PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire FM's



stoopidlimey
04-20-2006, 02:46 PM
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey

stoopidlimey
04-20-2006, 02:46 PM
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey

Xiolablu3
04-20-2006, 02:51 PM
Re register under a proper name, fool.

danjama
04-20-2006, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*******

AFJ_Locust
04-20-2006, 03:25 PM
Limey your an idiot

Sintubin
04-20-2006, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

AFJ_Locust
04-20-2006, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


YOU GUYS KILL ME WITH THIS GARBAGE

GERMAN AC ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF SWATING DOWN SPITS ALL DAY LONG, JUST BECAUSE YOUR ALL NOOBED OUT FLYING ON THE DECK LIKE MORONS DOSENT MEAN THAT SPITS ARE TOO GOOD, LEARN TO FLY YOUR AC & YOU WILL FIND SPITS ARE NO MATCH FOR THEM LEARN TO FLY WITH WINGMEN AS IT WAS IN REALITY THEN YOU WILL SEE THE REAL KILLING POWER OF GERMAN AC

GET OVER IT NOOBS

VW-IceFire
04-20-2006, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


YOU GUYS KILL ME WITH THIS GARBAGE

GERMAN AC ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF SWATING DOWN SPITS ALL DAY LONG, JUST BECAUSE YOUR ALL NOOBED OUT FLYING ON THE DECK LIKE MORONS DOSENT MEAN THAT SPITS ARE TOO GOOD, LEARN TO FLY YOUR AC & YOU WILL FIND SPITS ARE NO MATCH FOR THEM LEARN TO FLY WITH WINGMEN AS IT WAS IN REALITY THEN YOU WILL SEE THE REAL KILLING POWER OF GERMAN AC

GET OVER IT NOOBS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now that is something I'd have to agree with. Although I wouldn't put it like that...maybe thats why nobody listens to me...

FI-Skipper
04-20-2006, 03:56 PM
Do you think thats waht the Luftwaffe did during and after BoB

"Ach it is not fair at all Heydrich!My nasty little Messerschmidt cannot catch zees uber Britischer planes!I vill complain to uncle Adolf and get ze Spit remodelled!Zen ze war vill truly be over zat nasty little island!"

Exactly....that is how ridiculous most of you blue whiners sound.Learn to play the game and get a life.

Skipper

mynameisroland
04-20-2006, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


YOU GUYS KILL ME WITH THIS GARBAGE

GERMAN AC ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF SWATING DOWN SPITS ALL DAY LONG, JUST BECAUSE YOUR ALL NOOBED OUT FLYING ON THE DECK LIKE MORONS DOSENT MEAN THAT SPITS ARE TOO GOOD, LEARN TO FLY YOUR AC & YOU WILL FIND SPITS ARE NO MATCH FOR THEM LEARN TO FLY WITH WINGMEN AS IT WAS IN REALITY THEN YOU WILL SEE THE REAL KILLING POWER OF GERMAN AC

GET OVER IT NOOBS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Limey your post reeks of your brown hat.

As for the reply post stating how all Luftwaffe fighters own the Spitfire that is only partly true. Place me in a Spitfire IX and I will not get shot down by a Luftwaffe fighter unless I make some idiotic mistakes or am vastly outnumbered. Dont sell the Spitfire or any Allied fighter short because they all have qualities which render them unbeatable if flown in certain ways.

Megile_
04-20-2006, 04:07 PM
I have nothing useful to add to this thread

faustnik
04-20-2006, 04:31 PM
"This one time, on Warclouds..."

AFJ_Locust
04-20-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


YOU GUYS KILL ME WITH THIS GARBAGE

GERMAN AC ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF SWATING DOWN SPITS ALL DAY LONG, JUST BECAUSE YOUR ALL NOOBED OUT FLYING ON THE DECK LIKE MORONS DOSENT MEAN THAT SPITS ARE TOO GOOD, LEARN TO FLY YOUR AC & YOU WILL FIND SPITS ARE NO MATCH FOR THEM LEARN TO FLY WITH WINGMEN AS IT WAS IN REALITY THEN YOU WILL SEE THE REAL KILLING POWER OF GERMAN AC

GET OVER IT NOOBS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Limey your post reeks of your brown hat.

As for the reply post stating how all Luftwaffe fighters own the Spitfire that is only partly true. Place me in a Spitfire IX and I will not get shot down by a Luftwaffe fighter unless I make some idiotic mistakes or am vastly outnumbered. Dont sell the Spitfire or any Allied fighter short because they all have qualities which render them unbeatable if flown in certain ways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never ment too imply that German ac are superior to allied, each ac has its weekness & strength, Teamwork combined with proper tactics are unbeatable in any ac, I was simply Implying that German ac are far from nutered & I prove that too myself day in & day out, I fly all the ac from I16 too TB3 too Ju87 + + + + etc etc

I only have one favorite ac thats p38 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Megile_
04-20-2006, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
"This one time, on Warclouds..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Faustnik saved my a$$... and bit the bullet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Atleast we went down spraying and praying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

JG4_Helofly
04-20-2006, 04:49 PM
Proper tactics? Do you mean game tactics or RL tactics? There is a huge difference.

Badsight.
04-20-2006, 05:19 PM
if your getting beaten by 109's while in a Spit , then you should stop rushing into 3 v 1 senario's . . . .

just stick to the 2 v 1 & youll be fine . . .

VW-IceFire
04-20-2006, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Proper tactics? Do you mean game tactics or RL tactics? There is a huge difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only in your mind.

If you read about real tactics and actually understand how they work then you can turn them around and employ them well. Proper tactics usually mean that you have 4 or 6 or 8 guys with you working together doing the job as a team. WWII air battles were rarely 1 vs 1...usually involved 4 or 8 or maybe 32 aircraft (or more) at a time.

There is no WWII tactic that does not work...Split-S works, Rolling Scissors works, Scissors works, Immelmans are generally stupid in WWII fighters but it works, the art of boom and zoom works extremely well, and so forth and so on.

WWMaxGunz
04-20-2006, 05:25 PM
Oh look, Jerry Springer has signed up and is starting threads now!

JG4_Helofly
04-20-2006, 05:37 PM
Aha. than take a fw 190 and I take a spit. Than we will se if you are able to fight in the vertical with dives and steep climbs as in RL.
Sorry but this does not work in the game. We did several dive tests with the fw 190 and the spit and you have not the advantage you should have. I think you know the RL comparative tests otherwise I will show you what I mean.

But I agree with you in team tactics.

faustnik
04-20-2006, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oh look, Jerry Springer has signed up and is starting threads now! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously our per capita tooth count is going down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-20-2006, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Proper tactics? Do you mean game tactics or RL tactics? There is a huge difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im talking about flying in flights of 4 fighters & 4 fighter/bombers/bombers

Problem is too many people like to test there skill 1v1 and end up on the wrong side of the gun, then they feal they are beaten by an AC model vs not being smart in there tactics, If you want to kill spits you should be well above them to start with, imploy bnz tactics, If you meet a spit at co altitude you better have a wingman with good eyes who can scrape the spit of yer six while you run away.

I belive its called drag & bag & Im sure it was used in real combat, Speed kills & spits imho are not that fast compared to FW and other German ac.

The main thing is the original poster dosent seem to know how too use his ac properly , Since I can fly around in a FW 100% fuel kill Five spits in one flight & land without any wingman this is fact, Its called having alot of patients combined with good dive angle and extension after bounce. If you extned into a pack of spits yer probly gona die. If the spits above you your probly gona die.

Moral of the story Stay fast, Have altitude advantage and use the armament to your advantage, get a wingman or be a wingman, good wingmen get more kills anyway saveing there buddies bacon from the fire.

JG4_Helofly
04-20-2006, 05:57 PM
I agree with you Locust, for the game it's the tactic to use against the spit. Dive from above and than extend in a flat climb with high speed.
We call this hit and run.

In RL it was not exactly like this. In RL you should be able to climb after the dive with a steep angle. No spit was able to fellow this manoeuvre. You could be quicker in a better position and dive a second and a third time...

AFJ_Locust
04-20-2006, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Aha. than take a fw 190 and I take a spit. Than we will se if you are able to fight in the vertical with dives and steep climbs as in RL.
Sorry but this does not work in the game. We did several dive tests with the fw 190 and the spit and you have not the advantage you should have. I think you know the RL comparative tests otherwise I will show you what I mean.

But I agree with you in team tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helofly last time some smart guy in Warclouds challanged me to a fight He took SpitHF, I took Dora44.

He DIED , we agreed to 15,000ft but when I found him he was 25,000 I was around angels 15 so he had major advantage He still DIED.

It was a great fight no doubt, he had his chances to kill me but he missed, I had few chances but I made hits & that ruined his speed.

I even posted the track here on request from others after the fight, there were witnesses also. Its not the plane.

I do agree with you that speed in dives for all ac is not as it should be, certain ac should outdive others easily, certain ac should outclimb others after the highspeed dive, P47 is a classic exzample of this, Its better than it used to be but not like reality.

If you think you can beat my dora in a spit thats cool too Im on HL at night "RAF238thLocust"

Not 25# spit either LOL

S^

WWMaxGunz
04-20-2006, 06:09 PM
Okay now but more cussin and we need to see the flesh flashed.
Also more of you need to stick to your scripts!

danjama
04-20-2006, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Okay now but more cussin and we need to see the flesh flashed.
Also more of you need to stick to your scripts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

And Locust, why you not AFJ any more?

carguy_
04-20-2006, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Moral of the story Stay fast, Have altitude advantage and use the armament to your advantage, get a wingman or be a wingman, good wingmen get more kills anyway saveing there buddies bacon from the fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Applies for any prop plane fighter ever created...


Spitfires have everything.Any tactic is good,any pilot is an ace.

One good about it though.If you get downed flying a Spitfire all there is left is shame.


Besides,our Locust type posters never said anything when we had the old G6 early that was eventually confirmed as being drastically undermodelled and got fixed.

Xiolablu3
04-20-2006, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Moral of the story Stay fast, Have altitude advantage and use the armament to your advantage, get a wingman or be a wingman, good wingmen get more kills anyway saveing there buddies bacon from the fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Applies for any prop plane fighter ever created...


Spitfires have everything.Any tactic is good,any pilot is an ace.

One good about it though.If you get downed flying a Spitfire all there is left is shame.


Besides,our Locust type posters never said anything when we had the old G6 early that was eventually confirmed as being drastically undermodelled and got fixed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHat exactly is 'A Locust type poster'? One who enjoys the game rather than moans about it all the time?

Yeah those guys really suck.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

HellToupee
04-20-2006, 07:23 PM
well they dont have speed so for every 190d9 flyer or g6as/k4 flyer if they are downed by a spit all there is left is shame http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
04-20-2006, 07:55 PM
Spit25 - agree with original poster(X-wing), all of the other modells are completely OK, the problem is, it's hard to correctly estimate Spit's energy state in combat that's why IMO many people have problems with it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This one time, on Warclouds... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't get that...

danjama
04-20-2006, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Spit25 - agree with original poster(X-wing), all of the other modells are completely OK, the problem is, it's hard to correctly estimate Spit's energy state in combat that's why IMO many people have problems with it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This one time, on Warclouds... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't get that... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one time, at bandcamp....

carguy_
04-20-2006, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
well they dont have speed so for every 190d9 flyer or g6as/k4 flyer if they are downed by a spit all there is left is shame http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you really believe that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

HellToupee
04-20-2006, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
well they dont have speed so for every 190d9 flyer or g6as/k4 flyer if they are downed by a spit all there is left is shame http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you really believe that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
04-20-2006, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This one time, on Warclouds... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't get that... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>it means taking your opinion of plane performance from what happens in a DF is rediculous

WOLFMondo
04-21-2006, 01:49 AM
The Spitfire is nice, but its no Dora.

