PDA

View Full Version : 109 vs Spitfire, P-40, P-51 Video



arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 10:40 AM
Every pilot in the video , including a 109 pilot, says that the each of the other planes listed could outturn the 109. AND! The P-51 could out-climb the 109. Try doing that in-game...

Watch it here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvyakoOB78M

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 10:40 AM
Every pilot in the video , including a 109 pilot, says that the each of the other planes listed could outturn the 109. AND! The P-51 could out-climb the 109. Try doing that in-game...

Watch it here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvyakoOB78M

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 10:49 AM
OK, I'll try. Cool video!

BillyTheKid_22
03-01-2007, 10:53 AM
Great video!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 11:22 AM
This confirmed my suspicion that the in-game P-51 is really stiff in a turn, when virtually every American pilot said it could outperform anything it faced.

It also confirms my suspicion about how the in-game 109 can outclimb the P-51 like crazy.

biggs222
03-01-2007, 11:26 AM
why do i have a feeling that this thread could get pretty ugly once certian memebers arrive? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

fordfan25
03-01-2007, 11:39 AM
im a primary red flyer on warclouds how ever i have no natonal bias toward the red or blue planes. So know that this is not a fanboy statement. i have a very hard time beleaving a 51 could out turn a 109....at least at lowish speeds. the fact that the 51 is so much heavier. spit and maby p40 i would think depending on moddle against a 109 would be close.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 11:40 AM
If the 109 is involved it WILL get ugly... But now they'll have to argue with their own veteran 109/262 pilot.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by biggs222:
why do i have a feeling that this thread could get pretty ugly once certian memebers arrive? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bring on the charts and let the bickering begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif It's going to be a part!!!!

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 11:45 AM
The biggest thing for me isn't the turning of a P-51, its that they clearly say the Mustang could outclimb the 109...

In-game, the Mustang feels more like what I've read about the P-47, stiff and heavy, as opposed to veterans' accounts, which makes the Mustang sound nimble as all h**l.

It also makes me think that previous games haven't given the P-40 the respect it deserves, reserving turning fights for 109's, spits, and mustangs.

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 11:47 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/dvownedcopy.jpg

Brain32
03-01-2007, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
If the 109 is involved it WILL get ugly... But now they'll have to argue with their own veteran 109/262 pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How about you watch the video again? Stigler was describing differences between 109E and early Spits during BoB, he said they were faster,climbed better and dived better but Spits turned better. This is in agreement with most accounts you will find btw.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 11:53 AM
And we're off................ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 11:54 AM
I agree completely, but what about the comparison to the P-40 and P-51?

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
The biggest thing for me isn't the turning of a P-51, its that they clearly say the Mustang could outclimb the 109...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't belive everything you find on the net. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

You would better do some research. find out what makes an aircraft a better climber then the other one and then compare them. I'm talking about engine power, weight, wing loading wing area, etc.
If you will compare them you'll get a better understanding of the reasons why P-51 couldn't outclimb the BF-109's at low and medium altitudes.

Hoenire
03-01-2007, 11:57 AM
Lol - snippets of conversation used to support a biaised view.

As other, more knowledgeable people have said, the ability to turn depends on the mark/model of plane, quality of aircraft frame and components and, most importantly, the pilot.

Have fun.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 11:57 AM
@Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV.

Xiolablu3
03-01-2007, 12:00 PM
I really dont see how the P51 a much larger, heavier, laminar flow winged (built for speed NOT turn) plane could outturn a 109 at low to middle speeds.

The P51 pilot says he couldnt outdive the Bf109, he was going FULL THROTTLE, he finally got away by turning. That tells us that the probably pulled a turn at this very high speed. The Bf109 could not turn at high speeds, this is the one place that the P51 would have the advantage. The Bf109's controls would be almost frozen solid at these high speeds (flat out screaming dive)

Its no wonder THAT P51 pilot outturned THAT bf109. Dont mistake that with P51's outturning Bf109's at mid and low speeds - it wont happen.

Take no notice of the narattor at the end - what he says is completely false. The Germans had many planes that could outperform the P51 in many areas. Take the Me262 for example which is just a better all round plane, or the climb of the 109, or the roll of the FW190.

Abbuzze
03-01-2007, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
The biggest thing for me isn't the turning of a P-51, its that they clearly say the Mustang could outclimb the 109...

In-game, the Mustang feels more like what I've read about the P-47, stiff and heavy, as opposed to veterans' accounts, which makes the Mustang sound nimble as all h**l.

It also makes me think that previous games haven't given the P-40 the respect it deserves, reserving turning fights for 109's, spits, and mustangs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Israely pilots which flew Spits, P51 and Avia S.199 (a 109G fuselage with a bomberengine and gunpods, which was maybe the Gustav with the worst performance ever flew) rated this plane in this way:

Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)



The P40 was a better turner even german pilots reported this.

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> @Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I saw that too and read it long time ago. You've missed the point. It was not outclimbing the 109 it was outzooming it. That's a very different thing.
They pulled up in a zoom after a dive.
P-51 is one of the best zoom climbers in the game, just like it was in real life.

