolablu3
02-08-2006, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Last night on WC a had *some* fun with SpitsIXE CW tryiing to turn with my Me109G2. They were good, I never got my guns on them but they was keeping stalling and crashing. Unfortunatelly this fun scenarion was fianlly spoiled by bunch of annoying Jugs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Spit Clipped wing cannot turn as well as non clipped but they roll faster.


I would rather be in a 109F4 than a Spit Vb in this game.

ploughman
02-08-2006, 01:13 PM
Me too, great ride.

MLudner
02-08-2006, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Depends on the Spitfire model as well. In general the Spitfire will out turn most of those posted aircraft at higher speeds. Against the Bf109 variants its usually out turning them at higher speeds (the 109 turns better at very low speed close to the stall) and in sustained turn fights. Against the Yak its usually the Spitfires engine power and ease of handling, the LaGG is an oddity and I won't touch it, the P-40 and Spitfire are very close in initial high speed turn but the P-40 lags behind significantly in sustained turns. Wildcat out turns the Spitfire fairly handily...I believe it out turns the Hurricane too. I think the Brewster as well. G-50 definately out turns the Spitfire and mostly everything else except biplanes and I-16's.

The Spitfires excellent turn doesn't mean its superb against everything out there. There are lower, more manueverable, more aerobatic, tighter turning fighters out there. What the Spitfire gives you is a very modern monoplane that is fast, fairly well armed, and yet also has a good turn rate and holds energy well. By no means the best turn fighter...but against its natural opponents it is.

Wildcat out turns Spit? To my experience a Wildcat wouldn't out turn a battleship. That's why I always feel some trepidation when having run-ins with the Japanese in F4F's. Oscars and Zeros are faster and more maneuverable.

Did you mean Hellcat?

zugfuhrer
02-08-2006, 01:25 PM
The spit of all brands outurns every Me-109 except the G2, which can outturn the Spit XI High altitude.

Some LW-pilots like Knoke and Galland wrote that the early 109:s where the best turnfighters but the demand for higher speed, guns, fuel made the 109 more and more heavy.
There must be many sources that contradict this, but I dont know, I havnt tested any Me-109 of any kind in real life.

nakamura_kenji
02-08-2006, 02:21 PM
seafire III 18.2
spitfire VB 19.1
spitfire VB clip 19.7
spitfire VC 20.2
spitfire VIII 4 19.2
spitfire VIII clip 20
spitfire IXC 20.2
spitfire IXC clip 21
spitfire IXe 21
spitfire IXe clip 21

hardball figure seem odd only me ?

Xiolablu3 check pm

Xiolablu3
02-08-2006, 05:53 PM
Those figures are very close, so there is obviously not a lot of difference.

Sorry for being suspicious Kenji. SOmeone else on this forum suggested that you were not a real person, and in fact someone else pretending to be Japanese.

Thanks for confirming that you are in fact real http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

potzblitz
02-08-2006, 06:47 PM
what spits are you talking about, the early spits could turn well - but the later spit series with the heavy engines were not good turnfighter at all and i guess not only 109G2 could turn better than a late spit series.

btw i would love to know why 109´s in games are loosing that much energy in comparison to some spits, when 109´s were turnfighting with ratas and did shot down lots of them.

gkll
02-08-2006, 10:12 PM
Spitty does one thing very well - he pulls a lot of g's without much angle of attack. This makes the lift over drag curve very nice, prob best in class (ww2 prop fighters). In that all important 300-400 range that thin wing with wide chord comes into its own. And the elliptical planform looks like nice pointy little diamonds seen front on, pulling some g's, a small benefit but real.

Big fat rads, draggy for their size even, hinders straightline speed, however put some g's on the ship and you've got a different bird.

I have read that all these advantages become even more pronounced at high alt. So the spit can retain e with hard manuevering. Under say 280 the thin wing and lack of flaps means 109s and lots of other birds can stay with the spit, maybe don't fly there.

HellToupee
02-08-2006, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by potzblitz:
what spits are you talking about, the early spits could turn well - but the later spit series with the heavy engines were not good turnfighter at all and i guess not only 109G2 could turn better than a late spit series.

btw i would love to know why 109´s in games are loosing that much energy in comparison to some spits, when 109´s were turnfighting with ratas and did shot down lots of them.

could not turn fight at all? Even the XIV retained a significant turn advantage over 109s it faced, also later spits would turn better at high alts than old spits because of much more powerful engines.

