PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire V. 109 - turn performance



tomtheyak
07-20-2005, 02:23 PM
Yes I know I'm opening the can of worms here, but let me just get this straight
1)I have never flown either of these two aircraft in real life combat against each other so i cannot and will not hold a personal 'THIS IS WRONG' rant and will be understandbly upset if someone accuses me of such.
2)I do know both aircraft in the game very well, the Spitfire better because it is one of my favorite WWII fighters, but only offline. I've run campaigns thru with both a/c and enjoyed them both in combat.

Until now. Now i'm online for the 1st time and wow. It's very difficult and I'm only just holding on to my ego (u know that "I'm at least the 2nd greatest pilot in the world" stuff we all think!). I don't mind being bounced (my own fault for not keeping the proverbial finger out), or when some hero pulls off the jammiest 90 degree deflection burst. But watching a 109 stay with & eventually gain on the spitIX in a climbing right hand spiral at 160mphIAS with full stick and right on that ragged edge buffet is a little surprising considering that everything I have read over the years (the AFD unit report on MkIX v 190 & 109, various pilot anecdotes etc.) indicates that the 190 was a closer threat in the turn than the 109 ever was. This coupled with it's excellent rate of climb & it's supremacy in the dive - which, don't confuse me, I have no problem with - means that once engaged with a spit it's a nightmare to either get an advantage or even escape.
Maybe i've run into the virtual ghosts of Galland & Marsielles up there but it's happened a couple of times now. Am i doin sumthin wrong? R they doin sumthin right I don't know about?
Or does the FM need a look at?
What do you guys think?

VW-IceFire
07-20-2005, 02:43 PM
In reality, the turns are very close according to what I've read and heard about. The ADFU report was done with the MG151/20 gunpods hanging off the wings which impeded turn performance. Even the Tempest V in the ADFU report was apparently turning better than the Bf109 they were testing...and the 109 is definately a better turn plane than the Tempest.

Personally, my tactics online are that the two are so close in turn that I try and limit my turns and bounce more often using turn only to gain a shot and not to sustain a lead.

tomtheyak
07-20-2005, 03:36 PM
Aahh - that makes sense. Thanks Icefire. So it's Zoom-n-boom & make sure you hit 'em like ten-ton-o-brick on ur 1st pass!
Funny that in all things considered then;

1) The 109 climbs better
2) The 109 dives better
3) The 109 & Spit are tied on the turn

Yet the Spitfire has the better reputation as a fighting machine. History is made by the victor I suppose....

F19_Ob
07-20-2005, 04:15 PM
A large part of the outcome of these two likely depends on who gets the better initial angle on the other.
Often when comparing planes performances one usually rely on tests on sustained turns and not the best turn possible wich may vary depending on speed and many other factors aswell as the situation. This is why a bad performing plane may shot down a better one on occasion.

Since the 109 and spit are so close, the pilot and the "initial angle" would be the greatest factors deciding the outcome.

Turningcombat was not the doctrine of the luftwaffe though and the strenghts in the 109 lay in accelleration ,climb and speed.
It would have been stupid to give the advantages up just to risk fighters in dogfights. The german ace Marseille often engaged in dogfights but many of his collegues thought he took too many risks. Marseille is only one example pointing at the turnfighting capabilities of the 109.

Mark hanna thought the spit would have a tiny advantage in turn but also belived a lot depended on the pilot. He flew and compared the spit and buchon 109.

a few thoughts

FritzGryphon
07-20-2005, 04:16 PM
I'd imagine the 109 pilot had an initial advantage, or the Spit was not performing to the full. A SpitIX does outturn all contemporary 109s, at least, in level flight.

It's rare to find two planes with exact same energy state.

Grey_Mouser67
07-20-2005, 05:43 PM
I find the spit mk ix can out turn many late war 109's but not G2's....that is online.

Offline, I have a belief that there is a bug afoot with the AI. I've posted on the bug thread and posted a separate post but oddly I'm not seeing much else on it...AI seems to be able to fly faster and climb faster than humans.

For example, yesterday I was following a Bf109G6-late at 21,000 ft by about .8km and he was climbing away...I was in a P-51B. I climbed up and gained on him but ever so slightly as we high speed climbed to 27,000 ft. I finally got to .52km after a looonnnggg chase and got him smoking with a burst.

That fight should have been over in a couple of minutes cause the Mustang is about 50mph faster in real life at that altitude...but it acted like it was 2 or 3 mph faster at that altitude.

I am saying all this because offline I'm seeing lots of examples like these and it doesn't suprise me that you can't out climb the AI...you should be able to except between perhaps 4500 meters and 6000 meters.