Brain32
03-01-2007, 12:06 PM
You have to take more things into account here, first saying 109 just doesen't cut it, in game Mustang3 will own 109G6 in sustained climb, other thing is what kind of climb, no plane in this game can reach P51's zoom climb ability, that thing is unbelievably slippery and at speed goes up like mad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
As for other accounts, I can't say which plane turns better P40 or bf109, I don't like to turnfight and on several occasions I(in 109G2) was forced to dive away very soon against P40M - it worked turning did not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
The account of the P51 pilot pretty much contradicts typical statements, P51 able to outturn a 109 but not outdive??? WTF? Also he could outturn it but couldn't shake it off??? Sounds strange at the very least...

Xiolablu3
03-01-2007, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
@Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then he guessed right that the P51 had more energy than the Bf109 at the time.

The P51 would never outclimb the contemporary Bf109. The Bf109 was the best climbing plane of the war, whereas the P51 was not a good climber.

Maybe if the P51 was facing some older Bf109's?

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 12:06 PM
@point not missed. Eventually you are not zooming anymore and the prop is pulling the plane. I had seen the prop pulling his plane until stall. I believe the zooming was done and over long before that.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 12:08 PM
<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 AVGWarhawk:
@Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then he guessed right that the P51 had more energy than the Bf109 at the time.

The P51 would never outclimb the contemporary Bf109. The Bf109 was the best climbing plane of the war, whereas the P51 was not a good climber.

Maybe if the P51 was facing some older Bf109's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope, do not believe it. Anderson had the plane pulled by the prop. What, did both pilots shut of the motors and just zoom????? No, it was balls out on the throttle and the 109 stammered first. It was the critical last moments the 51 keep going all be it slow and this make it a better climber.

Xiolablu3
03-01-2007, 12:11 PM
You misunderstand what happened...


The P51 will NOT outclimb a contemporary Bf109 in a sustained climb, whatever you want to believe from the TV.

WHat happened on TV was depenedant more on ENERGY and ENERGY RETENTION than climb rate.

Try flying along straight and then pulling a P51 straight up into a vertical climb (or any plane) in the game and see how long you 'hang there'.

You need a lot of energy to keep going up when you have the nose pointed to the sky.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 12:13 PM
All good points, and it is important to note that most engagements with US aircraft occurred at high-altitude and high speed, lasting only a few seconds. We rarely see this happen in-game, and when you set it up to work this way, the P-51 is at least competitive, but still is unable to stack up against 109's as the veterans say.

One other thing I am curious about is the lock-up that 109 pilots experienced in a dive. Is it just me, or is this affect simply not in IL-2 at all?

And we still haven't talked about the P-40, which definitely can't turn with a 109 in-game at any altitude.

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:

Nope, do not believe it. Anderson had the plane pulled by the prop. What, did both pilots shut of the motors and just zoom????? No, it was balls out on the throttle and the 109 stammered first. It was the critical last moments the 51 keep going all be it slow and this make it a better climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the entire account. They went up and down two or three times before the last zoom climb.

Abbuzze
03-01-2007, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:

Nope, do not believe it. Anderson had the plane pulled by the prop. What, did both pilots shut of the motors and just zoom????? No, it was balls out on the throttle and the 109 stammered first. It was the critical last moments the 51 keep going all be it slow and this make it a better climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the fight which was in 43/early44? At 8.000m with a 109 with a DB605A engine? If Anderson had to fight that much at this altitude where the P51 ruled the sky - he better should not try it at lower alt...

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great Citation. That's what I've heard also from veterans at air-shows and the like.

TheBandit_76
03-01-2007, 12:22 PM
And there is a bug with how much control 109s retain during those last seconds before it stalls out and fall away. One of my biggest gripes about 109 FM. They retain almost complete control authority at rediculously low speeds like they have vector thrusters sticking out every orafice.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 12:22 PM
@Jaws

The last 100 or so feet was pure motor and the 51 kept pulling. I do not doubt your zoom explanation but we can not over look the 51 on its prop still pulling and the 109 stammered first.

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
All good points, and it is important to note that most engagements with US aircraft occurred at high-altitude and high speed, lasting only a few seconds. We rarely see this happen in-game, and when you set it up to work this way, the P-51 is at least competitive, but still is unable to stack up against 109's as the veterans say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maybe <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">you</span> rarely see this happen in game. I've been up against many 109's and p-51's at high altitude and up there I'd take the pony any day over the 109. But i have to admit, I rarely fly the p-51 when on red and I have a chance to get a bubble top jug http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif.

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
@Jaws

The last 100 or so feet was pure motor and the 51 kept pulling. I do not doubt your zoom exlaination but we can not over look the 51 on its prop still pulling and the 109 stammered first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The last 100m is not important. Is important how fast you were when you started.
Also as Abuzze pointed out that was at 8000m. Up there the pony was an awesome machine and so is in game. It will walk all over the 109 up there.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 12:39 PM
@Jaws

How is the last 100 feet not important? I my view, the 51 was still pulling away on sheer power. Based on that observation, logic would dictate the 51 would have the juice to out climb the 109.

The video remains the same. The pilot said the 51 would out climb the 109.

alert_1
03-01-2007, 12:42 PM
Dont forget that Avia S199 had Jumo211 (1350hp with NO boost, not even comparable to DB605ASm with 1800hp!), it had actually power of Me109F4 and weihg of Me109G6...and due to broadblade prop (from bomber) had horrible torque..

