PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire or Hurricane for SoW BoB...what would you choose??



MB_Avro_UK
09-16-2007, 04:39 PM
Hi all,

Many Battle of Britain pilots preferred the Hurricane to the Spitfire. Remember that the Battle of Britain occured in the summer of 1940 and the Spitfires were Mk 1s and later in the Battle Mk 2s.

They were speaking from experience and not graphs...

Will this be your experience in the forthcoming Battle of Britain sim ?

Just a thought whilst we wait...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

stalkervision
09-16-2007, 04:45 PM
The 109e... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Jaws2002
09-16-2007, 04:46 PM
Hurri and 110. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-16-2007, 04:52 PM
Hurri to start, then later Spit if allowed...

leitmotiv
09-16-2007, 04:52 PM
Both would be a challenge with their dad-burned carbs. Heresy in this thread, but I most look forward to the 110C. After that, I am keen to try my hand at the Blenheim IV, and the Ju 88A-1. I hope there is a Wellington Ic to fly over Berlin. Hope one of the modelers does a Defiant if 1C doesn't.

Sigh. Meanwhile, MAW has a Blenheim and a Lysander.

DKoor
09-16-2007, 04:57 PM
Hurricane.
When I go down, I wanna go down with style.

Korolov1986
09-16-2007, 04:58 PM
I'd rather take a hang glider with a pistol into combat.

MB_Avro_UK
09-16-2007, 05:17 PM
I forgot to mention...both the Spitfire and the Hurricane will be powered by the same 1,000 hp Rolls Royce Merlin as in 1940.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

triad773
09-16-2007, 06:12 PM
Hurri from my experience with a couple of sims. Torque to weight ration seems a little better at that time than the Spit.

If the DM is done well, we'll have to avoid the frontal attack like the plague; remember the fuel tank in front of the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

If the FM is true to reports, the carbs will cough and sputter when one noses down. Better to change your axis and yank the stick back to keep gravity working with your engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-16-2007, 06:27 PM
i belive the negG cutouts of the RAF Fighters will cause less "proplems" for the players than the manual pitches in the 109E (and im not sure what system the 110C had !) ............

anyway, i highly doubt that you will see the same relation in numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires on the comming servers than in the air of real 1940 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
09-16-2007, 06:43 PM
Both the Hurricane and Spitfire had big gas tanks in front of the pilot. The difference was that the Hurricane had no firewall between the tank and the cockpit---thus, if the tank torched, the pilot was, literally, toast. Additionally, the skinning around the Spit's tank was deliberately made thicker (but it wasn't armor). The tanks in each aircraft were self-sealing. The father of a friend of mine who flew Hellcats during the war said he always flew with goggles down, gloves worn, and canopy hood open after reading about British pilots getting roasted (the cat had a big tank in front of the pilot).

mortoma
09-16-2007, 06:45 PM
I didn't know the 109E had a manual prop pitch!! Why do they have auto available in IL2/FB/PF/AEP/'46??? Are you talking the E-1 model?? When did auto prop come about?? Maybe the E-3 model??

JG53Frankyboy
09-16-2007, 06:59 PM
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/AutopitchJG53.jpg

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 07:01 PM
I think I may take a different approach to BoB. I think I will spend a lot of time in all the available fighters.. since there will be so few....... and no Mustangs yet... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-16-2007, 07:08 PM
I'm looking forward to the first 'hacks'. You know, like Spits painted as Mustangs, 109's as zero's, Blenheims as Betties. I remember a BoB campaign in the old IL2 with Laggs as spits. Kinda negates authentic flight modelling, I know, but it's going to happen, isn't it?

Anyway, back on topic, Spitfire for me. If the Whirly's a non-runner again.

JG53Frankyboy
09-16-2007, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
............ Why do they have auto available in IL2/FB/PF/AEP/'46??? ..........

because "our" Emils so far are designed as planes used from Operatiion Barbarossa on, thats 1941.........

but if you perhaps remember , for a long time the ingame Emils had only manual porpllers for some time after thier release - i hated to fly them in these gameversions (even they climbed very good in this condition) - a patch changed that later , most propably Maddox get other infos.

Bartsimpson-
09-16-2007, 07:19 PM
Wonder if they'll model the missus thingme's orifice in the spitfire mk1 carburettor as quoted in > http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Enemy-History-Britain/dp/1854108018 book iv'e just done reading .