I'm convinced there is some kind of bug or anomoly but I'm not seeing much written about it so folks are either not noticing or don't care or I'm out of my mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Anyways...the short of it is that no plane in this game is acting perfect to historical numbers so you just have to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of each against each and work with it as it is....until the next patch anyways! I'm hoping that this is fixed because I've always sought refuge from the whining and aggrevation of online flying by going offline and this speed bug combined with the Fw damage bug is making for a fairly aggrevating offline experience for me too...I'd just go back to an earlier version except I didn't care for bat turns and I really love some of the new aircraft.

VW-IceFire
07-20-2005, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Aahh - that makes sense. Thanks Icefire. So it's Zoom-n-boom & make sure you hit 'em like ten-ton-o-brick on ur 1st pass!
Funny that in all things considered then;

1) The 109 climbs better
2) The 109 dives better
3) The 109 & Spit are tied on the turn

Yet the Spitfire has the better reputation as a fighting machine. History is made by the victor I suppose....
Well the famous phrase and joke of the RAF pilots was that the difference between a 109 and a Spitfire was that with the Spitfire "any idiot could fly one." Both the real one and the virtual Spitfire is a bit of an easier plane to manage than the 109. Which isn't necessarily a problem either but I find it much more enjoyable than the 109.

Spitfire pilots liked their planes, it had very few vices, the cockpit was small but well designed (and I haven't heard it called cramped as many times as the 109 cockpit was), the controls were exceptionally light and so on. So its reputation as a fighting machine lies in more things than just the numbers in performance. Pilot comfort, confidence, and ease of flight, takeoff, and landing have alot to do with it.

In raw numbers the two are an even match with some performance attributes going to some versions of the 109 in comparison to the contemporary Spitfire. But raw numbers don't tell all.

p1ngu666
07-20-2005, 09:19 PM
id say the 109 was easier to fly in 4.01 tbh

your almost certainly meet ppl who when they fly 109s fly g2 (really nimble) g6as (nimble and fast) or k4 speed and climbrate...

g6late is probably closest to spitfire, with slight edge to spit, but they are rare birds onwhine...

the commentator at duxford said in spitfire, u simply dream what u want the plane todo, and it does it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

id suggest u really aggressive vs 109 online, spitfire is better close in dogfighter..

JtD
07-21-2005, 12:07 AM
While I don't fly either of the two very often, I find the Spit the better of the two. The late 109's, beeing faster and better climbers, are a very close match for the Mk. VIII / IX, but the G-6 and G-6late are inferior in a 1vs1 situation.

However, the superiority of the Spit does not come from low speed low alt turnfighting, but from it's high speed handling and high altitude performance.

The power/weight ratio of a 109 is better than the Spit's, so you should in general use downward turns. Upwards the excellent climb of the 109 will help it to outturn you. At the edge of stall the flaps and leading edge slats of the 109 help it to stay stable, so it's likely that it will get a shot at you if you try stall fighting.

The Spitfire bleeds less E in turns, and that becomes more pronounced at high altitude. Do a couple of fast downward turns (beware of blackout) and you will find that any 109 trying to follow you, will be out of E while you still have plenty of speed. Pull up, shoot it down. Also works down low, but not nearly as good.

With the clipped wing Spitfire you have the best Allied B'n'Z fighter currently modelled in the sim. Don't waste it by flying T'n'B.

Abbuzze
07-21-2005, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Well the famous phrase and joke of the RAF pilots was that the difference between a 109 and a Spitfire was that with the Spitfire "any idiot could fly one." Both the real one and the virtual Spitfire is a bit of an easier plane to manage than the 109. Which isn't necessarily a problem either but I find it much more enjoyable than the 109.

Spitfire pilots liked their planes, it had very few vices, the cockpit was small but well designed (and I haven't heard it called cramped as many times as the 109 cockpit was), the controls were exceptionally light and so on. So its reputation as a fighting machine lies in more things than just the numbers in performance. Pilot comfort, confidence, and ease of flight, takeoff, and landing have alot to do with it.

In raw numbers the two are an even match with some performance attributes going to some versions of the 109 in comparison to the contemporary Spitfire. But raw numbers don't tell all.

I think that‚¬īs it!
German rookies feard the 109, the father of a squadmate saw his best friend dying in a 109 landing accident.

Well traind Pilots one in a Spit one in a 109, at least up to 5-6000m would say their planes are similar in performance except for turning.