TheBandit_76
03-01-2007, 12:42 PM
You're completely confusing Climb and Zoom Climb. Plus, none of these warbirds had the P2W ratio to behave like some kind of Extra300.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:

Nope, do not believe it. Anderson had the plane pulled by the prop. What, did both pilots shut of the motors and just zoom????? No, it was balls out on the throttle and the 109 stammered first. It was the critical last moments the 51 keep going all be it slow and this make it a better climber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the fight which was in 43/early44? At 8.000m with a 109 with a DB605A engine? If Anderson had to fight that much at this altitude where the P51 ruled the sky - he better should not try it at lower alt... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was referring to History Channel program on Anderson and his dogfight with the 109.

Manu-6S
03-01-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
All good points, and it is important to note that most engagements with US aircraft occurred at high-altitude and high speed, lasting only a few seconds. We rarely see this happen in-game, and when you set it up to work this way, the P-51 is at least competitive, but still is unable to stack up against 109's as the veterans say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">you</span> rarely see this happen in game. I've been up against many 109's and p-51's at high altitude and up there I'd take the pony any day over the 109. But i have to admit, I rarely fly the p-51 when on red and I have a chance to get a bubble top jug http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree... Late 109s at 6000m are useless: the only thing you can do is to engage some enemy from 6. But if he is aware of you... dive away!

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
You're completely confusing Climb and Zoom Climb. Plus, none of these warbirds had the P2W ratio to behave like some kind of Extra300. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not confusing anything here. I understand zoom, etc. My statement concerns the last 100 feet or so the 51 continued to climb as the 109 stammered. Based on that, logic would dictate the 51 had the juice to out climb the 109.

The video remains the same at the start of the thread. The 51 out climbs the 109.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 01:06 PM
In regard to zoom climb vs climb:

I am a physicist myself, so I understand energy conservation and all that. To AVGWarhawk, I think what their saying is that if the P-51 carries energy (velocity) more efficiently against friction, it will be able to "hang" in the air longer as in that "Dogfights" clip simply because it had greater initial energy from the previous dive. As you climb, you convert your kinetic energy to potential, and if you have more to start with, you'll go higher.

The problem I see with most of the arguments for the 109 is that American pilots, historians, and even German 109 veterans have said that either the P-51 could out-climb or out-maneuver them or both. In-game, the P-51 can do neither, and in fact, if you try to do so in-game, it's certain death.

Historically, it seems to have been a close call. In-game, it's no contest, the 109 is deadly, the P-51 is heavy and stiff.

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The video remains the same at the start of the thread. The 51 out climbs the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

faustnik
03-01-2007, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The P51 would never outclimb the contemporary Bf109. The Bf109 was the best climbing plane of the war, whereas the P51 was not a good climber.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you need to factor speed into this equation? How does the P-51 compare to the Bf109 when climbing at speeds over 350mph?

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 01:11 PM
One other mentionable about the History Channel video is that if "the boom and zoom" account is correct, Bud Anderson would have had to have been a prodigy at feeling his aircraft. I think that deserves some credit.

I have the Dogfights video on my comp at home. I might be able to cut that clip out of it and post a link...depending on file size and all that. I'll see what I can do.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The video remains the same at the start of the thread. The 51 out climbs the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This in no way shape or form discredits the video at the start of the thread. It is example to the contrary? Maybe. So I'm guessing the guys who flew them in combat really do not know a thing? No probably not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
In regard to zoom climb vs climb:

I am a physicist myself, so I understand energy conservation and all that. To AVGWarhawk, I think what their saying is that if the P-51 carries energy (velocity) more efficiently against friction, it will be able to "hang" in the air longer as in that "Dogfights" clip simply because it had greater initial energy from the previous dive. As you climb, you convert your kinetic energy to potential, and if you have more to start with, you'll go higher.

The problem I see with most of the arguments for the 109 is that American pilots, historians, and even German 109 veterans have said that either the P-51 could out-climb or out-maneuver them or both. In-game, the P-51 can do neither, and in fact, if you try to do so in-game, it's certain death.

Historically, it seems to have been a close call. In-game, it's no contest, the 109 is deadly, the P-51 is heavy and stiff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice post! I agree, IN GAME the 51 is lacking. The 109 is deadly.

I'm sure this will set off a spark or two.....like practice more, etc. I always love those. What do I know I'm just a gamer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
03-01-2007, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
This confirmed my suspicion that the in-game P-51 is really stiff in a turn, when virtually every American pilot said it could outperform anything it faced.

It also confirms my suspicion about how the in-game 109 can outclimb the P-51 like crazy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The p-51 everyone says can outturn the 109 at high speeds but the 109 could outturn the p-51 at slower speeds..

Erich Hartman once had EIGHT P-51's on his tail in two groups of four and managed to outturn them with tremendous physical effort on his part turning his 109 at high speed. He had to bail out before he got to his airfield because he ran out of fuel.

Xiolablu3
03-01-2007, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The video remains the same at the start of the thread. The 51 out climbs the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This in no way shape or form discredits the video at the start of the thread. It is example to the contrary? Maybe. So I'm guessing the guys who flew them in combat really do not know a thing? No probably not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was a video to show that you cannot believe everything people say in videos and TV shows, many totally contradict each other.