JG4_Helofly
04-21-2006, 02:24 AM
Yes, the Dora is maybe the best fw 190 in energy fight, but try the same with a fw 190 A against early versions of the spit ( V, IX ).

You can do high yo-yo or low or what ever you whant you will never get enough energy. The only thing you can do is dive with a big alt advantage and after that climb at high speed at a very shallow angle.
The RL report says: "Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. "

Try it! You will never draw away at any climb angle.

Also this: "Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. "

In the game you have a slight advantage but at the end of the dive. You have particularly not an advantage in the initial stages!

Last thing: "When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. "

I used this many times against the spit but the spit can follow.

This is how it is.

alert_1
04-21-2006, 02:38 AM
yes,LW planes are good when leader+wingman are engaging LONE Spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
but of course there are aces, who can take out any spit, anytime even being in worse eneegy state, but they are RARE species http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
Hwn I'm flying Spit, La5FN/La7 (as a NOOB I'm allowed fly them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) I always saying to myself "what, already at 500km/h at that LOW power seeting, WOW!" while in LW planes, "what the heck still only 500 on MW50?" Is not powerloading of SpiIX and Me109G/mw50 about the same? Or are LW planes aerodinamically much poorer designed?

stathem
04-21-2006, 02:48 AM
Can I just point something out

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Yes, the Dora is maybe the best fw 190 in energy fight, but try the same with a fw 190 A against early versions of the spit ( V, IX ).

You can do high yo-yo or low or what ever you whant you will never get enough energy. The only thing you can do is dive with a big alt advantage and after that climb at high speed at a very shallow angle.
The RL report says: "Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. "

Try it! You will never draw away at any climb angle.

Also this: "Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. "

In the game you have a slight advantage but at the end of the dive. You have particularly not an advantage in the initial stages!

Last thing: "When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. "

I used this many times against the spit but the spit can follow.

This is how it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit Vb - MG151 fodder.

Spit IX - ****** dangerous

The Spit IX is the equal of the Anton. Different but equal. Get over it.

Sintubin
04-21-2006, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Proper tactics? Do you mean game tactics or RL tactics? There is a huge difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im talking about flying in flights of 4 fighters & 4 fighter/bombers/bombers

Problem is too many people like to test there skill 1v1 and end up on the wrong side of the gun, then they feal they are beaten by an AC model vs not being smart in there tactics, If you want to kill spits you should be well above them to start with, imploy bnz tactics, If you meet a spit at co altitude you better have a wingman with good eyes who can scrape the spit of yer six while you run away.

I belive its called drag & bag & Im sure it was used in real combat, Speed kills & spits imho are not that fast compared to FW and other German ac.

The main thing is the original poster dosent seem to know how too use his ac properly , Since I can fly around in a FW 100% fuel kill Five spits in one flight & land without any wingman this is fact, Its called having alot of patients combined with good dive angle and extension after bounce. If you extned into a pack of spits yer probly gona die. If the spits above you your probly gona die.

Moral of the story Stay fast, Have altitude advantage and use the armament to your advantage, get a wingman or be a wingman, good wingmen get more kills anyway saveing there buddies bacon from the fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol your the man haha i can do this and i can do that i am the king i rulez the sky in any craft al the rest sucks

spit is like this in real live bla blaaaaaaaaa

let me tel you that when at diepe spit vs fw190 they mostly meet at same alt ))) fw 190 was bether in real live until 1943 vs spitnoob plane

NOT IN IL_2

example at vow fw 190 a4 atcking bombers mission

we meet spits at same alt 4500

hmm who is fliping al over sky

that in real live no pilot would dare

our could do in plane

yes its spitymannily ))



hah


I hope that in BOB we can dive zoom away for al planes that where famous for

Von_Rat
04-21-2006, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Can I just point something out

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Yes, the Dora is maybe the best fw 190 in energy fight, but try the same with a fw 190 A against early versions of the spit ( V, IX ).

You can do high yo-yo or low or what ever you whant you will never get enough energy. The only thing you can do is dive with a big alt advantage and after that climb at high speed at a very shallow angle.
The RL report says: "Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. "

Try it! You will never draw away at any climb angle.

Also this: "Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. "

In the game you have a slight advantage but at the end of the dive. You have particularly not an advantage in the initial stages!

Last thing: "When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. "

I used this many times against the spit but the spit can follow.

This is how it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit Vb - MG151 fodder.

Spit IX - ****** dangerous

The Spit IX is the equal of the Anton. Different but equal. Get over it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


now thats a really great counter argument. you addressed every one of his points very succintly and in great detail i might add.

stathem
04-21-2006, 06:37 AM
Np, glad to be of service.

Von_Rat
04-21-2006, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Np, glad to be of service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

err i was be sarcastic. lol

stathem
04-21-2006, 07:48 AM
No, really were you???? Welll, fancy that, what with me being a thick ****** Limey I wouldn't understand.

Megile_
04-21-2006, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
No, really were you???? Welll, fancy that, what with me being a thick ****** Limey I wouldn't understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

silly limey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

stoopidlimey
04-21-2006, 08:25 AM
By what I'm reading about the Spitfires,we already have "The World Of Tommorrow". Thanks guys, I'll go change my name to "SkyCapitain" right away. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stoopidlimey

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2006, 08:37 AM
How about StupidAHoleTroll? Fits better.

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2006, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oh look, Jerry Springer has signed up and is starting threads now! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously our per capita tooth count is going down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wait till we get back to tha trailer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif yew no good Blue sympathizer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

(really, just trynta get inta the script hopin fer sum TV money)

Manuel29
04-21-2006, 09:08 AM
IMHO in this game vertical manoeuvres aren't well simulated; heavy planes like Tempest and FW gain speed in a dive like every other planes. And they have a worse acceleration compared to RL. Tempest has nor the speed.

So happens what you find a X plane on your 6 flying an Anton, you dive and the X plane keeps the distance...

This issue give some problem to the planes what use BnZ tactics.

Bye

Von_Rat
04-21-2006, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
No, really were you???? Welll, fancy that, what with me being a thick ****** Limey I wouldn't understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes we yanks are well known for being to subtle. lol

Texan...
04-21-2006, 09:52 AM
I think HayateAce has switched to flying blue......

RCAF_Irish_403
04-21-2006, 10:09 AM
What i really want to see is a 1 on 1 Deathmatch between Stupid Limey and HayateAce for the "Hater of the Universe" Crown

ploughman
04-21-2006, 10:18 AM
Stoopidlimey not Stupid Limey, there's lots of us Stupid Limeys on here, but only one Stoopidlimey. It's how we tell the difference. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nubarus
04-21-2006, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Np, glad to be of service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

err i was be sarcastic. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So was he, even I could see that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-21-2006, 11:14 AM
Manuel29 wrote:
IMHO in this game vertical manoeuvres aren't well simulated; heavy planes like Tempest and FW gain speed in a dive like every other planes. And they have a worse acceleration compared to RL. Tempest has nor the speed.

So happens what you find a X plane on your 6 flying an Anton, you dive and the X plane keeps the distance...
This issue give some problem to the planes what use BnZ tactics.

Bye

================================================

Agreed but bnz is still possibal.

I could have the same gripe as stoopidlimey, Im flying F4/F4 vs a6m2, I dive down from 15,000ft

The zero is at maybe 9000ft, I hit him a lil but hes fine, I climb away maybe 10/15 degree climb, rember I dove from 15,000ft he was at 9,000ft I should extend away easily right ?

Not the case, he follows me up just like he had heilum injectors, Yes it sucks what can you do tho except fly in pairs or groups with teamwork, here is the order of UBER in this sim if you realy wana know

Russian (ultraubber)
German (uberized)
Japan (noober)
England (noobish)
United States (non_uber)

Thats just my opinion & Im sticking too it. Im sure others would see the UBERORDER slightly differant.

Manuel29
04-21-2006, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Agreed but bnz is still possibal.

I could have the same gripe as stoopidlimey, Im flying F4/F4 vs a6m2, I dive down from 15,000ft

The zero is at maybe 9000ft, I hit him a lil but hes fine, I climb away maybe 10/15 degree climb, rember I dove from 15,000ft he was at 9,000ft I should extend away easily right ?

Not the case, he follows me up just like he had heilum injectors, Yes it sucks what can you do tho except fly in pairs or groups with teamwork, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Von_Rat
04-21-2006, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Np, glad to be of service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

err i was be sarcastic. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So was he, even I could see that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i was joking thats why the lol,,, geez i guess i really am to subtle.

reverendkrv1972
04-21-2006, 12:41 PM
what happened to Xiola's post?
that hit the nail on the head..

anyway...sure some planes seem better than others BUT,they are far from untouchable by any means.

i shot a 109 down in a dogfight whilst i was in an il2(no tailgunner)is the il2 uber?
or is the 109 undermodelled?

spits get shot down by 109's/190's..

190's/109's get shot down by spits,whats the issue? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

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

JG4_Helofly
04-21-2006, 02:13 PM
We are talking about the objective FM situation compared with RL.

Fist the blue ( bf109 and fw 190 )

BF 109: In RL it has stiffy controles at medium and high speeds. In the game the forces on the controles are apparently lighter. So here it is better than in RL.
The other performances are quite realistic ( good climb, good sustained turn, ... )

FW 190 A: Let's start the list...
Poor visibility out of the cockpit particularly the revi view. Poor acceleration in the dive. A Kommandoger¤t which is a disadvantage and not an advantage. The engine which get damaged easily like a liquid cooled one. A climb after the dive in which every spit Vb can stay.
The realistic things are: good fire power, high roll rate and the speed.

now the british fighter:
Spitfire: It has all it's realistic advantages and has no real disadvantages cause of the energy which seems to be not perfectly right ( for all planes in the game )


I maybe missed some points, but this are things which should be clear.

P.S I am not attaking Oleg or anyone else. It is like that and IL2 is too old and has to many planes to enable it to have all planes accurate.
Off course many other planes has similar advantages or disadvantages.

Monty_Thrud
04-21-2006, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fist the blue </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%

its also very refreshing to have WW2 fighter pilots helping MG's get it right... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

HellToupee
04-21-2006, 05:49 PM
when will energy be right? Mostly i belive peoples understanding is just off, sure a tempest etc may have dove pretty fast but i dont expect that when i dive it should engage the warp drive. When flying a spit vs 190s who used dive and zoom properly i couldnt get near them ones who do a simple dive and vertical zoom ae dead because one cuts the corner and them kills them as they stall at the top, even real life pilots commented 190 was venerable at the top of zoom as it hanged their. In all tests by players show the planes like 190 do hold dive and zoom advantages at high speeds, and spit at lower speeds as it should be.

carguy_
04-21-2006, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
when will energy be right? Mostly i belive peoples understanding is just off, sure a tempest etc may have dove pretty fast but i dont expect that when i dive it should engage the warp drive. When flying a spit vs 190s who used dive and zoom properly i couldnt get near them ones who do a simple dive and vertical zoom ae dead because one cuts the corner and them kills them as they stall at the top, even real life pilots commented 190 was venerable at the top of zoom as it hanged their. In all tests by players show the planes like 190 do hold dive and zoom advantages at high speeds, and spit at lower speeds as it should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ah I see.In diving/zoomclimb/sustained climb/acceleration department in the game is correct and nothing wrong with it.Thx for reminding me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

JG4_Helofly
04-21-2006, 06:30 PM
"In all tests by players show the planes like 190 do hold dive and zoom advantages at high speeds, and spit at lower speeds as it should be."


lol, sorry but this makes be laugh.