We have to keep in mind that the most 109 were clean G6.
In FB a clean G6 is not able to turn with a Spit! It‚¬īs odd, cause it‚¬īs deleted from some servers like WC. Many historical fighting reports are vs clean G6. And this plane is inferior as it should be vs spit and P47/51...

heloguy
07-21-2005, 06:14 AM
You definitely have to pick your battles especially well when flying a G-6, even in the Eastern theater. A great portion of allied aircraft during this time period had the speed advantage due to better engine materials and design, so altitude definitely equals life here, but you also have to keep your exit route at the front of your mind if the fight goes bad. The real trick is knowing when to leave, though, not where to leave.

I prefer the 190 in later war situations lately. You may not have the acceleration and maneuverability, but at least you can pour on the speed in a dive after a successfull bounce.

Wow, an actual discussion that hasn't digressed into name calling after the sixth post...oops. Did I type that outloud? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Good topic.

geetarman
07-21-2005, 08:56 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 VW-IceFire:

Well the famous phrase and joke of the RAF pilots was that the difference between a 109 and a Spitfire was that with the Spitfire "any idiot could fly one." Both the real one and the virtual Spitfire is a bit of an easier plane to manage than the 109. Which isn't necessarily a problem either but I find it much more enjoyable than the 109.

Spitfire pilots liked their planes, it had very few vices, the cockpit was small but well designed (and I haven't heard it called cramped as many times as the 109 cockpit was), the controls were exceptionally light and so on. So its reputation as a fighting machine lies in more things than just the numbers in performance. Pilot comfort, confidence, and ease of flight, takeoff, and landing have alot to do with it.

In raw numbers the two are an even match with some performance attributes going to some versions of the 109 in comparison to the contemporary Spitfire. But raw numbers don't tell all.

I think that‚¬īs it!
German rookies feard the 109, the father of a squadmate saw his best friend dying in a 109 landing accident.

Well traind Pilots one in a Spit one in a 109, at least up to 5-6000m would say their planes are similar in performance except for turning.

We have to keep in mind that the most 109 were clean G6.
In FB a clean G6 is not able to turn with a Spit! It‚¬īs odd, cause it‚¬īs deleted from some servers like WC. Many historical fighting reports are vs clean G6. And this plane is inferior as it should be vs spit and P47/51... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your last paragraph. The very late-war 109's were great planes, just not a ton around and usually flown by less-trained pilots.

The exploits of the famous Mustang and Thunderbolt pilots came from engagements that usually happened while escorting bombers at 20-25,000', and usually (not always) against earlier "G" model 109's. At that alt, with proper tatcics and startng with an alt. advantage, they really held the upper hand against the Germans. The more so considering that the Germans were focused on making attack runs on the bombers.

I know I sound like a broken record, but, fly a Spit, or more appropriatly, a Mustang at 250-300mph at 23,000' in the sim against a 109 or a 190 and you feel very confident.

The "red" problems we're having on servers like WC is down to the fact that we're operating our planes where they don't perfrom up to their abilities (i.e. 2,000-5,000' protecting P-38's going down low to blow up tanks.) A 190 is a better mid-low alt aircraft than a Mustang, with better armament and the 109 is one of the best planes to fly at lower speeds (which form most of the DF server mix-ups). This is a
recipe for disaster.

vanir
07-22-2005, 12:18 AM
I remember reading about the thoughts of pilots before and after they'd test flown each other's planes during BoB.

Germans said you couldn't outmanoeuvre Spits but they choked in dives. Luftwaffe command seemed to assume from independant intelligence the Spit was no match for Messerschmitts.

Spit pilots thought the Messerschmitts were a better technology they were just managing to latch on to with the latest from the RAF. This was partly due to prewar Luftwaffe phobia inadvertantly generated by media. They were actually disappointed by the flying capabilities of the 109, being very high performance but very difficult to master and therefore placed its success largely on the skill of Luftwaffe pilots, though the fuel injection and superior climb rate was a boon.

But since I don't have AEP yet, can someone tell me, does the Spitfire get vapour locked in sudden dives like it should? The Hurricane in my FB doesn't seem to.

At any rate, late war Spits should leave most 109's for dead except maybe the K4 which supposedly had rediscovered quality engineering materiels other late series had been lacking due to allied bombing efforts and occupational successes.

As for low altitude performance, the Spitfire came in a clipped wing variant in an attempt to improve low altitude roll rates, which weren't very contemporary although gave excellent high altitude manoeuvrability.

AFAIC you can see the design intentions of the Spits in its shape, it's a purpose built early war bomber-interceptor, custom built to assuage an exaggerated public fear hailing from prewar years.
That the Luftwaffe had no dedicated high altitude escorts at that time, an overconfidently lazy production rate (continuing at peacetime outputs as if there was no war) and poorly armed medium bombers, is a good proportion of its early success.