The point is - DOnt take your video as gospel truth, read up on wing loading, turn rates,, weights, wing designs, slats, compressibility speeds, of each plane and then compare.

Also use WW2 test comparisons between planes.

You will find out what you need to know.

Faustnik - Can the P51 outclimb (sustained climb) the 'same period' Bf109 at certain speeds? I never heard this? If you say its so then you certainly have enough credibility for me to believe it.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 01:35 PM
I've seen the Skip Holm video.

A few concerns I have about taking modern interviews as arguments:

There exists no 109 constructed as it was back then. Many have tried and done a wonderful job, but they can only get it to maybe 98% accurate. The remaining 2% is done with modern manufacturing, modern parts, etc. One other thing to note is that things like fuel quality at the end of the war were terrible in Germany--certainly would affect engine power.

So, I think both clips are accurate, but I tend to side with veterans, unless you want to model good modern fuel quality etc, and therefore don't give credit to faltering German industy during the war.

I still think that based on everything I've heard, except for turning performance, the P-51 could outfly the 109. Again, In-game, it's not even close.

PFflyer
03-01-2007, 01:45 PM
If you cannot do well in a Spitfire, P-51, or P-40 in this sim, it is sure not the plane, it is you!

I can out-turn any 109 in a Spit that is contemporary to it, it is child's play. The P-40 in this sim turns as well as any 109 too.

I have seen great pilots online in Mustangs that could go 1 vs 1 with 109s.

All the pilots who get the job done with allied craft simply have time in them and know what they are doing. Same thing with the 109, the more time you have in it the better you can fly it and the harder you can turn it.

This is just another crying thread by someone because it is easier for them to point the finger anywhere but at themselves.



And if you don't know how to do anything with a Mustang or P-40 besides turn with it, you are a newb on top of everything else. Historically, the pilots of these planes tried to get the job done using other strengths the planes had. But you wouldn't know about those strengths, you are too busy getting better at crying like a little school girl.

Now go practice crybaby!

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 01:51 PM
<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 AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The video remains the same at the start of the thread. The 51 out climbs the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This in no way shape or form discredits the video at the start of the thread. It is example to the contrary? Maybe. So I'm guessing the guys who flew them in combat really do not know a thing? No probably not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was a video to show that you cannot believe everything people say in videos and TV shows, many totally contradict each other.

The point is - DOnt take your video as gospel truth, read up on wing loading, turn rates,, weights, wing designs, slats, compressibility speeds, of each plane and then compare.

Also use WW2 test comparisons between planes.

You will find out what you need to know.

Faustnik - Can the P51 outclimb (sustained climb) the 'same period' Bf109 at certain speeds? I never heard this? If you say its so then you have enough credibiliy for me to believe it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kind of hard not to take gospel truth from the guys in the video who flew these planes months on end while in combat. I believe I will stick with these gentlemen who flew them in combat. As far as WW2 test, looks like these guys TESTED the plane quite a bit. I'll be sticking with these gents. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

PFflyer
03-01-2007, 01:56 PM
Also, any P-51 will outclimb any 109 in this sim if you climb in the P-51 at high-speed. But this is another thing a crying newb like the thread starter would not know, becaue he is busy flying around on the deck turn-fighting and getting his butt shot off so he has more to cry about.

That is like saying the 190 will not outclimb any aircraft, it will, if you get it up to it's best climbing speed, just like you had to do in the 190 in real life.

Nothing arcade/gamer pilots say about flying around in their arcade servers is valid for any kind of argument. We should have a separate forum for those who do not fly full-real, then they will be in company they deserve.

Xiolablu3
03-01-2007, 02:00 PM
They really didnt test their planes against each other at equal speeds and things l;ike that.

Their opinions are formed from their experiences as to what happened in their own combats.

For example :-

The guy who tried to outdive the Bf109 but couldnt - The 109 could have started out with much more speed than the P51, therefore had an advantage fromt he start.

The guy who outturned the Bf109 in his P51 - The P51 definitely outurns the 109 at very high speed, where the Bf109's controls lock up (try it inthe game). This is very likely the answer as to why he managed it.

I dont claim to know everything about WW2 planes, but from the opinions I have formed from various sources, I would be quite sure that the Bf109 would outclimb the P51 in a straight climb race. The Bf109 would outturn the P51 at mid to low speeds, but the P51 would win out quite easily at high speeds.

Also the higher you go the better the P51 gets.

BaronUnderpants
03-01-2007, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Every pilot in the video , including a 109 pilot, says that the each of the other planes listed could outturn the 109. AND! The P-51 could out-climb the 109. Try doing that in-game...

Watch it here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvyakoOB78M </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Slight correction

A: The german pilot said "The Spit was more manoverouble" and " P-40 was also a good airplane"..nothing else.

B: The first us pilot ( P-40 ) said they could outturn Bf109 based on that turning thightly was the only thing they could do when a Bf closed in on theire six. So what speed did the Bf109` have.....where the P-40 bounced, a.i. high speed? Doesnt say. The P-40 pilot proceeded to say " the Bf109 outdived, outclimbed and had a higher speed than the P-40"

C: The second us pilot ( P-51 ) said they could NOT oudive a Bf109....he infact said he could NOT lose 1 perticular Bf109 no matter what he did...including diving full throttle, and turning apparently didnt help either. Did however manage to escape somhow...seems like he didnt know how himselfe..or maby he got shot down? Doesnt say.