Please show me these tests.

I can tell you what should be:
spit V

"Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. "

spit IX

"Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB. "

Now please show me in a track the initial advantage in the dive.
In the game it's exactly the other way around. The acceleration in the initial stages of the dive is nearly the same.

I did a test with a friend. fw 190A4 vs spit Vb.

We start at 5000m and dove to 3000m with a 20% angle with 500km/h TAS initial speed. At the end we had this result: the fw 190 gain 200m and the advantag is particularly NOT during the initial stages.
In RL they tested fw 190 A2 vs bf 109 f4. The dive was conducted like my test. The report said that the 190 was several hundred meters ahead at the end. The 109 also dive better than a spitfire.

If anyone say that the fw 190 dive like in RL than he had never flown this aircraft before or don't want to see the reality because it's great now for the spitfire.

HellToupee
04-21-2006, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
"In all tests by players show the planes like 190 do hold dive and zoom advantages at high speeds, and spit at lower speeds as it should be."


lol, sorry but this makes be laugh.

Please show me these tests.

I can tell you what should be:
spit V

"Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. "

spit IX

"Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB. "

Now please show me in a track the initial advantage in the dive.
In the game it's exactly the other way around. The acceleration in the initial stages of the dive is nearly the same.

I did a test with a friend. fw 190A4 vs spit Vb.

We start at 5000m and dove to 3000m with a 20% angle with 500km/h TAS initial speed. At the end we had this result: the fw 190 gain 200m and the advantag is particularly NOT during the initial stages.
In RL they tested fw 190 A2 vs bf 109 f4. The dive was conducted like my test. The report said that the 190 was several hundred meters ahead at the end. The 109 also dive better than a spitfire.

If anyone say that the fw 190 dive like in RL than he had never flown this aircraft before or don't want to see the reality because it's great now for the spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great one can model with no actual numbers just "it dives better", in real life pilots required to gain seperation, 109 in the bob with neg g push over and190 with flick roll left and right

HellToupee
04-21-2006, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:

Ah I see.In diving/zoomclimb/sustained climb/acceleration department in the game is correct and nothing wrong with it.Thx for reminding me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When will it be correct then? how far is it off? mostly i just think its people unable to use their aircrafts strengths properly.

Xiolablu3
04-21-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I did a test with a friend. fw 190A4 vs spit Vb.

We start at 5000m and dove to 3000m with a 20% angle with 500km/h TAS initial speed. At the end we had this result: the fw 190 gain 200m
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find this very difficult to believe. I havent tested it myself however.

Whenever I fight on realistic historical servers and the FW190A4 is Vs any Spitfire MkV, its basically a turkey shoot for the experienced FW190 flyers. Unless the FW190 makes a mistake then the Spitfire cannot get anywhere near them. The ONLY advantage the Spit has is turning circle.

I remember around a month ago on the Channel 42 map that even with a 1000m height advantage we could barely get into shooting range of a 190.

Badsight.
04-21-2006, 11:44 PM
^ speed & energy retention are 2 different things

dont base your plane performance opinions on DF room experience

its nearly always wrong & biased

FritzGryphon
04-21-2006, 11:45 PM
These things are simple, really, and not worth baseless circular discussions and comparisons.

If you think an apsect of an FM is wrong, you test exactly that aspect, and only that aspect, in controlled conditions. Then you compare it to real performance data, making sure you are comparing apples and apples.

There is no reason for endless whine threads like this, and I wish the mods didn't let this kind of thing fill up the board. Especially things that start like: "I got shot down online so X plane must be overmodeled".

Xiolablu3
04-21-2006, 11:49 PM
I understand that Badsight, but who knows what degrees the tests from 1941 were talking about?

If you dive very steeply then the FW190 will easily pull away from the Spitfire MkV.

The FW190 also doesnt break up at as lower speed as a Spit V, therefore the longer the dive, the more he will pull away.

It seems to me the only thing wrong is that it should pull away more in the initial stages and then not as much. Right now its simply the wrong way round.

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 05:50 AM
Capt. Eric Brown wrote that the 190 could left the spit IX standing in a dive.

Particularly in the initial stages!!!

My test was done at high initial crusing speed and I get so worse results. Imagine the test at 300 or 400 km/h, the fw 190 would not gain one meter. Also against the F4 the 190 was not able to dive faster as in RL.

People who think it's right like it is should read some RL tests before talking about realisme.

In the different reports we see every time that the spit had no hope of catching the fw in a dive.

You must see that the fw 190 had a slight drag advantage and had mor masse, also the acceleration was better in level flight.

Manuel29
04-22-2006, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand that Badsight, but who knows what degrees the tests from 1941 were talking about?

If you dive very steeply then the FW190 will easily pull away from the Spitfire MkV.

The FW190 also doesnt break up at as lower speed as a Spit V, therefore the longer the dive, the more he will pull away.

It seems to me the only thing wrong is that it should pull away more in the initial stages and then not as much. Right now its simply the wrong way round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO the problem is only in acceleration; in FB a diving heavy plane like A4 (more than 3000kg) and Tempest V (more than 7000kg) gain speed like a medium-light plane (2000kg or less).

The weight is not calculated or is but in a wrong way.

Bye

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Capt. Eric Brown wrote that the 190 could left the spit IX standing in a dive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO HE DIDNT.

If you want us to debate this properly stop EXAGGERATING.

It was the Spitfire V which was easily outdived (is that a a word?) by the FW190

The SPitfire IX vs FW190A 'The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.'

The FW190 is simply faster in a dive than a Mk IX, but not as much as with the MkV.

I think maybe the FW190A could do with a tune up in this respect in game. Even tho I can lose Spitfire 8's and 9's in a dive with a same year FW190A, its a very close thing. I think it the difference is maybe not quite enough. Versus a plane with almost the same speed, but much better turning circle, the FW190A needs all its historical advantages. It takes a veteran pilot to use roll rate and firepower well, whereas a novice can do well with a good turning circle.

EiZ0N
04-22-2006, 09:43 AM
Some planes ARE better than others. It's what makes the game FUN. If all planes were the same performance wise, it'd be very boring and unrealistic.

GET OVER IT!

Tell you what, if you think your favourite plane is undermodeled compared to the spitfire, how about you record us a track of you flying a spitfire and completely destroying your favourite plane, over and over again.

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Capt. Eric Brown wrote that the 190 could left the spit IX standing in a dive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO HE DIDNT.

If you want us to debate this properly stop EXAGGERATING.

It was the Spitfire V which was easily outdived (is that a a word?) by the FW190

The SPitfire IX vs FW190A 'The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.'

The FW190 is simply faster in a dive than a Mk IX, but not as much as with the MkV.

I think maybe the FW190A could do with a tune up in this respect in game. Even tho I can lose Spitfire 8's and 9's in a dive with a same year FW190A, its a very close thing. I think it the difference is maybe not quite enough. Versus a plane with almost the same speed, but much better turning circle, the FW190A needs all its historical advantages. It takes a veteran pilot to use roll rate and firepower well, whereas a novice can do well with a good turning circle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HE DID

"The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle €" one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing. €œTurning doesn€t wing battles!€. By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels primarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary €" more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on the offensive operation over Occupied Europe during the course of the month €" and the Merlin 61 €" engined Spitfire Mk IX was still two or three months away. But while going a long way dotards redressing thh balance and even offering an edge in climb and performance above 26,000 feet (7 925 m), the Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf€s half-roll and dive!"

In the game this doesn't work.

Second thing. Eizon, you are right that some planes are better than others, but let the planes have their strong and weak performances. Balancing kills the sime.

If you think that the fw 190 is right like it is, read the comparatve tests from the RAF. I think you don't know what you are talking about.

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 10:37 AM
HE DID NOT SAY THAT IT WAS LEFT STANDING IN A DIVE.

It is the ROLL speed of the 190 which enabled the 190A to flick over and leave the Spitfire IX standing when it dived.

NOT the dive speed!

Yes maybe it dived bit faster too but without this flick over, the sentence is meaningless.

Of course you can perform this manouvre in game, the FW190A has a much better roll rate than the full winged Spitfires. You can be diving before he even makes a move to follow.

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:


If you think that the fw 190 is right like it is, read the comparatve tests from the RAF. I think you don't know what you are talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show us these tests which prove the FW190A is wrong please? I need quotes which prove your point.

The FW190A is overpowering over the Spitfire mkV in game. The ONLY thing the Spitfire MkV has is turning circle. The FW190A is superior to the Spitfire MkV in game and in real life. Period.

OK on to the Spitfire XIII/IX vs FW190A
The Spitfire VIII and IX merlin 66 (which we have in game NOT the Merlin 61) redress the balance with a fighter which is as fast as the FW190A, has a much better turning circle and can climb better.

The FW190A can roll better and dive better, has better guns, and is perhaps a tiny bit faster depending on which version of the 190A you are talking about.

Please tell me where the in game model of the FW190A is wrong compared to the Spitfire. The only thing I can see is that it may be in the much debated energy management of the Spitfire (which I have yet to be convinced of totally).

And the tiny dive discrepancy we are discussing here, where maybe the FW190A should pull away a bit more in the initial stages of the dive, then not as much.

Can you tell me where else the FW190 is wrong? We need MyNameIsRoland here, he will tell us more about where the FW190A is wrong with proper arguments.

Manuel29
04-22-2006, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HE DID NOT SAY THAT IT WAS LEFT STANDING IN A DIVE.

It is the ROLL speed of the 190 which enabled the 190A to flick over and leave the Spitfire IX standing when it dived.

NOT the dive speed!

Yes maybe it dived bit faster too but without this flick over, the sentence is meaningless.

Of course you can perform this manouvre in game, the FW190A has a much better roll rate than the full winged Spitfires. You can be diving before he even makes a move to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the famous feature of the "diving to leave the dogfight" was all because of a faster roll... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Curious, all the WW2 books I've read say that the "primary" reason of is vertical superiority was his acceleration , and secondary was the roll rate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HE DID NOT SAY THAT IT WAS LEFT STANDING IN A DIVE.

It is the ROLL speed of the 190 which enabled the 190A to flick over and leave the Spitfire IX standing when it dived.

NOT the dive speed!

Yes maybe it dived bit faster too but without this flick over, the sentence is meaningless.

Of course you can perform this manouvre in game, the FW190A has a much better roll rate than the full winged Spitfires. You can be diving before he even makes a move to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the famous feature of the "diving to leave the dogfight" was all because of a faster roll... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Curious, all the WW2 books I've read say that the "primary" reason of is vertical superiority was his acceleration , and secondary was the roll rate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Look at the quote he posted where he is getting his information from., I can only think you didnt read it.

'the Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf€s half-roll and dive'

This means the manouvre left the Spitfire Mk9 standing.

Helofly is drawing from this statement that the FW190A should leave the Spitfire Mk IX standing in a PURE DIVE.

I have already said that I think the FW190A should maybe dive a little better, but it already leaves the Spitfire Mk9 in a dive. I do not claim to know everything about the FW190 or Spitfire, but if he is using that statement alone to say that the FW190A should dive MUCH faster, then it doesnt hold up for me.