I think i can recall that around late august they had spitfire carburettors retro fitted with the above mentioned device effectively eliminating the fuel / gravity cut out problem .

Bartman .

Hydra454
09-16-2007, 08:19 PM
The Hurricane,duh...Is there really any other real choice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MarkGos
09-16-2007, 09:13 PM
Humpback hurricane for me.

Let the prima donna's in the spits play tag with the emils whilst the humpies get the real job done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 09:19 PM
Hurri for bombers and Spit for fighters. I have a feeling I will be flying for Axis a lot more though until later expansions.

S!

Choctaw111
09-16-2007, 09:25 PM
Man, I cannot wait to climb into that Hurri for the first time.

zardozid
09-16-2007, 10:51 PM
I will have to try flying all the new airplanes before I decide on my favorite fighter... <span class="ev_code_PINK">but I think I might enjoy "Stuka(ing)" all the buildings/buses/trucks/airfields/water-towers/ect...in the beautiful new world we will have to play in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </span> (testing the new damage model and destruction effects) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif .


p.s. I have always been a ME109 man...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 11:03 PM
Almost forgot about bombing! What a treat it shall be! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S!

rockgardenlove
09-17-2007, 01:33 AM
BF109, Stuka + Hurri for me.

VV_Holdenb
09-17-2007, 02:07 AM
Hurri for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MrMojok
09-17-2007, 02:07 AM
I hope the manual prop pitch control on the 109 works better than it does in 4.08.


As for the question--- SPITFIRE, BABY!

GIAP.Shura
09-17-2007, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by triad773:
If the FM is true to reports, the carbs will cough and sputter when one noses down. Better to change your axis and yank the stick back to keep gravity working with your engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

*Puts on pedantry spectacles*

It isn't gravity working either with you or against you that is the problem, it is the centrifugal force in the turn.

*Takes off pedantry spectacles*

Why are so many people saying that the carbs will be such a big deal? We already have this in several planes and in the past year of flying the I-153 regularly, the engine has cut out on me on less than 5 occasions.

Manu-6S
09-17-2007, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Why are so many people saying that the carbs will be such a big deal?

Because Spits will be less noobish than now... think all the poor guys who want to kill like they did in IL2 but they need to take care of the engine cut. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

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

GregGal
09-17-2007, 03:40 AM
Spit for me..definetly.
I hope it'll be the ones with constant speed airscrews, and not those who served before july 1940, equipped with 2 position prop pitch control. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
And I also hope we'll be able to chose our squadron. 92 squadron, Biggin Hill for me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gumtree
09-17-2007, 03:46 AM
It will be interesting to see how the engine cut out under neg G is modelled. All the reports I have read say the engine would give a cough and miss a beat before firing up again during a neg G manoeuvre. Yet in the current game you go Neg and the engine dies, not sure that is quite right.

Then again I have not flown a real carbed merlin, so what would I know?

The-Pizza-Man
09-17-2007, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Gumtree:
It will be interesting to see how the engine cut out under neg G is modelled. All the reports I have read say the engine would give a cough and miss a beat before firing up again during a neg G manoeuvre. Yet in the current game you go Neg and the engine dies, not sure that is quite right.

Then again I have not flown a real carbed merlin, so what would I know?

Yep as long as the prop is still turning and the ignition still on the engine should start right back up once positive g is restored, just like roll starting a car.

Vipez-
09-17-2007, 04:09 AM
BF-110 for me please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

110 should be quite deadly and fast, as we don't have to follow the same bad tactics as what happened in real life. As long as one remembers to not get in turn fights..

ImpStarDuece
09-17-2007, 04:10 AM
As I'll play the vast majority of my time offline, I'll chose both.

I've played the Hurricane I and II long enough in Il2 that the Spitfire Mk I will make a nice change.

Oh, and for a mild derevation from the topic, I hope we get the following Hurricane variants in SoW: BoB:

Hurricane Mk I 1939: fixed pitched prop and no armour (for 'Phony War' air battles);
Hurricane Mk I 1940 early: with two pitch three blade metal prop, ejector exhausts and armour (for French campaign and some Channel convoys, very early BoB);
Hurricane Mk I 1940 mid: CSP and armoured windscreens (for proper full BoB )
Hurricane Mk IIA 1940: With Merlin XX (15 mph faster at all heights).

But I might just be greedy

Dtools4fools
09-17-2007, 07:17 AM
I want to bomb German warships defended by 109's. In my Blenheim, unescorted of course.