Pinker15
02-09-2006, 03:25 AM
No one 109 can out turn spit IX. Even 109G2 cant. As higher alt spitfire fly than has more manouvering advantage over 109. Spit is great dogfighter and for good pilot no 109G2 is danger even if in 109 fly Galland. All 109's burns energy verry quick in turns and because of that they are tosted everytime they start turnfighting. For the same reason that 109 can slow down so fast, do great scissors spit has great advantage over 109 with proper tactic. Why 109 loose so much E in turns ? Its besause high wingloading. 109 small wings are great for dive and max speed but not for turning. Wingslats make things even worse because produces alot of drag when are open. 109 to keep the same turn radius as spit must fly on higher AOA than spit thats why bleeds E so fast.

Xiolablu3
02-09-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
No one 109 can out turn spit IX. Even 109G2 cant. As higher alt spitfire fly than has more manouvering advantage over 109. Spit is great dogfighter and for good pilot no 109G2 is danger even if in 109 fly Galland. All 109's burns energy verry quick in turns and because of that they are tosted everytime they start turnfighting. For the same reason that 109 can slow down so fast, do great scissors spit has great advantage over 109 with proper tactic. Why 109 loose so much E in turns ? Its besause high wingloading. 109 small wings are great for dive and max speed but not for turning. Wingslats make things even worse because produces alot of drag when are open. 109 to keep the same turn radius as spit must fly on higher AOA than spit thats why bleeds E so fast.

At last a proper explanation of why the Spitfire keeps energy better in turns than the 109 and 190A. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thankyou for this.

nakamura_kenji
02-09-2006, 04:16 AM
fight spitfire in ki-61/100 try force him lose much speed possible spitfire find be harder control near edge compare ki-61/100 which much forgive. though smart spitfire use much better speed disengage, attack better position later

Pinker15
02-09-2006, 04:25 AM
Spitfire keeps E so great that is able to outclimb in spiral not only 109 but even A6m3 Zeke. Worst opponent for Spit when U are forced to fight is that Bloody Ki43 because have problem to outclimb without risc of getting some wonder hit from 500m or greater range.

Xiolablu3
02-09-2006, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
fight spitfire in ki-61/100 try force him lose much speed possible spitfire find be harder control near edge compare ki-61/100 which much forgive. though smart spitfire use much better speed disengage, attack better position later

Hi mate,

I would rather use a Ki84 or Zero vs a Spitfire 8 or 9. The ki61 is too undermodelled in this game to fight later Spitfires 8/9, I dont know by how much.

It is good for fighting Mark 5's even in its undermodelled state. I like it for carrying bombs in 1943, 2x250k make a good mess of the ground targets on Burma 43.

You should come and try the Burma 44 map with us one night. Ki84/Ki61/Zero versus Spit 8/9/Corsair/Beufighter. I know I keep talking about it, but I love this map.

nakamura_kenji
02-09-2006, 04:46 AM
ki-61/100 odd plane much depend on pilot for someone no use to fly better choose ki-84 yes.
fight spitfire is no bad as v p38/p51/p47 it be bit slower and more often pilot want to play rather than run which seem be american plane alot v_v no much fun playing chase.

i think look out book have spitifire try in game have almost never fly apart small qmb give idea what oppent plane like, little knowledge other than fight

stathem
02-09-2006, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Me109F4 weight/power was 2890kg/1350hp, Me109G2 was 3100/1475. F4 had better wingloading and only very slightly worse powerloading and historically should turn better (360turn at 1000m at constant speed=19s, G2=20-21s)

Can I just check something with you there?

Early Gustavs were prone to bursting into flames randomly; weak piston crowns meant that the DB605A had to be de-rated to 1.30ATA until mid-1943 when a new spark plug was developed to overcome the problem and they could revert to running at 1.42ATA. At 1.30ATA the DB605A-1 did not develop 1475PS. (1355PS - so powerloading is very much worse)

Check the small print on Jagdmailer€s engine charts if you don€t believe me.

Of course in game we may have some Swedish version running on proper fuel so things maybe different.

I suspect this may be the reason why the in-game G-2 is better than the F-4, whereas in RL pilots preferred the Freidrich.

potzblitz
02-09-2006, 07:21 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 potzblitz:
what spits are you talking about, the early spits could turn well - but the later spit series with the heavy engines were not good turnfighter at all and i guess not only 109G2 could turn better than a late spit series.

btw i would love to know why 109´s in games are loosing that much energy in comparison to some spits, when 109´s were turnfighting with ratas and did shot down lots of them.

could not turn fight at all? Even the XIV retained a significant turn advantage over 109s it faced, also later spits would turn better at high alts than old spits because of much more powerful engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i did not say could not turn at all, there are real life statements from warbird pilots which fly these planes that the higher spit series are not that good turn fighters like earlier spit series. the more powerfull engines doesnt help you cause of the wight, which is the point here.