Manuel29
04-22-2006, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Look at the quote he posted where he is getting his information from., I can only think you didnt read it.

'the Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf€s half-roll and dive'

This means the manouvre left the Spitfire Mk9 standing.

Helofly is drawing from this statement that the FW190A should leave the FW190A standing in a PURE DIVE.

I have already said that I think the FW190A should maybe dive a little better, but it already leaves the Spitfire Mk9 in a dive. I do not claim to know everything about the FW190 or Spitfire, but if he is using that statement alone to say that the FW190A should dive MUCH faster, then it doesnt hold up for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he describe was an evasive manouvre; you can be faster, but in a dive the chasing plane always can fire at you. The FW could go out of the enemy firing range because of his fast roll, leaving the enemy without any possibility to make a good shot: simply the FW disappeared from his gunsight.

And after this the FW was far thanks to his acceleration.

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

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 11:44 AM
fist link: http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

Look at spit V and IX.

second: http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23

For german speaking persons

third: Read The book of Capt. Eric Brown.
He says this: "The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking". "

The problem of the half-roll dive ist that you can not pull hard on the stick because otherwise you will stall or loose very much speed. If you pull gently the spit has all the time to follow.

In these reports we can see that the fw 190 had a very high acceleration in the dive. In IL2 you have nearly the same acceleration as the others.

Manuel29
04-22-2006, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The problem of the half-roll dive ist that you can not pull hard on the stick because otherwise you will stall or loose very much speed. If you pull gently the spit has all the time to follow.

In these reports we can see that the fw 190 had a very high acceleration in the dive. In IL2 you have nearly the same acceleration as the others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, agree... I forget to point out on this.

Since, IMHO, the weight is not well simulated we have these problems in vertical space. And not only FW but all BnZers.

But FB is this... lets wait for BoB (I pray all the nights, I believe in you Oleg)

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 12:22 PM
It must be very hard to simulate these things in a game. I agree, BOB should be able to do much more complex flight models.

For example to have the FW190A accelerate faster in a dive but the Spitfire MkIX accelerate faster in level flight must be very hard to program.

'The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage.'

This is extremely complex, the Spitfire has better acceleration on the level, in most cases (as it is marginally faster than the 190A at most heights) BUT the FW190 accelerates faster in other situations.

I would think that the code is just not complex enough to complete this in the game we have now and Oleg has gone for a more general outcome where the FW190 is a little faster in the dive and the Spitfire is a little faster acceleration on the level.

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 12:29 PM
Yes, let's wait for BoB. IL2 is simply to old to simulate such complex things. I think that the problem in the current sim is that the vertical, weight and drag is not simulated completly.

Von_Rat
04-22-2006, 01:20 PM
one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing. €œTurning doesn€t win battles!€.

_________________________________________________



i really like this quote, if only it was true in il2.

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2006, 02:15 PM
So in your FW you have just been caught up on by a Spit that is going now the same speed as you,
assume 400kph, perhaps you have finished a short turn or something, and he is 200m behind.
How many seconds should it take you to nose down and open that up to 500m in a dive?

In your reality? Somebody who is complaining?

Manos1
04-22-2006, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you mad writting things like that!? DO NOT GIVE OLEG NEW IDEAS..... new patches are out soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

relax, it's only a game !

mynameisroland
04-22-2006, 03:47 PM
The Fw 190 A5 ( remember Oleg states the A5 in game stands in for a proper fighter 1.42 A4 ) has about 1700PS compared with a Spitfire IXc which has maybe 1610HP. The Fw 190 is faster until both aircraft reach around 25,000ft. One this height is reached the BMW 801 starts to loose its output drastically while the 2 stage Merlin 66 continues to develop power.

Where the Fw 190 A5 develops its 1700PS it is faster than the Spitfire IXc when it is running with 1610HP. It is only when the power drops off does the Fw 190 A5 become slower. When both aircraft are producing similar amounts of power the Fw 190 is faster, this is because I believe the Fw 190 had a cleaner airframe and although it had a radial engine it had no underwing radiators or associated intakes for superchargers ect.

The superiority in a dive of the Fw 190 A series was not even threatened by the Spitfire XIV it was too heavy and slippery to be caught by the Spitfire. In this game I have seen tests from the last couple of patches which show the Spitfire IX and VIII to be superior to the Fw 190 A6 in dive and zoom tests which is frankly wrong as far as any tactical trials I have read stated. On the other hand the Dora 9 is superb at energy manuvers and seems a completely unrelated aircraft even though they share the same wing as the A8. Although god forbid trying to out fight a P63 in a D9 it just wont happen.

I dont see anything changing in IL2 to remedy this but BoB will suffer if energy and acceleration aent better implemented.

tigertalon
04-22-2006, 03:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
When both aircraft are producing similar amounts of power the Fw 190 is faster, this is because I believe the Fw 190 had a cleaner airframe and although it had a radial engine it had no underwing radiators or associated intakes for superchargers ect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm, AFAIK the biggest reason for spit being slower than Fw was in HUGE wetted area difference, Fw has small thin wings while spitfire has many square feet of sheets of metal more to drag through air.

Xiolablu3
04-22-2006, 05:03 PM
Yes, the thing that gives the Spitfire its great turning abilty and lift in turns, is actually its biggest weakness in top speed. Its wing causes drag etc. Are you talking about the Spit 9c

The Fw190 with its little wings is actually shaped more like a rocket/bullet than the SPitfire. IE its designed to go fast over all other things.

I am sure that the FW190A6 dives faster than the Spitfire MkIX tho, Roland.

We should test this on UKded one night, you up for it?

Badsight.
04-22-2006, 05:13 PM
the Spitfire had the thinnest wings of WW2 mono-fighters , thinner than the FW-190

but they had a large area & created good lift , which is induced drag

a Spitfire in a dive is credited with the fastest dive speed of any WW2 prop plane (its debatable tho)

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2006, 05:15 PM
Difference in level top speed can be in difference of props, where each is most efficient.
Highspeed prop is not so good at lowspeed acceleration, turnfighter prop is not so good
at highspeed. Turnfighter prop has less thrust for power at highspeed but look out in
the stall turn where it gets most efficience.

ImpStarDuece
04-22-2006, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 A5 ( remember Oleg states the A5 in game stands in for a proper fighter 1.42 A4 ) has about 1700PS compared with a Spitfire IXc which has maybe 1610HP. The Fw 190 is faster until both aircraft reach around 25,000ft. One this height is reached the BMW 801 starts to loose its output drastically while the 2 stage Merlin 66 continues to develop power.

Where the Fw 190 A5 develops its 1700PS it is faster than the Spitfire IXc when it is running with 1610HP. It is only when the power drops off does the Fw 190 A5 become slower. When both aircraft are producing similar amounts of power the Fw 190 is faster, this is because I believe the Fw 190 had a cleaner airframe and although it had a radial engine it had no underwing radiators or associated intakes for superchargers ect.

The superiority in a dive of the Fw 190 A series was not even threatened by the Spitfire XIV it was too heavy and slippery to be caught by the Spitfire. In this game I have seen tests from the last couple of patches which show the Spitfire IX and VIII to be superior to the Fw 190 A6 in dive and zoom tests which is frankly wrong as far as any tactical trials I have read stated. On the other hand the Dora 9 is superb at energy manuvers and seems a completely unrelated aircraft even though they share the same wing as the A8. Although god forbid trying to out fight a P63 in a D9 it just wont happen.

I dont see anything changing in IL2 to remedy this but BoB will suffer if energy and acceleration aent better implemented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire IX peak engine outputs

Merlin 61: 1,565 hp @ +15lbs boost, 9,500 feet

Fitted to early Spitfire F. Mk IX, around the first 300 or so

Merlin 63/63a: 1,710 hp @ +18lbs boost, 8,500 feet

Fitted to the rest of the Spitfire F. Mk IX, approximately 950 produced. Added around 4-5 mph speed at all altitudes

Merlin 66: 1,720 hp @ +18lbs boost, 5,750 feet

Fitted to the Spitfire LF. Mk IX. Added around 5-10 mph at low altitude, but around 5-10 mph slower above 22,000 feet. About 4000 produced.

Merlin 66: 2,030 hp @ +25lbs boost, 4,000 feet

Increased boost level, provided significant gains in power below 20,000 feet.

Merlin 71: 1,710 hp @ +18lbs boost

High altitude version of the Merlin 66, some 8-15 mph faster above 20,000 feet. Fitted to around 400 HF Mk IX

EiZ0N
04-22-2006, 06:48 PM
This is all a bit crazy.

I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here.

Complaining that a 190 is not outdiving at the initial part of the dive but at the end...

This is not an expensive simulation machine. This is a computer game, and as people have said it's very difficult to get such complex flight models in to a computer game. There's contradictory information about flight models all over the shop, but more importantly, most of you don't seem to understand what's involved with coding physics in games and such.

They don't just say "RIGHT the FW190...when the nose is pointing down at 6-8 degrees and it's at an altitude of 2032m, it will dive with X acceleration, and as it reaches 2000m it will dive at X acceleration", and so on.

I'm pretty confident that the flight models are far more generalised, and that people are asking to much for the game to simulate EXACT physics, as opposed to generally accurate physics.

HellToupee
04-22-2006, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 A5 ( remember Oleg states the A5 in game stands in for a proper fighter 1.42 A4 ) has about 1700PS compared with a Spitfire IXc which has maybe 1610HP. The Fw 190 is faster until both aircraft reach around 25,000ft. One this height is reached the BMW 801 starts to loose its output drastically while the 2 stage Merlin 66 continues to develop power.

Where the Fw 190 A5 develops its 1700PS it is faster than the Spitfire IXc when it is running with 1610HP. It is only when the power drops off does the Fw 190 A5 become slower. When both aircraft are producing similar amounts of power the Fw 190 is faster, this is because I believe the Fw 190 had a cleaner airframe and although it had a radial engine it had no underwing radiators or associated intakes for superchargers ect.

The superiority in a dive of the Fw 190 A series was not even threatened by the Spitfire XIV it was too heavy and slippery to be caught by the Spitfire. In this game I have seen tests from the last couple of patches which show the Spitfire IX and VIII to be superior to the Fw 190 A6 in dive and zoom tests which is frankly wrong as far as any tactical trials I have read stated. On the other hand the Dora 9 is superb at energy manuvers and seems a completely unrelated aircraft even though they share the same wing as the A8. Although god forbid trying to out fight a P63 in a D9 it just wont happen.

I dont see anything changing in IL2 to remedy this but BoB will suffer if energy and acceleration aent better implemented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IXc in game is still a merlin 66 at 1720hp

Manuel29
04-23-2006, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
This is all a bit crazy.

I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here.

Complaining that a 190 is not outdiving at the initial part of the dive but at the end...

This is not an expensive simulation machine. This is a computer game, and as people have said it's very difficult to get such complex flight models in to a computer game. There's contradictory information about flight models all over the shop, but more importantly, most of you don't seem to understand what's involved with coding physics in games and such.

They don't just say "RIGHT the FW190...when the nose is pointing down at 6-8 degrees and it's at an altitude of 2032m, it will dive with X acceleration, and as it reaches 2000m it will dive at X acceleration", and so on.

I'm pretty confident that the flight models are far more generalised, and that people are asking to much for the game to simulate EXACT physics, as opposed to generally accurate physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Most of us know that, but there is somebody who is deaf to all the accounts and datas and think all is perfect (except his side planes). Boring, really boring, because the physic issue is so clear...

The problem is that with this FB's issue some planes don't fly like they should do. Period.