Now that will give me one hell of a exciting ride...
And real satisfaction if I just survive the mission... never mind hitting those warships...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
****

GazzaMataz
09-17-2007, 07:24 AM
92 squadron, Biggin Hill for me!

Someone else from Biggin Hill here?

I will definitely be flying the Hurricane from Biggers with 79 Squadron - at last I will be home :-)

Skoshi Tiger
09-17-2007, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Many Battle of Britain pilots preferred the Hurricane to the Spitfire. Remember that the Battle of Britain occured in the summer of 1940 and the Spitfires were Mk 1s and later in the Battle Mk 2s.
...
Best Regards,
MB_Avro.
I got a video (on VHS) somewhere that had a Hurricane pilot talking about this (I'll have to try to find it!.

From memory, His argument was that he wouldn't have swapped his Hurricane for a Spitfire durring the battle because he and his ground crew knew his aircaft and it limitations. He wasn't going to go into battle with a new type with minimal training.

Anyway, didn't Biggles fly a Hurricane??? Nuff Said!

Kurfurst__
09-17-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Hurricane Mk I 1939: fixed pitched prop and no armour (for 'Phony War' air battles);
Hurricane Mk I 1940 early: with two pitch three blade metal prop, ejector exhausts and armour (for French campaign and some Channel convoys, very early BoB);
Hurricane Mk I 1940 mid: CSP and armoured windscreens (for proper full BoB )
Hurricane Mk IIA 1940: With Merlin XX (15 mph faster at all heights).

But I might just be greedy

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/hsarmour1.jpg


Early Me 109E propeller control in the Battle of Britain :
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...92_E3_MP16feb39.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109E_MP_E3_1792/WNr1792_E3_MP16feb39.html)

Of interest is the change of the company's name to Messerschmitt A.G. in the header, and the airscrew type used - VDM 9-11081A. This points to manual propellor pitch control, without automatic pitch control option being present as VDM documentation shows the following propellor types used for the Bf 109E :

Bf 109E ohne Automatik : 9-11081A (DB601A and N)
Bf 109E mit Automatik : 9-11081E (DB601A and N)

The first known documentation of automatic propellor pitch (Luftschauben Verstellautomatik) control appears in late 1939, in the L.Dv. 556/3 (Entwurf) BF 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, promulageted 16 December, 1939, Berlin. The Handbook takes numerous notes on the operation of the Luftschauben Verstellautomatik in various conditions, and also notes that some aircraft are without this automatic system; this latter is confirmed by oral accounts of Bf 109E pilots.

Page 17, I. Startferigmachen, Step 7.
' Prüfe, ob Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik eingeschaltet ist (Kippschalteran linker Rumpfwand; Selbstschalter in Schalttfel. '

Page 18, IV. Flug, C. Betriebsdaten.
' Bei Flugzeugen ohne Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett so einstellen, daß die verstehend angegeben Werte für Drehzahl und Ladedruck eingeschalten werden. 1,3 ata und 2400 U/min nicht überschreiten!'
' Für Sperrflug Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik auschalten, (Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand) und Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellscraubenschalter am Gerätebrett einstellen.'

Page 20, V. Landung, Step 2., and VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, A. Durchstarten, Step 1:
' Bei Flugzeugen ohne Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett auf 12 Uhr. '

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, C. Versagen der Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Step 1.
' Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten. '

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, D. Notlandung, Step 3.
' Luftschaube in Segelflug : Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten, und Luftschraube durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett in Segelflug bringen. '

stalkervision
09-17-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
BF-110 for me please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

110 should be quite deadly and fast, as we don't have to follow the same bad tactics as what happened in real life. As long as one remembers to not get in turn fights..

The Me-110 in BOB would a great b and z plane because it is fast and well armed but it won't turn tightly and certainly won't roll very well..

DKoor
09-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
I hope the manual prop pitch control on the 109 works better than it does in 4.08. +1

DKoor
09-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by GazzaMataz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">92 squadron, Biggin Hill for me!

Someone else from Biggin Hill here?

I will definitely be flying the Hurricane from Biggers with 79 Squadron - at last I will be home :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
09-17-2007, 09:00 AM
The real benefit will be, sorry for OT but since many here are ot here I go, flying on almost semi-real conditions.......
Chances are MG will put pilot modeling (fatigue etc.) something that is sorely missing now. That will be one step more in the right direction.