D: The commentator at the end then proceeded to state a outright lie ( based on what pilots themselfe stated ) by saying " P-51 OUTDIVED, outturned and outclimbed ANY LW fighter at the time...including Bf109"

So, Not ALL pilots said ALL the mentioned ac`s could outturn the Bf109.


U might wanna LISTEN before u post next time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


and no, im not a Bf109 pilots...dont touch the things.


P.s. Sry if somone allredy pointed this out.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFflyer:
Also, any P-51 will outclimb any 109 in this sim if you climb in the P-51 at high-speed. But this is another thing a crying newb like the thread starter would not know, becaue he is busy flying around on the deck turn-fighting and getting his butt shot off so he has more to cry about.

That is like saying the 190 will not outclimb any aircraft, it will, if you get it up to it's best climbing speed, just like you had to do in the 190 in real life.

Nothing arcade/gamer pilots say about flying around in their arcade servers is valid for any kind of argument. We should have a separate forum for those who do not fly full-real, then they will be in company they deserve. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm sorry us low than whale **** gamers like myself to not stand up to the polish of the virtual pilot like yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif My hero! Its a GAME get over it.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you cannot do well in a Spitfire, P-51, or P-40 in this sim, it is sure not the plane, it is you!

I can out-turn any 109 in a Spit that is contemporary to it, it is child's play. The P-40 in this sim turns as well as any 109 too.

I have seen great pilots online in Mustangs that could go 1 vs 1 with 109s.

All the pilots who get the job done with allied craft simply have time in them and know what they are doing. Same thing with the 109, the more time you have in it the better you can fly it and the harder you can turn it.

This is just another crying thread by someone because it is easier for them to point the finger anywhere but at themselves.



And if you don't know how to do anything with a Mustang or P-40 besides turn with it, you are a newb on top of everything else. Historically, the pilots of these planes tried to get the job done using other strengths the planes had. But you wouldn't know about those strengths, you are too busy getting better at crying like a little school girl.

Now go practice crybaby! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There you go AVGWarhawk, just like you said.

Trust me PFFlyer, I spend way more time practicing on this game than I should...

But it sounds to me like you're still a little bitter that the Luftwaffe had their clock cleaned...

It isn't that I can't survive in a P-51, quite the contrary... It's that according to the vets, I shouldn't have to follow a 109 for so long until he makes a mistake. The P-51 seems stiff and heavy.

And as for the Spit... well, I think the Spit solidly won the debate over the 109 in 1940.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 02:13 PM
The thing that cracks me up...is that Luftwaffe sympathizers that think the overmodelled 109 is correct can't win the overall debate.

If the in-game model of the Mustang is correct, that means the American pilots handed the Germans their shot-off Swastika butts via an inferior aircraft.

If the in-game model isn't correct, The P-51 is undermodelled, and everything makes sense.

arrowtalon
03-01-2007, 02:22 PM
A slight correction to your slight correction:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slight correction

A: The german pilot said "The Spit was more manoverouble" and " P-40 was also a good airplane"..nothing else.

B: The first us pilot ( P-40 ) said they could outturn Bf109 based on that turning thightly was the only thing they could do when a Bf closed in on theire six. So what speed did the Bf109` have.....where the P-40 bounced, a.i. high speed? Doesnt say. The P-40 pilot proceeded to say " the Bf109 outdived, outclimbed and had a higher speed than the P-40"

C: The second us pilot ( P-51 ) said they could NOT oudive a Bf109....he infact said he could NOT lose 1 perticular Bf109 no matter what he did...including diving full throttle, and turning apparently didnt help either. Did however manage to escape somhow...seems like he didnt know how himselfe..or maby he got shot down? Doesnt say.

D: The commentator at the end then proceeded to state a outright lie ( based on what pilots themselfe stated ) by saying " P-51 OUTDIVED, outturned and outclimbed ANY LW fighter at the time...including Bf109"

So, Not ALL pilots said ALL the mentioned ac`s could outturn the Bf109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should have quoted the video better. The 109 pilot says the Spit can outturn the 109. The p-40 and P-51 pilots separately said their aircraft could outturn the 109. The narrator says the P-51 could do everything better. Pardon the misquote.

However, I'm certainly not going to discredit the entire interview just because the 109 pilot didn't confirm everything the American pilots said. I trust the US vets as much as the German ones.

AVGWarhawk
03-01-2007, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you cannot do well in a Spitfire, P-51, or P-40 in this sim, it is sure not the plane, it is you!

I can out-turn any 109 in a Spit that is contemporary to it, it is child's play. The P-40 in this sim turns as well as any 109 too.

I have seen great pilots online in Mustangs that could go 1 vs 1 with 109s.

All the pilots who get the job done with allied craft simply have time in them and know what they are doing. Same thing with the 109, the more time you have in it the better you can fly it and the harder you can turn it.

This is just another crying thread by someone because it is easier for them to point the finger anywhere but at themselves.



And if you don't know how to do anything with a Mustang or P-40 besides turn with it, you are a newb on top of everything else. Historically, the pilots of these planes tried to get the job done using other strengths the planes had. But you wouldn't know about those strengths, you are too busy getting better at crying like a little school girl.