There is no tweak to make them more similar to the real ones, so I wish the things will go better in BoB; I have faith in Oleg work but if the new game will have the same issue... oh, don't want to think that!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

mynameisroland
04-23-2006, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 A5 ( remember Oleg states the A5 in game stands in for a proper fighter 1.42 A4 ) has about 1700PS compared with a Spitfire IXc which has maybe 1610HP. The Fw 190 is faster until both aircraft reach around 25,000ft. One this height is reached the BMW 801 starts to loose its output drastically while the 2 stage Merlin 66 continues to develop power.

Where the Fw 190 A5 develops its 1700PS it is faster than the Spitfire IXc when it is running with 1610HP. It is only when the power drops off does the Fw 190 A5 become slower. When both aircraft are producing similar amounts of power the Fw 190 is faster, this is because I believe the Fw 190 had a cleaner airframe and although it had a radial engine it had no underwing radiators or associated intakes for superchargers ect.

The superiority in a dive of the Fw 190 A series was not even threatened by the Spitfire XIV it was too heavy and slippery to be caught by the Spitfire. In this game I have seen tests from the last couple of patches which show the Spitfire IX and VIII to be superior to the Fw 190 A6 in dive and zoom tests which is frankly wrong as far as any tactical trials I have read stated. On the other hand the Dora 9 is superb at energy manuvers and seems a completely unrelated aircraft even though they share the same wing as the A8. Although god forbid trying to out fight a P63 in a D9 it just wont happen.

I dont see anything changing in IL2 to remedy this but BoB will suffer if energy and acceleration aent better implemented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire IX peak engine outputs

Merlin 61: 1,565 hp @ +15lbs boost, 9,500 feet

Fitted to early Spitfire F. Mk IX, around the first 300 or so

Merlin 63/63a: 1,710 hp @ +18lbs boost, 8,500 feet

Fitted to the rest of the Spitfire F. Mk IX, approximately 950 produced. Added around 4-5 mph speed at all altitudes

Merlin 66: 1,720 hp @ +18lbs boost, 5,750 feet

Fitted to the Spitfire LF. Mk IX. Added around 5-10 mph at low altitude, but around 5-10 mph slower above 22,000 feet. About 4000 produced.

Merlin 66: 2,030 hp @ +25lbs boost, 4,000 feet

Increased boost level, provided significant gains in power below 20,000 feet.

Merlin 71: 1,710 hp @ +18lbs boost

High altitude version of the Merlin 66, some 8-15 mph faster above 20,000 feet. Fitted to around 400 HF Mk IX </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to the Spitfire VII which out performed the 66 models easily above the engines rated altitude.

In this game the dive performance of the Fw 190 A series is not sufficient pull away from a Spitfire IX or VIII. This is a major problem with all high weight low drag aircraft like the Mustang, P47, Tempest and the Fw 190.

Xiola visit acompletewasteofspace forums and look at the Fw 190 consortiums forum there. There is an excellent if a little too technical ! analysis of the Fw 190 A4 in game against a Spitfire Vb. It plots dive performance and energy retention both power on and power off and it is quite surprising how poorly the Fw 190 comes off in comparison with the Spitfire Vb considering the Fw 190 A4 has more power, smaller airframe,wetted area and is much heavier. One of the conclusions is that the Fw 190 A series in game is modelled with a very clean flight model with a very low thrust model. This means it owes its high speed to low drag factor not a powerful engine and its acceleration and climb are consequently nothing to write home about even though a Fw 190 A4 at 1.42 ata should be hitting 4100 fpm roc and out accelerate a Spitfire IX.

Throttle off in a Fw 190 when coming in to land the Fw 190 has a really low sink rate, it is like it needs a drag chute. To get reasonable decelleration I reduce p pitch and do a few sharp turns to bleed off speed. This is not the sign of a high loaded heavy fighter it is almost like it has the wing area of a He 111.

Aside from the fact I think the flight model for all Fw 190 A 's is screwed I still love flying them. Great fire power, good combat endurance, lovely cockpit barring the bar ... and I enjoy having to think one or two steps ahead to avoid a high La 5 or Spitfire ending up on my 6

mynameisroland
04-23-2006, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
This is all a bit crazy.

I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here.

Complaining that a 190 is not outdiving at the initial part of the dive but at the end...

This is not an expensive simulation machine. This is a computer game, and as people have said it's very difficult to get such complex flight models in to a computer game. There's contradictory information about flight models all over the shop, but more importantly, most of you don't seem to understand what's involved with coding physics in games and such.

They don't just say "RIGHT the FW190...when the nose is pointing down at 6-8 degrees and it's at an altitude of 2032m, it will dive with X acceleration, and as it reaches 2000m it will dive at X acceleration", and so on.

I'm pretty confident that the flight models are far more generalised, and that people are asking to much for the game to simulate EXACT physics, as opposed to generally accurate physics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aircraft do not out dive any other aircraft in this sim until they reach either maximum dive speed or it is in relation to their top level speed. The affect of weight and gravity across the board is too minimal.

No one is complaining excessively here if you dont like what you see stop reading plenty of other threads.

mynameisroland
04-23-2006, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
The IXc in game is still a merlin 66 at 1720hp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

great post. your point is ?

It doesnt change the fact that at similar HP settings the Fw 190 is faster than the lighter 'more aero dynamic' Spitfire. It takes a 2000HP 25lb Spitfire IX to reach the same speed at sea level as a 1800PS Fw 190 A6.

Bremspropeller
04-23-2006, 05:14 AM
I reality pilots were told to bail (transition from 109 to 190 among JG54 or JG51) when the engine fails, because the plane would literally fall out of the sky (glide ratio similar to the one of a piano..). That doesn't mean that the 190 was a deathtrap during belly-landings (in fact it's rugged structure saved many pilots' lives during belly-landings), but it really descended quite fast.

But in game it glides forever and doesn't bleed speed when I cut power in the final approach.
At high speeds however, it looses speed during the slightest turn - like someone threw an anchor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

tigertalon
04-23-2006, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complexity of physics? What complexity of physics? It's the basics of physics we talk about here. Heavier stone (equally shaped) will fall faster period. Not due to more mass, due to less drag per ounce or gram. Mass rises with 3rd power of dimension, drag rises with second. Now if you additionaly dare to add stronger engine to already faster accelerating object in a free fall, it's probably somebody else, that does not understand basic principles of physics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG4_Helofly
04-23-2006, 05:30 AM
I agree 100% bremspropeller and mynameisroland.

The fw 190 fly like a glider like all other planes in il2 to. Have you ever seen the landing on a carrier? When the pilot cut of the aircraft falls like a stone.

So the fw 190 seems to be modeled like a clean plane with low thrust and low wing loading, but it cant turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Strange thing, but this is also in relation to the stall speed. Have you ever tested the stall speed? I have and it is not 204 km/h like it should be but 176 with gear and flaps up !
The stall speed of a RL bf 109 g is 168 km/h, In the game wie have for the k version 160 !

WWMaxGunz
04-23-2006, 06:57 AM
Some things.

Engine power is not thrust. Comparing drag by engine power is false.

Gliders achieve like 20 to 1 glide if I am not mistaken. Coarsen your prop and run idle
at 1 km AGL (you have enough power still to maybe avoid extra prop drag?) and see how many
km you glide before touchdown.

Some people never heard of ground effect? There is a massive drop in drag with ground effect.
Make landings draggy affairs and you get down okay, cross the edge of the strip at 200kph max
with power down to idle, prop to finest pitch, rads full open and at the last second bring
the flaps up to takeoff but be real close down first.

WWMaxGunz
04-23-2006, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So in your FW you have just been caught up on by a Spit that is going now the same speed as you,
assume 400kph, perhaps you have finished a short turn or something, and he is 200m behind.
How many seconds should it take you to nose down and open that up to 500m in a dive?

In your reality? Somebody who is complaining? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still no takers?

With so many who know what is right so much to say the sim is wrong then next step is to say
how far wrong even only by good informed approximation or maybe to find that expectations may
be out of line?

How can you say if you can't even begin to say how much and what is real.
Just 'should be more'.

And for the induced drag in dives, there will be some unless AOA is zero then the drag is
other forms. To get zero AOA the nose has to point downward below the wings, they are usually
inclined above the roll axis of the plane. Very tricky, the AOA and induced drag.

EiZ0N
04-23-2006, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 EiZ0N:
I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complexity of physics? What complexity of physics? It's the basics of physics we talk about here. Heavier stone (equally shaped) will fall faster period. Not due to more mass, due to less drag per ounce or gram. Mass rises with 3rd power of dimension, drag rises with second. Now if you additionaly dare to add stronger engine to already faster accelerating object in a free fall, it's probably somebody else, that does not understand basic principles of physics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you even ON about.

Just because physics principles are easy to understand, it does not mean they are easy to program. It's complicated, and complex to simulate. Don't patronize just because you've misinterpreted my post.

tigertalon
04-23-2006, 07:35 PM
Good boy, you switched from this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
It's complicated, and complex to simulate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do know you are speaking about two completely different things here, don't you? Of course I agree there are many things it is very easy to understand but hard to simulate ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Don't patronize just because you've misinterpreted my post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, seeing in one of your previous posts you are a man of concrete words, I have no doubt you will be kind enough to explain me exactly how did I misinterpret your post? I simply can't figure it out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kuna_
04-23-2006, 07:50 PM
When you think it can't get worse here, threads like this appears.

Well congrats for

1.hooking all the fish (its not that hard really isn't it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
2.sinking community IQ even deeper

After all that has been said adding something useful to this thread is impossible.

Take your cookies
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/stfu/cookie1.jpg

Funny thing 6 page thread out of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">stoopidlimey

Posted Thu April 20 2006 22:46
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks Hammer
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez what a waste.
Possible only on UBi. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

nearmiss
04-23-2006, 08:02 PM
I took the Spit IX in a bunch of QMB against P-51D at Ace level. After the initial first pass it was all over for the P-51D every time.

The Spit did overheat when climbing hard and I had to pull back to 85% to get back to normal. I understood from postings on these boards the SPIT didn't overheat in hard climbs, that was "WRONG", unless it was AI aircraft.

During the actual WW2 there were only certain places and times where a pilot would encounter enemies with the best latest technology fighter aircraft, and trained experienced pilots.

During Online aerial combat we encounter all the best latest technology fighter aircraft, even if the actual number of real aircraft produced was less than 100.

Anyway...if you want to fly, shoot and enjoy a good furball take your SPIT and go online. You've got a better chance with the SPIT than most other aircraft, except those flown by the most experience Online pilots. The better online pilots can do astonishing things.

If you get tired of taking off after getting blasted away for a couple hours, you can always play World of Warcraft. THen you can die and resurrect as well. It's all about a game or something like that.

Xiolablu3
04-23-2006, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 EiZ0N:
I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complexity of physics? What complexity of physics? It's the basics of physics we talk about here. Heavier stone (equally shaped) will fall faster period. Not due to more mass, due to less drag per ounce or gram. Mass rises with 3rd power of dimension, drag rises with second. Now if you additionaly dare to add stronger engine to already faster accelerating object in a free fall, it's probably somebody else, that does not understand basic principles of physics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tiger, mate. You misunderstood what he meant.

He means that with this IL2 engine, designed years ago for much older computer simply cannot simulate such complex things as a plane in the air to exact speeds.