And I'll trade all high turn rates, high roll rates, high RoCs, 30-40km/h more level speed for just one good attack position then.......

If that doesn't happen......well. We'll basically have IL-2 cosmetical clone that deals with 1940 airwar and the fun stops there.

MB_Avro_UK
09-17-2007, 01:00 PM
Hi all,

Perhaps we'll find in SoW that the performance between the Mk 1 Hurricane and the Spitfire Mk 1 will be similar.

At present in IL2 the Mk 1 Hurricane is the 1938 version with the 900hp engine rather than the 1,000hp engine available in 1940 (plus other refinements).

The closest Spitfire we have in IL2 is the MK 5.

In other words,the performance gap correctly apparent in IL2 between the Hurri and Spit will be narrowed...I hope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 01:31 PM
If one is going to judge by Shockwave's BOB II, which, admittedly, has FM "issues," you would not want to be in a Hurricane. It is a wheezer compared to the Spit. In 1994, FLY PAST or AEROPLANE ran a several part series on the Spit I vs the Hur I. Only people who had flown both during the war could play. It was a hot debate. I recall one thing the Hur people could hold over the Spit was a more stable gunnery platform + a concentrated battery (the four guns in each wing were mounted next to each other, they were mounted outside of the prop radius so they could all free fire---the Spit's guns were distributed all along the wing, they were not concentrated, but all could free fire).

The 100 octane U.S. gasoline gave both of them a boost.

Maybe the most interesting study to come out of the B of B regarding the Hur was a Ministry of Aircraft Production study of in-service Hur Is. The found such a wide variation of performance in them they came to the conclusion standard performance charts were useless.

I'll tell you what, if I were a real 1940 RAF fighter pilot, I would have twisted every arm in sight to get into anything but the Hurricane. I would not have wanted to fly an aircraft with a big, fat fuel tank right in front of my instrument panel with no intervening firewall like you had in the Spit. Being barbecued would not have appealed to me at all.

MB_Avro_UK
09-17-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
If one is going to judge by Shockwave's BOB II, which, admittedly, has FM "issues," you would not want to be in a Hurricane. It is a wheezer compared to the Spit. In 1994, FLY PAST or AEROPLANE ran a several part series on the Spit I vs the Hur I. Only people who had flown both during the war could play. It was a hot debate. I recall one thing the Hur people could hold over the Spit was a more stable gunnery platform + a concentrated battery (the four guns in each wing were mounted next to each other, they were mounted outside of the prop radius so they could all free fire---the Spit's guns were distributed all along the wing, they were not concentrated, but all could free fire).

The 100 octane U.S. gasoline gave both of them a boost.

Maybe the most interesting study to come out of the B of B regarding the Hur was a Ministry of Aircraft Production study of in-service Hur Is. The found such a wide variation of performance in them they came to the conclusion standard performance charts were useless.

Also, a Spitfire (IIRC) cost twice as much and twice as long to build compared to a Hurricane.

And 'field-repairs' were more complex for a Spitfire due to its more advanced construction.

Sooo...if my maths is correct...for the RAF to have been only equipped with Spitfires,their fighter strength would have been at 70% of their actual 1940 level http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

This brain-grinding calculation of mine is based upon the actual RAF fighter strength ratio of 3 Hurricanes to 2 Spitfires.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 02:08 PM
Excellent points MBA, as usual. I'm sure Beaverbrook loved the Hurricane!

Zoom2136
09-17-2007, 02:32 PM
I'll be flying a Spit for sure....


One thing I would like fixed is the 109's being able to fire their machine guns when the prop is no longer turning... As I understand it these were sink to the prop by cams... so no prop rotation no prop...

Playing with the prop RPM should also affect the rate of fire of the MG...

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 03:07 PM
THE Hurricane site:

http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/

hop2002
09-17-2007, 03:48 PM
At present in IL2 the Mk 1 Hurricane is the 1938 version with the 900hp engine rather than the 1,000hp engine available in 1940 (plus other refinements).

It should be 1300 hp for BoB.