Now go practice crybaby! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There you go AVGWarhawk, just like you said.

Trust me PFFlyer, I spend way more time practicing on this game than I should...

But it sounds to me like you're still a little bitter that the Luftwaffe had their clock cleaned...

It isn't that I can't survive in a P-51, quite the contrary... It's that according to the vets, I shouldn't have to follow a 109 for so long until he makes a mistake. The P-51 seems stiff and heavy.

And as for the Spit... well, I think the Spit solidly won the debate over the 109 in 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did not take long did it. Anyway, I have to stand down like a good little cadet because I'm in the mists of a professional virtual pilot. PFFlyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I'm going gaming now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
03-01-2007, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Faustnik - Can the P51 outclimb (sustained climb) the 'same period' Bf109 at certain speeds? I never heard this? If you say its so then you certainly have enough credibility for me to believe it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's a question, not a statement. Taking the Fw190/Spitfire comparison, the Spit IX has better low speed climb but, the Fw190 can actually outclimb the Spit at high speeds. I was wondering if the P-51 and Bf109 had a similar relationship???

BaronUnderpants
03-01-2007, 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 arrowtalon:
The thing that cracks me up...is that Luftwaffe sympathizers that think the overmodelled 109 is correct can't win the overall debate.

If the in-game model of the Mustang is correct, that means the American pilots handed the Germans their shot-off Swastika butts via an inferior aircraft.

If the in-game model isn't correct, The P-51 is undermodelled, and everything makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No LW fan here is trying to claim anything that isnt allredy stated previously or in the vid.

Maby it as simple as this:

U go into a T&B at low to medium alt/speed in a P-51 against a Bf109 u WILL lose. Provided its all up to the ac and not the pilot.

If u go into a high speed/alt T&B in a Bf109 against a P-51 u WILL lose. Provided its up to the ac and not the pilot.


Could it be that simple?...it is in the game. Atlest according to what iv heard about Bf109 hig alt/speed performance in game.

edgflyer
03-01-2007, 03:27 PM
I believe where the issue realy comes in is the overall energy retention. The P51 has absolutely none at all. As soon as you try to turn slightly hard, all speed in the plane is bleed off leaving it useless. Sorry but the engine has enough power to sustain the speed in the plane during a turn and should not bleed as fast as it does. I am not talking about a hard sustained turn but rather a 180 degree turn at moderate stick forces. It is just not there at all.

Now on the sad side, since I do not have charts or graphs or the famouse got track, flame away.

MrMojok
03-01-2007, 03:28 PM
Here is Anderson's account, and the CG recreation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

The guy who uploaded that to YouTube cut out a small part at about 2:05, where the stricken 109 pilot rolled his plane upside-down and held it there.

MrMojok
03-01-2007, 03:34 PM
As an aside, about the upside-down flying... Anderson wondered why in the world the guy did that. I think I know. Do you?

BillyTheKid_22
03-01-2007, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Here is Anderson's account, and the CG recreation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

The guy who uploaded that to YouTube cut out a small part at about 2:05, where the stricken 109 pilot rolled his plane upside-down and held it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Abbuzze
03-01-2007, 04:02 PM
Thanks for the link to the HC movie with Anderson.

Yes he described the fight at 8000m. You recognice it in the end when he said he dove back to 20000ft following the 109.

If I remember correct in the steep climbs he reached 9000m and it was in 43/early44 so he fought that hard vs a 109G6 (DB605A) which Hartman described as Hopeless vs. P51´s.

As I wrote in the beginning. He was maybe lucky that he was at this alt against a 109 with just 900HP there. We will never know.

Keep in mind the DB605A has a full pressure altitude of 6400m the DB605AS/DM/DB/DC has 7800m without MW50 (which do not improve performance at his altitude)... because of the bigger supercharger.

Beside in the first moves the 109 was at lower speed. Anderson and the 109 did a typical move you can see very often in il2. And the one who has to turn hard to let the other overshoot burns a lot of energy. No chance to stay at the same e-level. The 109 will also stall in our game before.

thefruitbat
03-01-2007, 04:43 PM
<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 Xiolablu3:

Faustnik - Can the P51 outclimb (sustained climb) the 'same period' Bf109 at certain speeds? I never heard this? If you say its so then you certainly have enough credibility for me to believe it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, it's a question, not a statement. Taking the Fw190/Spitfire comparison, the Spit IX has better low speed climb but, the Fw190 can actually outclimb the Spit at high speeds. I was wondering if the P-51 and Bf109 had a similar relationship??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As i understand it, any plane that is faster than another, can outclimb the other. If the faster plane is flying at the other planes top speed, it still has energy left, which can be transfered into the vertical.

obviously, this is not the same thing as best climbrate, but looking at hardballs viewer, a mustang3's got about 57kph on a k4 at sea level, so if you fly in that bracket yes definately, the mustang can outclimb the 109, and i'm guessing that the k4 climb rate dies somewhat before its final top speed.

cheers fruitbat

Jaws2002
03-01-2007, 05:13 PM
Is all clear in the video. Anderson climbed whenever the 109 turned during the fight, before the two zoomclimbs. Is not hard to understand why the things went as they did. Andersom worked really well to build his energy before he went up.