WWMaxGunz
04-24-2006, 05:04 AM
No combat flight sim can get it all right. You get the end numbers right through some kind of
fixed-point mathematical maneuver and you miss badly on handling and maybe most of the middle
performance. The more things you nail down, the worse the rest gets just because:

* The model of any plane if you plot the full range of performance with correct weights, etc,
all plugged in it might map to a 3D surface will have a shape.
* Reality of that plane will have a different shape.
* If you change the values plugged in so that some speeds and climbs do match then other places
will be even more out of match.

Why is because for any combat flight sim on any PC made the best able is approximations that
cannot yield the perfect matches in places where less than 5% is enough to see.

Only thing worse is the overmodelled complaints, they are less contrained than any sim!

Monty_Thrud
04-24-2006, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Re register under a proper name, fool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

WOLFMondo
04-24-2006, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand that Badsight, but who knows what degrees the tests from 1941 were talking about?

If you dive very steeply then the FW190 will easily pull away from the Spitfire MkV.

The FW190 also doesnt break up at as lower speed as a Spit V, therefore the longer the dive, the more he will pull away.

It seems to me the only thing wrong is that it should pull away more in the initial stages and then not as much. Right now its simply the wrong way round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO the problem is only in acceleration; in FB a diving heavy plane like A4 (more than 3000kg) and Tempest V (more than 7000kg) gain speed like a medium-light plane (2000kg or less).

The weight is not calculated or is but in a wrong way.

Bye </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tempests empty weight is a little over 4000KG. What allowed it to dive and beat 190's was it was a similar weight, very good aerodynamics and a massivly powerful engine (your average 2nd TAF Tempest had 2400HP available). If theres any plane that really suffers badly from energy loss its the Tempest. The slightest turn or correction with the rudder and its like opening a drag chute.

danjama
04-24-2006, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand that Badsight, but who knows what degrees the tests from 1941 were talking about?

If you dive very steeply then the FW190 will easily pull away from the Spitfire MkV.

The FW190 also doesnt break up at as lower speed as a Spit V, therefore the longer the dive, the more he will pull away.

It seems to me the only thing wrong is that it should pull away more in the initial stages and then not as much. Right now its simply the wrong way round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO the problem is only in acceleration; in FB a diving heavy plane like A4 (more than 3000kg) and Tempest V (more than 7000kg) gain speed like a medium-light plane (2000kg or less).

The weight is not calculated or is but in a wrong way.

Bye </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tempests empty weight is a little over 4000KG. What allowed it to dive and beat 190's was it was a similar weight, very good aerodynamics and a massivly powerful engine (your average 2nd TAF Tempest had 2400HP available). If theres any plane that really suffers badly from energy loss its the Tempest. The slightest turn or correction with the rudder and its like opening a drag chute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the FW190A

WOLFMondo
04-24-2006, 10:29 AM
The only Anton I really find to be horrible to fly in that respect is the A8. The A6 and A9 I find really enjoyable to fly whereas the Tempest, even watching the trim like a hawk its constantly feeling like its in a sideslip. Its ok to fly and fun to do a campaign in but its not doesn't feel like the plane I've read about in tactical trials. because of the poor zoom and dive/energy retention.

danjama
04-24-2006, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The only Anton I really find to be horrible to fly in that respect is the A8. The A6 and A9 I find really enjoyable to fly whereas the Tempest, even watching the trim like a hawk its constantly feeling like its in a sideslip. Its ok to fly and fun to do a campaign in but its not doesn't feel like the plane I've read about in tactical trials. because of the poor zoom and dive/energy retention. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea spot on what i was thinking.

Brain32
04-24-2006, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Its ok to fly and fun to do a campaign in but its not doesn't feel like the plane I've read about in tactical trials. because of the poor zoom and dive/energy retention. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm glad somebody else noticed it, I was really disapointed with it's zoom climb and dive acceleration, in a dive it will quickl build up to about 550km/h after that you need to lower prop pitch up to 60% to get good results and still hopeless to let's say catch a D9, and zoom is very disapointing let's say I dive on somebody from 5-6000m to 3000m when I zoom up I can't get nowhere near starting alt like in a 109/P51/190/P47 etc planes, even Spits dive and zoom better. As for the turn I'm quite happy with it, energy loss is IMO not too big...

stoopidlimey
04-24-2006, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
When you think it can't get worse here, threads like this appears.

Well congrats for

1.hooking all the fish (its not that hard really isn't it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
2.sinking community IQ even deeper

After all that has been said adding something useful to this thread is impossible.

Take your cookies
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/stfu/cookie1.jpg

Funny thing 6 page thread out of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">stoopidlimey

Posted Thu April 20 2006 22:46
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks Hammer
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez what a waste.
Possible only on UBi. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and I forgot, can you make it flap it's wings too? I mean, there's nothing these spitties can do wrong. We need to make them better!! I say give them 4000HP, and photon torpedos. Yea that's it.

Thanks Again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Stoopidlimey

RCAF_Irish_403
04-24-2006, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
When you think it can't get worse here, threads like this appears.

Well congrats for

1.hooking all the fish (its not that hard really isn't it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
2.sinking community IQ even deeper

After all that has been said adding something useful to this thread is impossible.

Take your cookies
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f193/Kuna_/stfu/cookie1.jpg

Funny thing 6 page thread out of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">stoopidlimey

Posted Thu April 20 2006 22:46
I would like to know if there are plans to make the Spitfire handle like a biplane, ie: turm on a dime, climb like a rocket, fast as a jet...and so on. The reason is I'd like to change my name to "Sky Capitan" amd them I could fly in the "World of Tommorrow". Oh, and it has to be able to go under water too.
Thanks Hammer
Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez what a waste.
Possible only on UBi. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and I forgot, can you make it flap it's wings too? I mean, there's nothing these spitties can do wrong. We need to make them better!! I say give them 4000HP, and photon torpedos. Yea that's it.

Thanks Again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Stoopidlimey </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't heard? We get the photons in the next patch

EiZ0N
04-24-2006, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Good boy, you switched from this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
I think many of you don't quite understand the complexity of the physics involved here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
It's complicated, and complex to simulate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do know you are speaking about two completely different things here, don't you? Of course I agree there are many things it is very easy to understand but hard to simulate ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Don't patronize just because you've misinterpreted my post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, seeing in one of your previous posts you are a man of concrete words, I have no doubt you will be kind enough to explain me exactly how did I misinterpret your post? I simply can't figure it out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I didn't mean to snap at you.

When I said "physics" I meant computer game physics. I'm so used to just saying "physics" with regards to computer games and having it understood to mean computer game physics.

e.g.
Tim: "hey dude, have you played HL2 yet?"
Bob: "no man, what's it like?!"
Tim: "pretty cool, the physics are amazing"

HellToupee
04-24-2006, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
The IXc in game is still a merlin 66 at 1720hp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

great post. your point is ?

It doesnt change the fact that at similar HP settings the Fw 190 is faster than the lighter 'more aero dynamic' Spitfire. It takes a 2000HP 25lb Spitfire IX to reach the same speed at sea level as a 1800PS Fw 190 A6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post. your poiny is?

Well for one the 190 is not faster at all alts at many alts the spitfire was faster, and yiur crying about dive acceleration here you know where you've been turn fighting spitfires slow and found the spit turns better and on your six that the lighter plane with the same horse power isnt left standing when u drop your nose.

So ifthe 190 dives and zooms way better than the tempest and the p47 dive and zoom way better than the 190, lets just say we fixed all that by peoples expectations from here we would have the 47 diving from 2000meters and zooming to the moon.

Breeze147
04-25-2006, 08:24 AM
HEY STOOPIDLIMEY!!!

Hee-hee! I just wanted to say that!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
The IXc in game is still a merlin 66 at 1720hp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

great post. your point is ?

It doesnt change the fact that at similar HP settings the Fw 190 is faster than the lighter 'more aero dynamic' Spitfire. It takes a 2000HP 25lb Spitfire IX to reach the same speed at sea level as a 1800PS Fw 190 A6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post. your poiny is?

Well for one the 190 is not faster at all alts at many alts the spitfire was faster, and yiur crying about dive acceleration here you know where you've been turn fighting spitfires slow and found the spit turns better and on your six that the lighter plane with the same horse power isnt left standing when u drop your nose.

So ifthe 190 dives and zooms way better than the tempest and the p47 dive and zoom way better than the 190, lets just say we fixed all that by peoples expectations from here we would have the 47 diving from 2000meters and zooming to the moon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only one talking turn and burn here is you WAKE UP

As for the rest of your post I stopped reading half way through after realising you didnt read any of my post and you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

Xiolablu3
04-25-2006, 01:06 PM
HellsToupee, Roland is an Ace FW190A driver, he knows his stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Just telling you because some of your comments seem to indicate you think he is pretty new/unexperienced.

JG5_UnKle
04-25-2006, 01:33 PM
mynameisroland is pretty right to be fair. There are lots of real world matchups that don't "sim" well and that's the nature of the beast.

It happens to lots of comparatives in the sim, it isn't a "red or blue" thing either.

Performance is performance though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 04:09 PM
Cheers for the vocal support Xiola and Unkle. Some posters just see what they want and Ubi forums are getting worse and worse for it.

WWMaxGunz
04-25-2006, 06:22 PM
Well I read Rolands earlier post and the response both. In the response is a mistake and
a valid point as well which is brushed aside as nothing by Roland and friends. So much for
how this forum works.

Simple to compare sea level power and make conclusions for all altitudes yes? As pointed
out correctly the Spitfire mentioned is faster than the FW at various altitudes dues to
power differences at those altitudes. Go compare there and say the model of history is
also wrong please! Compare speeds down very low, history and sim, where you know the powers.
How is the results only where you will state the engine powers, not above critical altitude?

There is mistakes from both sides. Be honest.

HellToupee
04-25-2006, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HellsToupee, Roland is an Ace FW190A driver, he knows his stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Just telling you because some of your comments seem to indicate you think he is pretty new/unexperienced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its HellToupee aka hell to pay, i think peoples epectations and understandings of dive are off, as i said if people want 190s to leave spitfires standing in dives despite similar power where does that leave the 47s and the tempests which were considering to do the same to the 190.

Uses examples of 190 being faster at similar powers dosnt stand because power varies with height spit dosnt produce 1720 at sea level for example.Even in real life diving 190s didnt always get away from spitfires just read a few combat reports.

Right now ingame if i fly a spit Vb and meet a 190a4 who rolls over and dives i generally find i he dose leave me behind very quickly.

Also with the reports eg one helo fly posted use an early mk9 not a merlin 66 we have in game and dosnt say a whole lot on how the dive was measured, if from level flight the 190s ability to enter the dive before the spitfire with its roll is a head start, which was what the clipped wing spits hoped to counter.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 05:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well I read Rolands earlier post and the response both. In the response is a mistake and
a valid point as well which is brushed aside as nothing by Roland and friends. So much for
how this forum works.

Simple to compare sea level power and make conclusions for all altitudes yes? As pointed
out correctly the Spitfire mentioned is faster than the FW at various altitudes dues to
power differences at those altitudes. Go compare there and say the model of history is
also wrong please! Compare speeds down very low, history and sim, where you know the powers.
How is the results only where you will state the engine powers, not above critical altitude?

There is mistakes from both sides. Be honest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire is faster than the Fw 190 when the engine poser of the BMW 801 falls off. This is quite straight forward and Im sure you know this. The BMW 801 doesnt lose enough power until above 25,000ft for the Spitfire IX to become faster. The oft quoted 'Spitfire IX is faster at various altitudes blah' is against a captured Fw 190 A3. It is not against a contemporary Fw 190 A4 or A5. Look at the performance figures in IL2 also. You need to get above 6000m anyway before the Spit IX begins to overtake the Fw 190.