The ratings were:

87 octane, 6.25 lbs boost:
875 hp @ sea level
1025 hp @16,250 ft

100 octane, 12 lbs boost:
1170 hp @ sea level
1300 hp @ 10,750 ft

I've seen a BoB work in progress picture that shows clear "100 octane only" markings on a Spitfire or Hurricane, but I've also seen another which shows a 9lbs only boost gauge, so I'm not sure whether we'll have 12 lbs in SoW.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-17-2007, 03:56 PM
Because Spits will be less noobish than now

Was that really needed? The early Spitfire in this sim is a dog and is outclassed easily by the BF-109. The 109 does everything better other then sustained turn which is actually pretty close. Its also easier to fly in most regards. This is one of my favorite matchups in the sim and I usually fly the 109 when I can and its like a cat playing with a mouse.

S!

R_Target
09-17-2007, 04:00 PM
Between the two, the Hurricane would be my choice. But mostly I'll be in the Bf109E. Least 'til we get some Hellcats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MB_Avro_UK
09-17-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At present in IL2 the Mk 1 Hurricane is the 1938 version with the 900hp engine rather than the 1,000hp engine available in 1940 (plus other refinements).

It should be 1300 hp for BoB.

The ratings were:

87 octane, 6.25 lbs boost:
875 hp @ sea level
1025 hp @16,250 ft

100 octane, 12 lbs boost:
1170 hp @ sea level
1300 hp @ 10,750 ft

I've seen a BoB work in progress picture that shows clear "100 octane only" markings on a Spitfire or Hurricane, but I've also seen another which shows a 9lbs only boost gauge, so I'm not sure whether we'll have 12 lbs in SoW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

So does that mean that the BoB performance of the Hurricane is far better than the Mk 1 we have in il2 ??

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 04:59 PM
Heh heh, if the design of BOBSOW is really on the ball, as I hope it will be, the 109E-1 with only four MG17s, and no 20s, should be in the sim because a sizable number of them were in the battle (a quick look at the particulars of crashed 109s in F.K. Mason's excellent BATTLE OVER BRITAIN shows quite a few---the E-1 came up in a thread some time ago and somebody had some details on numbers).

Here is one which came down in the UK on 30 Sept 1940---the pilot supposedly came a cropper trying to whack a trainer:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0305.jpg

I'd imagine many of our inveterate Germans may experience a loss of joy in combat stuck in an E-1 vs a Spit or a Hurricane.

Fox_3
09-17-2007, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by GazzaMataz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">92 squadron, Biggin Hill for me!

Someone else from Biggin Hill here?

I will definitely be flying the Hurricane from Biggers with 79 Squadron - at last I will be home :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I live between Biggin Hill, Croydon, and Kenley so I'm spoilt for choice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

hop2002
09-17-2007, 05:39 PM
Heh heh, if the design of BOBSOW is really on the ball, as I hope it will be, the 109E-1 with only four MG17s, and no 20s, should be in the sim because a sizable number of them were in the battle (a quick look at the particulars of crashed 109s in F.K. Mason's excellent BATTLE OVER BRITAIN shows quite a few---the E-1 came up in a thread some time ago and somebody had some details on numbers).

Hooton in Eagle in Flames gives the percentage of 109 losses by subtype as:

Type Jul Aug Sep Oct
109E1 44- 40- 38- 36
109E3 30- 08- 01- 02
109E4 20- 52- 61- 62

It's hard to tell overall losses because casualties were concentrated in August and September, but it's clear the E-1 made up about 40% of the 109 losses during the battle.


So does that mean that the BoB performance of the Hurricane is far better than the Mk 1 we have in il2 ??

The Hurricane I in IL2 doesn't ahve a CS prop or 100 octane, I believe, so the difference should be significant.

carguy_
09-17-2007, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I didn't know the 109E had a manual prop pitch!! Why do they have auto available in IL2/FB/PF/AEP/'46??? Are you talking the E-1 model?? When did auto prop come about?? Maybe the E-3 model??

We have the Messerscmitts that are from the Eastern Front, besides the G10.

Some time ago, one of the patches turned all Emils into auto prop pitch/fuel mix, saying that by 1941 all Emils serivng in Russia were modernized as such.

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 05:45 PM
Nice work, hop.

JG53Frankyboy
09-17-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
................................

The Hurricane I in IL2 doesn't ahve a CS prop ..........., I believe, ..............

it has a CSP.

btw, i belive we have to say good by to the old "IL2-way" of having lots of different versions of one planetype.
the most common version of the specific battle/scenario (i hope SoW will keep its way of showing specific and timelimited scenarios in later AdOns!) should be modeled.

for the Spits and Hurries are this Mk.Is with 100octan power, and CSP.

for the 109 is this the E-4 with its MG-FF/M - if only manual porpeller or with auto (manual still possible) i cant say for sure.
i just have this info i alreay posted out of Priens JG53 History...........

so i dont expect Spit and Hurri IIs, E-1,-3,-4/N, F-0/1

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Since BOBSOW is supposed to be capable of accepting non-Maddox aircraft, we may see quite a few of these, but the complexity of the modeling with the new FM, DM, etc, may limit them.