This was no climbing contest.

tomtheyak
03-01-2007, 05:32 PM
The Mustang owes its success to these factors:

1) Excellent teamwork and superior pilot training

2) Excellent high altitude top speed

3) Luftwaffe a/c engaging from generally a tactical and strategic position of inferiority.

The Mustang even went on a crash diet program in order to try and compete with the sustained climb rates of the 109 and spitfire; hence the lightweight P-51 F/G/H/J variants (only one of which, the H saw service use after the war).

And what about the 354th FG pilot, who in a P-51B, was chasing a Fw190 (an a/c with a notoriously high wing loading) around a the opposite side of a circle for 5 minutes at high alt (where the 190s engine loses power, therefore powerloading drops) and couldn't gain on him until he dropped 10 degrees of flap?

I think we've (and I say we cos I used to believe this exactly as you do now) have been presented with unwittingly inaccurate information over the years regarding the P-51s agility; even the late Roger Freeman, unofficial 8th Air Force historian and reputable author, comes to similar conclusions.

Why?

Cos most if not all of their sources on the P-51 come from the allied source and the AFDU comparison, which pitched the allied fighters against a 109 which apparently (though I have seen no definitive proof) was carrying gunpods and was well past its best.

Add to this the fact that the traditionally held view of the "dogfight" bears little resemblance to most fighter v fighter combat over Western Europe. Knock down drag out fights were very rare, most engagements resolved themselves in thundering dives, bounces, wide curves climbs and escapes.

From bitter experience even as a confessed Spit dweeb, I try to avoid the furballs that occur in online fighting, and fly to bounce, kill, and then get away.

Remember its easy to get suckered into a energy sapping G-fight when you got a refly button if you bite the big one. Many WW2 pilots in an unfavourable or even modestly even position would bug out to either try and get better positioning or just to get away, cos the had far more than a stats score at state, you dig?

edgflyer
03-01-2007, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgflyer:
I believe where the issue realy comes in is the overall energy retention. The P51 has absolutely none at all. As soon as you try to turn slightly hard, all speed in the plane is bleed off leaving it useless. Sorry but the engine has enough power to sustain the speed in the plane during a turn and should not bleed as fast as it does. I am not talking about a hard sustained turn but rather a 180 degree turn at moderate stick forces. It is just not there at all.

Now on the sad side, since I do not have charts or graphs or the famouse got track, flame away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing that I wanted to add, in this game, when was the last time you saw the p51 get up to speeds that are noted for it and quoted by Bud in the movie clip here. I have never seen it able to get to those speeds in level flight yet. So it just goes to prove that there may be something wrong with it. It was called runstang by the Germans for a reason. If we had the power that the plane had in real life, then it would be able to maintain the speed and it would deffinately be a force to recon with.

TheBandit_76
03-01-2007, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
3) Luftwaffe a/c engaging from generally a tactical and strategic position of inferiority.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, when did radar vectoring to enemy planes and often having local numerical superiority become an "inferior position?"

Enlighten us all.

tomtheyak
03-01-2007, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
3) Luftwaffe a/c engaging from generally a tactical and strategic position of inferiority.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, when did radar vectoring to enemy planes and often having local numerical superiority become an "inferior position?"

Enlighten us all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Under orders to concentrate on bombers - initiative to engage fighters lost.

2) Defensive means reacting to enemy rather than making him react to you - initiative lost.

3) Many rookie pilots and even those who are veterans the vast majority are more used to low level fighting on the Eastern Front.

4) In many cases (standard 109G6 & Fw190A) high altitude performance is sub-standard especially in comparison to the P-51/47 .

Get off your high horse Bandit - I aint no Luft-loving hard-on for-blue freak, you of all people should know that, and I happen to love Mustangs, is my 2nd fave next to Spit.

Your point on numerical superiority however is valid, but I believe it highlights the seriously handicapped nature of the Luftwaffe - even in early '44 before the definitive arrival of the Mustang, its being stretched and sorely tested during the Big Week raids, with still ever increasing numbers of formations of enemy heavy bombers, medium bombers, fighter bombers and fighters all coming over doing sweeps, feints, or a major raid. You're just forming a Gruppen at medium alt and are about to be directed to your target raid carrying mortars or gunpods when you're bounced by a squadron of P-47s. It's not a happy time to be Jagdwaffe pilot mate.

F0_Dark_P
03-01-2007, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
As an aside, about the upside-down flying... Anderson wondered why in the world the guy did that. I think I know. Do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be the procedure for bailing.

Pity he did not make it out, but that is war either you live or you die, that's it.

MrMojok
03-01-2007, 07:33 PM
Unbelievably, I had never thought of that. I know, of course, this is the best way to bail (I do it several times a night online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but I had a whole different idea about it because of what Anderson said in his book.

He said something to the effect of "It takes a lot of effort to get one of these planes to fly straight and level upside-down. They aren't made to do that." And he couldn't figure out why the guy would try.

Maybe he rolled inverted, but then found that his canopy was jammed. I had a whole different idea, which I won't post now because your take on it makes mine seem stupid.

HellToupee
03-01-2007, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

all that matters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Clipper_51
03-01-2007, 08:48 PM
As a dedicated 51 pilot, I think it's modelled well in the game. Why do some think it's useless? It has no problem handling a 109 at the proper speed.