So my conclusion about sea level HP is valid until altitude increases and the HP produced falls off. Im not saying anything radical here - the Fw 190 is faster on similar HP to the Spitfire. Once the HP levels fall off and the Spitfire has the advantage it is faster - there thats it ! Cant really state it any plainer than that.

The Use of sea level figures is used because it is the normal 'standard' for engine HP figures. The difference between the Merlin 60 series and the BMW 801 is that the 2nd stage of the Merlin allows its rated altitude to be raised above the BMW 801's so after a certain height it becomes a more powerful engine. Until this happens the Fw 190 is faster.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HellsToupee, Roland is an Ace FW190A driver, he knows his stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Just telling you because some of your comments seem to indicate you think he is pretty new/unexperienced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its HellToupee aka hell to pay, i think peoples epectations and understandings of dive are off, as i said if people want 190s to leave spitfires standing in dives despite similar power where does that leave the 47s and the tempests which were considering to do the same to the 190.

Uses examples of 190 being faster at similar powers dosnt stand because power varies with height spit dosnt produce 1720 at sea level for example.Even in real life diving 190s didnt always get away from spitfires just read a few combat reports.

Right now ingame if i fly a spit Vb and meet a 190a4 who rolls over and dives i generally find i he dose leave me behind very quickly.

Also with the reports eg one helo fly posted use an early mk9 not a merlin 66 we have in game and dosnt say a whole lot on how the dive was measured, if from level flight the 190s ability to enter the dive before the spitfire with its roll is a head start, which was what the clipped wing spits hoped to counter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your information on the Dive acceleration and speed of the Fw 190 is way off. It is stated in RAF trials of the Fw 190 A3 against the Spitfire XIV that even the XIV could not catch the Fw 190 in a dive. The Griffon engined Spitfire was a much better diver than the IX and if it could not catch the Fw 190 why do you think that the lighter less powerful IX should be close?

This is not some hearsay from a combat encounter it is a tactical trial flown by the RAF evaluation unit.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well I read Rolands earlier post and the response both. In the response is a mistake and
a valid point as well which is brushed aside as nothing by Roland and friends. So much for
how this forum works.

Simple to compare sea level power and make conclusions for all altitudes yes? As pointed
out correctly the Spitfire mentioned is faster than the FW at various altitudes dues to
power differences at those altitudes. Go compare there and say the model of history is
also wrong please! Compare speeds down very low, history and sim, where you know the powers.
How is the results only where you will state the engine powers, not above critical altitude?

There is mistakes from both sides. Be honest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact remains Spitfire on same HP does not catch Fw 190 on same HP. The performance of the BMW 801 does not drop off sufficiently below 25000 ft for a contemporary IX to catch a Fw 190 unless it has an altitude advantage.

Conclusion is that Fw 190 has less drag.

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
HellsToupee, Roland is an Ace FW190A driver, he knows his stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Just telling you because some of your comments seem to indicate you think he is pretty new/unexperienced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its HellToupee aka hell to pay, i think peoples epectations and understandings of dive are off, as i said if people want 190s to leave spitfires standing in dives despite similar power where does that leave the 47s and the tempests which were considering to do the same to the 190.

Uses examples of 190 being faster at similar powers dosnt stand because power varies with height spit dosnt produce 1720 at sea level for example.Even in real life diving 190s didnt always get away from spitfires just read a few combat reports.

Right now ingame if i fly a spit Vb and meet a 190a4 who rolls over and dives i generally find i he dose leave me behind very quickly.

Also with the reports eg one helo fly posted use an early mk9 not a merlin 66 we have in game and dosnt say a whole lot on how the dive was measured, if from level flight the 190s ability to enter the dive before the spitfire with its roll is a head start, which was what the clipped wing spits hoped to counter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your information on the Dive acceleration and speed of the Fw 190 is way off. It is stated in RAF trials of the Fw 190 A3 against the Spitfire XIV that even the XIV could not catch the Fw 190 in a dive. The Griffon engined Spitfire was a much better diver than the IX and if it could not catch the Fw 190 why do you think that the lighter less powerful IX should be close?

This is not some hearsay from a combat encounter it is a tactical trial flown by the RAF evaluation unit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DO you not read? i was stating dive acceleration from what? the tests dont state how they tested , if both planes start from level flight roll over and dive the 190 will dive first get a head start and be considered to accelerate faster thats one way of looking at it. The tests provide no picture of how much it should outdive , also note spitfire could reach higher speeds in dive without compressability problems.

You can argue weight but then a feather will fall as fast as an elephant in a vaccume, theres drag but then its moaning about inital acceleration where drag isnt such a huge factor.


"is against a captured Fw 190 A3. It is not against a contemporary Fw 190 A4 or A5"

and has also been said millions of times the a3 was run at higher boost levels than normal. Performance figures in il2 dont tell the whole picture, speed swapped back and foward at various heights before 6000meters.

"
The Use of sea level figures is used because it is the normal 'standard' for engine HP figures."

no the normal standard for hp levels is peak horse power not sea level output.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 06:02 AM
A zero could catch a Mustang in a dive if it had enough of a head start. There is no point dismissing a test that has certain 'test' conditions for you to assume that every one who gets caught in a dive in a Fw 190 in IL2 has made a pilot error or have been jumped by a higher bandit.

How would you define a dive? It is not as obscure as a climb. Here is a qualifying statement to help you - when both aircraft were pushed in to a dive from high cruise speeds the Fw 190 out accelerates the Spitfire IX. It did the same to the XIV. In game it does not do this.

The RAF ran the Fw 190 A3 at higher ATA - or not as the ATA they ran at was close to what the A4 was ran at anyway. But they must have done something wrong because the recorded Fw 190 speed was 389mph we know from hindsight that the Fw 190 A3/4 was capable of around 414 mph at 25,000ft. Now what model of Spitfire IX (non 25lb boost) could catch a Fw 190 A4 below 25,000ft and at what height?

~Above 25,000ft yes

Another question is why have you turned this thread in to an obscure argument about dive acceleration? Every pilot who flies P47, P51, Tempest, Hellcat, P38, Corsair, Fw 190 knows that dive acceleration is pants in IL2. I fly these and I fly the Spitfire IX and Bf 109 or the Zero, La5 and Yak series and I knwo that until max break up speed is reached dive acceleration is meaningless. You cant outdistance lighter fighters in diving manuvers.

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 07:03 AM
How would you define a dive? its not about how i define a dive its how the test defines a dive, straight down or shallow, from level flight or from nose down can make vast differences in method of pushing into a dive, u cant make comparision with ingame wihtout that information, if you dive straight down at 90deg from any speed ull reach break up speeds quickly anyway.

You can say dive acceleration is pants on all planes but how pants, how fast should a plane dive vs another

That a3 was close to an a4 minor improvements to fix overheating etc, a4 was not much differnt to a a3 same engine an all.

"Now what model of Spitfire IX (non 25lb boost) could catch a Fw 190 A4 below 25,000ft"

190 has various alts were it was weak vs the spitfire 9 gear change heights etc it was not uniformly faster than the spit below 25,000ft.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 08:12 AM
Ok, at what heights and which variants of Merlined engined Spitfires are faster than contemporary BMW 801 engined Focke Wulfs?

hop2002
04-26-2006, 08:52 AM
At sea level, the Merlin at 18 lbs boost produces about 1580 hp, the BMW 801D at 1.42 ata produces about 1710 hp.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your information on the Dive acceleration and speed of the Fw 190 is way off. It is stated in RAF trials of the Fw 190 A3 against the Spitfire XIV that even the XIV could not catch the Fw 190 in a dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which test was that? I'm not aware of any tests of an A3 against the Spitfire XIV.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The oft quoted 'Spitfire IX is faster at various altitudes blah' is against a captured Fw 190 A3. It is not against a contemporary Fw 190 A4 or A5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also a Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61 running at 15 lbs boost. The Spitfire LF IX, the major production version, ran at 18 lbs boost and was about 20 mph faster at low levels than the F IX. Trying to draw conclusions from the RAF test of Faber's plane is difficult, because the performances don't match up well to later aircraft.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Trying to draw conclusions from the RAF test of Faber's plane is difficult, because the performances don't match up well to later aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, yet where else do people get the Idea that the Spitfire IX was faster than the Fw 190 at various heights below 25,000ft The only place I have read anything to indicate that is from the RAF test against imperfect Fw 190 specimens.

1580 HP at sea level leaves the considerably lighter Spitfire IX with a 130HP deficit. It is only when the Merlin develops considerably more HP than the BMW that the Spitfire becomes faster.

WWMaxGunz
04-26-2006, 09:22 AM
You could take Rechlin tests and RAEE tests at the same altitudes instead of loose conclusions
and unspecified conditions from Duxford.

So you have the engine powers and speeds both at sea level. But engine power is not thrust.
For that you must know the props, where the efficiencies are. Oleg has shown where data posted
was not the same plane as modelled just on the prop and told us the speeds would be different.
That was about a FW model as well.

What Hop pointed out about Spit IX LF performance, not all Spit IX's are slower under 25,000ft.

Too much mix and match so far I see for those conclusions about relative drag, we are back to
discussions years old.

WWMaxGunz
04-26-2006, 09:31 AM
I've requested people who keep saying little more than dive is wrong to post the expected
difference, how long to open 200m lead to 500m lead with both starting at same speed and
alt. And no surprise at all, NONE will say.

From Aaron and others it has been shown before that to so quickly and completely lose the
other requires acceleration higher than possible with the props using gravity as measure.
The ones who hold onto the ideas must be both poor at math and yet good enough to know
when to keep shut or say not much. After all, the stories almost never say both how far
and how quick as it ruins the excitement factor and leaves nothing for readers to plug in
completely from imagination fired by simple unquantified words.

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Exactly, yet where else do people get the Idea that the Spitfire IX was faster than the Fw 190 at various heights below 25,000ft The only place I have read anything to indicate that is from the RAF test against imperfect Fw 190 specimens.

1580 HP at sea level leaves the considerably lighter Spitfire IX with a 130HP deficit. It is only when the Merlin develops considerably more HP than the BMW that the Spitfire becomes faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imperfect 190 specimens, the faber a3 acheived much better performance results than german tests, it was run at boost settings that later a4s and a5s used 1.42 ata for speed, and climb at 1.32ata(which was like wep for the a3)

"It is only when the Merlin develops considerably more HP than the BMW that the Spitfire becomes faster."

so what? at various heights it does have much more hp, do u think 190s maintained a constant 1700hp to 25k, spitfires generated their peak 1720hp at 10k ft. How much faster is the 190 at the same alt and hp.

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 09:40 AM
Roland, I took the A-8 data sheet and roughly plotted the data for Spit IX BS543 @ 18lb boost. Only at low level (under 1400m) is the Fw190 slightly faster at normal boost (1.42). At 1.65ata, the Fw is faster by ~15mph until 1400m.

Above 1400m, the Spit is faster unless 1.65ata is used and the 1.65 band is from 4200m to 6000m.

I would post it but my host is down.

faustnik
04-26-2006, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

Imperfect 190 specimens, the faber a3 acheived much better performance results than german tests, it was run at boost settings that later a4s and a5s used 1.42 ata for speed, and climb at 1.32ata(which was like wep for the a3)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't make generalizations on Fw190 power levels. Not all A3s were limited to 1.32ata@2400rpm. Derating was done on a case by case basis. The tests of Fabers A3 did no produce better results than LW tests. It tested lower in speed ratings but, too high in climb rates.