Bremspropeller
09-17-2007, 06:04 PM
Neither, nor.

Ain't got no cash for a new rig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

ElAurens
09-17-2007, 07:09 PM
Hopefully we'll have a proper Gloster Gladiator instead of that under performing J8A.

Looking forward to some fights against the Regia Aeronautica's CR 42s.

And I'd dearly like to fly an Avro Anson I.

However if forced to I would take the Spit.

Why drive an Austin Seven when the Lagonda is in the garage?

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

leitmotiv
09-17-2007, 10:59 PM
At this point, I just want BOBSOW. I want to see what it can do. I imagine it is going to be astounding.

Friendly_flyer
09-18-2007, 12:01 AM
As long as there is no Whirlwind, I'll probably fly Hurricane and 110.

The reason I'll take the Hurri is that my squad will most likely specialise on it. Besides, I'm a ****ty pilot and won't be able to fully utilize the advantages of a Spitfire, let alone land on those narrow tracks in one piece.

... and I have always had a soft spot for the less fortunately looking Hurricane.

Kurfurst__
09-18-2007, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Heh heh, if the design of BOBSOW is really on the ball, as I hope it will be, the 109E-1 with only four MG17s, and no 20s, should be in the sim because a sizable number of them were in the battle (a quick look at the particulars of crashed 109s in F.K. Mason's excellent BATTLE OVER BRITAIN shows quite a few---the E-1 came up in a thread some time ago and somebody had some details on numbers).

About 30-40% of the Emils at the start of battle were all-MG armed E-1s. That sounds particular fun against early unarmored RAF fighters or canvas-covered Hurris.. I do hope incendinary rounds get modelled properly.

EDIT : I've just looked up some ballistic/penetration tables and armor thicknesses, I think the E-1 will be a lot of fun, wheter the opponent is armored or not... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The rest 10-15% were mainly E-4s with the Mine-shell firing MG-FF/M, while some E-3s were still around that weren't coverted yet. Thus the E-4 and E-1 would be the most logical choice.

There were also the the 100 octane E-4/Ns with the boosted DB 601N engine and the droptank capable E-7 with rather generous range (ca 1300 km) compared to the basic Emil. All of the E-7s seems to have been built with the slightly more powerful DB 601Aa engines, and were built in quite numerous numbers by the end of the battle.

Basic Bf 110Cs and Bf 110Cs with DB 601N. The latter were rather numerous by the the start of the Battle amongst 110 units.

As for Hurricanes and Spits, it would probably a good choice to have them both in 2-pitch and CSP versions, and CSPs with and without 100 octane. Given the armor doc from May 10, I think 2P Hurricane should be armored while early Spits should not, and CSP Spits armored.

Then it would be nice to have rarer stuff like Spit IIs, Hurri IIs, and perhaps a 109F-1 on the LW side if you're doing really well and put Moelders to shame, making you the Fat Man's choice instead of him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheGozr
09-18-2007, 02:12 AM
I think i will stick with a 109 for this SoW.

Feathered_IV
09-18-2007, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Man, I cannot wait to climb into that Hurri for the first time.

You know, if we could quite literally CLIMB into the cockpits. That would be amazing.

It would give everything a much better sense of scale to be able to do a bit of pre flight walkaround. Not to mention inspect the damage when you come down again.

JG53Frankyboy
09-18-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
................

There were also the the 100 octane E-4/Ns with the boosted DB 601N engine ................

Basic Bf 110Cs and Bf 110Cs with DB 601N. The latter were rather numerous by the the start of the Battle amongst 110 units.

..................

the DB601N was in short supply in sommer 1940 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
and the 110C had priority in equipting (in general the engines were changed in the field) with this engine over the 109E.
the 110C was so hard battled over UK 1940, it needed every horsepower it could get i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Rickustyit
09-18-2007, 08:52 AM
http://www.dodecaneso.org/Cr42Cichellaegeo.jpg

Hell, just for the fun of it.

Rick

Viper2005_
09-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Spitfire for me.