JG5_UnKle
07-22-2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by vanir:
But since I don't have AEP yet, can someone tell me, does the Spitfire get vapour locked in sudden dives like it should? The Hurricane in my FB doesn't seem to.



The 1938 Hurri does, but all other models (and the Spit as it is the MkVb and later) didn't suffer from this.

So they don't in the sim, hope that clears it up S!

HayateAce
07-22-2005, 11:33 AM
Bs~109 turn rate has been made better in each patch in order to save the frail ego of the online luftheinie player.

Teh BogusFantasy~109 we have today was built not with blood or sweat, but with tears:

http://www.nla.gov.au/pub/nlanews/2000/october00/images/crying-child.jpg

VW-IceFire
07-22-2005, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by vanir:
But since I don't have AEP yet, can someone tell me, does the Spitfire get vapour locked in sudden dives like it should? The Hurricane in my FB doesn't seem to.
The Hurricane Mark I (1938) in FB does have this attribute. It is correct in this matter.

AEP does not introduce any BoB timeperiod Spitfires. By the time the Mark V was introduced, problems with short periods of negative G were more or less solved using stopgap and official methods.

The Hurricane Mark II also benefitted from these fixes and also has no serious negative G issues.

From what my talks with WWII vets and pilot historians tell me, holding negative G in any plane (109, P-38, Spitfire, whatever) is not a good idea no matter what the engine design of the period was.

BigganD
07-23-2005, 08:12 AM
Now when the spit and the 109 are very equal in turns, its very dangerous to turn with a 109!
Fear it! But still and as it should be the spit is better in turns.

Kernow
07-23-2005, 11:48 AM
Generally Spit has the better max sustained turn - but, you have to fly at the right speed for best turn; get too slow and the 109 wins, especially when it gets slow enough to drop combat flap.

For LF.Vb, VIII, IXs best speed is around 180-200 mph

Seafire LF.III around 170 mph

Vb/c, Seafire F.III around 160 mph

[data derived from IL2C for v3.04 - don't think much has changed in v4.01?]

HelSqnProtos
07-23-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Bs~109 turn rate has been made better in each patch in order to save the frail ego of the online luftheinie player.

Teh BogusFantasy~109 we have today was built not with blood or sweat, but with tears:

http://www.nla.gov.au/pub/nlanews/2000/october00/images/crying-child.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Armer_Ritter
07-23-2005, 02:11 PM
@hayatelooser
Just one sentece to your place of birth:

must be a strange place were they grew up the plancenta and junk the babies...

Skalgrim
07-24-2005, 04:04 AM
Ungarn was differ from production had supply better quality because not so many bombraids , ungarn had supply 1500 g10 and g14 for germany with very good quality,

think sme aces would be rejoice to get a ungarn g10 or g14.

think k4 has better quality as the most other 109 make in germany,

Many k4 was make at k√¬∂nigsberg, look of the map and you see that k√¬∂nigsberg was out of the most bombraids.

Russian had capture k4 at K√¬∂nigsberg and then test.

k4 had get 611km/h sealevel,

think not weak sealevel speed compare with spit14 578km/h sealvel with same power.




Originally posted by vanir:
I remember reading about the thoughts of pilots before and after they'd test flown each other's planes during BoB.

Germans said you couldn't outmanoeuvre Spits but they choked in dives. Luftwaffe command seemed to assume from independant intelligence the Spit was no match for Messerschmitts.

Spit pilots thought the Messerschmitts were a better technology they were just managing to latch on to with the latest from the RAF. This was partly due to prewar Luftwaffe phobia inadvertantly generated by media. They were actually disappointed by the flying capabilities of the 109, being very high performance but very difficult to master and therefore placed its success largely on the skill of Luftwaffe pilots, though the fuel injection and superior climb rate was a boon.

But since I don't have AEP yet, can someone tell me, does the Spitfire get vapour locked in sudden dives like it should? The Hurricane in my FB doesn't seem to.

At any rate, late war Spits should leave most 109's for dead except maybe the K4 which supposedly had rediscovered quality engineering materiels other late series had been lacking due to allied bombing efforts and occupational successes.

As for low altitude performance, the Spitfire came in a clipped wing variant in an attempt to improve low altitude roll rates, which weren't very contemporary although gave excellent high altitude manoeuvrability.

AFAIC you can see the design intentions of the Spits in its shape, it's a purpose built early war bomber-interceptor, custom built to assuage an exaggerated public fear hailing from prewar years.
That the Luftwaffe had no dedicated high altitude escorts at that time, an overconfidently lazy production rate (continuing at peacetime outputs as if there was no war) and poorly armed medium bombers, is a good proportion of its early success.