(Sorry to post something serious in a stupid Spit bashing thread.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Megile_
04-26-2006, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

(Sorry to post something serious in a stupid Spit bashing thread.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come visit my thread Faust..and bring some pop corn

faustnik
04-26-2006, 11:11 AM
Luftlover,

I carefully plotted this chart with input from Tony Williams of the Spit performance site. It shows that, as you say, relative speed advantage depended on altitude.

1943 Spitfire and Fw190 Speed Comparison (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/1943_Speed_Compare_STRETCH.gif)

faustnik
04-26-2006, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
Come visit my thread Faust..and bring some pop corn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a pretty good thread.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well I read Rolands earlier post and the response both. In the response is a mistake and
a valid point as well which is brushed aside as nothing by Roland and friends. So much for
how this forum works.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I am not brushing anything aside, I love the Spitfire and will fight for it. BUt not if data is incorrect. I just want this sim to be as close as can be.

If I think Roland is wrong I will tell him, and he knows it. If I didnt would I be worth anything to him? We have argued Spit vs FW190 in a another forum quite a few times. I just thought his input would be useful in order to chew the cud until we get somewhere near the truth.

Better to have someone who backs up his statements and knows his stuff than someone who will type 'Omg FW190 is sooo undermodelled Spit owns it' and leave it at that. The good thing about having Roland give his input is that he is a Brit (loving the Spit is compulsory) who loves the FW190 also, and so he is much more likely to give a balanced opinon on the FW190 vs Spit argument.

Manuel29
04-26-2006, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've requested people who keep saying little more than dive is wrong to post the expected
difference, how long to open 200m lead to 500m lead with both starting at same speed and
alt. And no surprise at all, NONE will say.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've answered; read between the lines of my latest posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bye

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

Imperfect 190 specimens, the faber a3 acheived much better performance results than german tests, it was run at boost settings that later a4s and a5s used 1.42 ata for speed, and climb at 1.32ata(which was like wep for the a3)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't make generalizations on Fw190 power levels. Not all A3s were limited to 1.32ata@2400rpm. Derating was done on a case by case basis. The tests of Fabers A3 did no produce better results than LW tests. It tested lower in speed ratings but, too high in climb rates.

(Sorry to post something serious in a stupid Spit bashing thread.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a3 had overheating problems, even if not derated the engine could not be run at high boost for long before overheating, also encountered with the faber 190 not finally sorted till the a5 by moving the engine foward.

faustnik
04-26-2006, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

a3 had overheating problems, even if not derated the engine could not be run at high boost for long before overheating, also encountered with the faber 190 not finally sorted till the a5 by moving the engine foward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not entirely true HellToupee. You can go with that story if it fits the what you want to hear, or you can investigate the subject, it is a very interesting one!

The Fw190A5's engine was moved forward to improve COG with various jabo loads.

Manuel29
04-26-2006, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hey I am not brushing anything aside, I love the Spitfire and will fight for it. BUt not if data is incorrect. I just want this sim to be as close as can be.

If I think Roland is wrong I will tell him, and he knows it. If I didnt would I be worth anything to him? We have argued Spit vs FW190 in a another forum quite a few times. I just thought his input would be useful in order to chew the cud until we get somewhere near the truth.

Better to have someone who backs up his statements and knows his stuff than someone who will type 'Omg FW190 is sooo undermodelled Spit owns it' and leave it at that. The good thing about having Roland give his input is that he is a Brit (loving the Spit is compulsory) who loves the FW190 also, and so he is much more likely to give a balanced opinon on the FW190 vs Spit argument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post Xiolablu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:

a3 had overheating problems, even if not derated the engine could not be run at high boost for long before overheating, also encountered with the faber 190 not finally sorted till the a5 by moving the engine foward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not entirely true HellToupee. You can go with that story if it fits the what you want to hear, or you can investigate the subject, it is a very interesting one!

The Fw190A5's engine was moved forward to improve COG with various jabo loads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A5 engine was moved foward to allow airflow behind the engine and also cog not for jabo loads but the extra radio equipment introduced in the a4.

faustnik
04-26-2006, 11:48 AM
HellToupee,

Are you a member of the All About Warfare forum? There is a great thread on this subject there.

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 12:13 PM
Ok Roland here is the graph. Remember it is 'quick and dirty (not all data point and the differences at FTH for the Spit plotted). The Spit in red.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/fw190-Spit-1.jpg

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
HellToupee,

Are you a member of the All About Warfare forum? There is a great thread on this subject there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Could I gt the link Faust? I would like to read that.

faustnik
04-26-2006, 12:48 PM
Sure, it is here: http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1119

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 03:46 PM
Thanks mate.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 04:37 PM
Cheers for posting charts that actually shed some light on to this Faust and Luft, All I can say about the charts and Faustnik would have been able to predict this is... The Fw 190 A5 of 1943 has slightly lower performance than a Fw 190 A4 running at 1.42 ATA. The Rechlin document is good too because it shows the ATA at 1.42 and it also shows theweights of the Fw 190. The Fw 190 with the outerguns is slower than the main fighter variant Fw 190 which was encountered by the RAF in 42/43 this was the Fw 190 A4/5 Jaeger which had outer guns reduced. The performance is increased only slightly in level speed - Oleg says circa 5% but the big increase is in E retention, acceleration and climb. When I say big I mean big with a very small B but still enough to make the Jaeger version of the Fw 190 a very different kettle of fish.

I believe and some others may back me on this that every single version of the Fw 190 A series we have in IL2 tend to lean towards the Jabo variants when it comes to performance. The A6 is maybe the nearest to a fighter but even then it is modelled conservatively in its ATA boost rating.

Somethings that are very important to point out are there were many Spitfire IX'a's produced in 42 and 43 these were the Merlin 61 engined planes fist built to counter the Fw 190 and then the 66 engined lower alt blower aircraft come along. Also from the German source it VERY IMPORTANT to note that the Germans measured all their performance figures like climb and weight at combat - not emergency and at take off not combat weights. Confusing yes but very significant nonetheless. Then we can cloud the issue further by asking whether the introduction of 1.65 ATA clearance in late 43 was for fighters as well as Jabos? Then we need to look at the common cruise speeds for the two fighters. The speeds they were likley to be at when combat was entered ps the Fw 190's is higher.

I personally dont think the Spitfire IX has any practical speed advantage over the Fw 190 below 25,000ft unfortunately a lot of combat was above this height.

WWMaxGunz
04-26-2006, 10:34 PM
About the Drag... (and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'd just like fair numbers)
it does not matter so much which variant made more power so much as;

Same alts both planes, both power and speed at same alt which must be sea level no? Who has
more speed from less power with speeds and power shown? Is the difference enough to cover prop
differences and other factors that can be shown?

HellToupee
04-26-2006, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germans measured all their performance figures like climb and weight at combat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well the graph posted by luftluuver shows takeoff/emergency power for the 190 number 1 at 1.42 2700, and the gray areas show the gain from using a higher boost.

"
I personally dont think the Spitfire IX has any practical speed advantage over the Fw 190 below 25,000ft unfortunately a lot of combat was above this height."

but if the graph is to be belived the 190 dosnt have a practical speed advantage over the spit ither.

WWMaxGunz
04-26-2006, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've requested people who keep saying little more than dive is wrong to post the expected
difference, how long to open 200m lead to 500m lead with both starting at same speed and
alt. And no surprise at all, NONE will say.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've answered; read between the lines of my latest posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bye </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which say nothing real. Someone else thinks the sim is perfect according to you, which is BS.
Leave out the hype and the tripe please. Wrong is not a number and perfect does not exist in
PC sims.

If someone asks how far wrong and what do you think is right it is not saying perfect.
No need to read between $#!+ there. No dodging behind non-statements, typical "you knows".

Too much reading between vague and maybe, how can anyone be wrong if they won't say WTF they
mean and yet have the gall to attack something that has done so however imperfect.

How fast must the gap be opened up to satisfy what you think from what you read?
How far must the gap be? When will you be happy and can that be achieved without bending
reality? Because yes, you say definite and if it's impossible then you should know that.
Or maybe you are right and reasonable and just no one can know because you won't say, only
make hints that go nowhere in a b!tch-fashion.

luftluuver
04-27-2006, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germans measured all their performance figures like climb and weight at combat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well the graph posted by luftluuver shows takeoff/emergency power for the 190 number 1 at 1.42 2700, and the gray areas show the gain from using a higher boost.

"
I personally dont think the Spitfire IX has any practical speed advantage over the Fw 190 below 25,000ft unfortunately a lot of combat was above this height."

but if the graph is to be belived the 190 dosnt have a practical speed advantage over the spit ither. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Spitfire plot was made using data (Spitfire IX, BS543, Merlin 66 @ 18lb boost) from Mike's Spitfire site.

mynameisroland
04-27-2006, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
but if the graph is to be belived the 190 dosnt have a practical speed advantage over the spit ither. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I qualified that statement by stating that the performance chart shows a fully laden Fw 190 A5 at take off weights. this fighter possessed less performance than the Fw 190 A4 Jaeger or even a Jaeger version of the A5. I also mention cruise speed, the Fw 190 cruised at a higher speed therefore the step to top speed was shorter than that of the Spitfire IX.

Did anyone else notice that the chart says "Speed lines with ETC 501" this is a bomb rack yes?

HellToupee
04-27-2006, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
but if the graph is to be belived the 190 dosnt have a practical speed advantage over the spit ither. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I qualified that statement by stating that the performance chart shows a fully laden Fw 190 A5 at take off weights. this fighter possessed less performance than the Fw 190 A4 Jaeger or even a Jaeger version of the A5. I also mention cruise speed, the Fw 190 cruised at a higher speed therefore the step to top speed was shorter than that of the Spitfire IX.

Did anyone else notice that the chart says "Speed lines with ETC 501" this is a bomb rack yes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

also where a drop tank would go, also note the word infront of etc 501, it says without.

A4 also had worse cooling than the a5 which is why some are thought to be derated like the a3.

mynameisroland
04-27-2006, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
but if the graph is to be belived the 190 dosnt have a practical speed advantage over the spit ither. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I qualified that statement by stating that the performance chart shows a fully laden Fw 190 A5 at take off weights. this fighter possessed less performance than the Fw 190 A4 Jaeger or even a Jaeger version of the A5. I also mention cruise speed, the Fw 190 cruised at a higher speed therefore the step to top speed was shorter than that of the Spitfire IX.

Did anyone else notice that the chart says "Speed lines with ETC 501" this is a bomb rack yes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

also where a drop tank would go, also note the word infront of etc 501, it says without.

A4 also had worse cooling than the a5 which is why some are thought to be derated like the a3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helltoupee you are a bit of a troll, Ive just read some of your posts where you support the idea of soldiers carrying steel shields on DDay.

see here for your argument
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5251080734/p/4

Now look a little closer here

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/fw190-Spit-1.jpg

If you had good eyesight you would clearly see the word WITH. I dont know if this is on the plane tested or if we are meant to deduct 10 mph?


As for the A4 haveing inferior cooling ? Wow you really did do your research didnt you. The A4 solved the heating problems found on the earlier models. Stop grasping at straws and detracting from this thread any further with your naysaying I for one am fed up of responding.

Oh and did I mention I am a big fan of the Spitfire and fly it often? I also enjoy researching this aircraft and have been involved in threads arguing for the Spitfire.