Hanna flew both - the 109 was superior at low speeds (confirmed ingame). Don't df in mustangs at low alt/low speed. The Mustang was dominat vs.the 109 at high speeds (confirmed in game). Bud's dogfight is recreated nightly on
WC. With enough juice, at 30,000', a Mustang has it all over an early G model 109.

Other than firepower, the Oleg P-51 is the best in game.

horseback
03-01-2007, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Thanks for the link to the HC movie with Anderson.

Yes he described the fight at 8000m. You recognice it in the end when he said he dove back to 20000ft following the 109.

If I remember correct in the steep climbs he reached 9000m and it was in 43/early44 so he fought that hard vs a 109G6 (DB605A) which Hartman described as Hopeless vs. P51´s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not exactly. Anderson's outfit was a relatively late arrival, entering combat in late spring of '44 and not reaching its' stride until that summer. As I recall, Anderson's account of this fight indicates the post-D-Day period, which makes the encounter mid or late summer 1944, when the AS type 109s were starting to appear. I've heard some of the members of this forum claim that the AS versions were being delivered to frontline outfits as early as March 1944, so maybe it was a plain vanilla G-6, maybe it wasn't. We really have no way of knowing.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I wrote in the beginning. He was maybe lucky that he was at this alt against a 109 with just 900HP there. We will never know.

Keep in mind the DB605A has a full pressure altitude of 6400m the DB605AS/DM/DB/DC has 7800m without MW50 (which do not improve performance at his altitude)... because of the bigger supercharger.

Beside in the first moves the 109 was at lower speed. Anderson and the 109 did a typical move you can see very often in il2. And the one who has to turn hard to let the other overshoot burns a lot of energy. No chance to stay at the same e-level. The 109 will also stall in our game before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In the first moves, the 109s held the altitude advantage and were closing from behind, which means their E-advantage was squandered by trying to follow the Mustangs through the turn, instead of yoyoing back up over the Mustang flight. It looks to me as though the German leader thought that if the fight got slower, using hard turns, the advantage would go to the Messerschmitts.

He was almost right. Did you note what Anderson said about treating every opponent like he was the Red Baron? He started the fight respecting his opponent's capabilities and expecting him to be good until he proved otherwise. That's one of the qualities that made him a success.

cheers

horseback

Badsight-
03-02-2007, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
From bitter experience even as a confessed Spit dweeb, I try to avoid the furballs that occur in online fighting, and fly to bounce, kill, and then get away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>if your managing to do this trying to make a worthless virtual life last a bit longer , imagine how much moreso the lesson was learned by people who survived air combat when their actual life was on the line

JG52Karaya-X
03-02-2007, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
One other thing I am curious about is the lock-up that 109 pilots experienced in a dive. Is it just me, or is this affect simply not in IL-2 at all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever flown a 109 in IL2 at all? Get it to speeds higher than 450km/h and then try to turn, m'kay?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And there is a bug with how much control 109s retain during those last seconds before it stalls out and fall away. One of my biggest gripes about 109 FM. They retain almost complete control authority at rediculously low speeds like they have vector thrusters sticking out every orafice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not a 109 specific problem but a general, all planes retain far too much control authority at near-stall speeds, Spits, La5s, P40s as much or even more so than the 109s, so whats the point. Either change them all or none at all.

JG52Karaya-X
03-02-2007, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
I've seen the Skip Holm video.

A few concerns I have about taking modern interviews as arguments:

There exists no 109 constructed as it was back then. Many have tried and done a wonderful job, but they can only get it to maybe 98% accurate. The remaining 2% is done with modern manufacturing, modern parts, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These 2 remaining % are mostly radio, armour plates and weapons which are either missing or replaced with modern ones, but so then thats the same with modern P51s, they also dont carry any armour or guns and use modern lightweight radio equipment so a general statement on the relative aircraft qualities is valid. Btw did you ever think about the fact that an empty P51D weighed as much as a late G or K at normal t/o weight?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One other thing to note is that things like fuel quality at the end of the war were terrible in Germany--certainly would affect engine power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quantity not quality, the LW simply didnt have large amounts of fuel, the quality itself was at no time a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still think that based on everything I've heard, except for turning performance, the P-51 could outfly the 109. Again, In-game, it's not even close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you expect the P51 to outturn a Bf109 of any type at speeds lower than 450-400km/h then good luck, you'll end up as a burning crater, keep your speed up and use boom and zoom tactics and the Mustang is nearly untouchable, fly the P51 as a P51 and not a Bf109.

StG2_Schlachter
03-02-2007, 03:19 AM
Well said Karaya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Sergio_101
03-02-2007, 03:37 AM
Typical arguments.

My observations.

The Neorevisionists can never accept a P-51 that out performs the much worshiped Nazi fighters.
Even if the Allied pilot is describing the actual fight, the revisionists can not accept it.
What about when a German/Nazi pilot describes getting out run, out climbed or out turned
by a Allied fighter? Is that propaganda? Is it a statement made at gunpoint (60 years later).

Yes, Karaya, fuel was in short supply at the end, but rarely sub standard quality.
Allied fuel was of higher PN/Octane and may have been a bit better quality.

Bf-109 performance varied so much from model to model that it is nearly impossible
to be sure of which version was involved in any described combat.

P-51s were designed from the onset with combat flaps, designed to be quite rugged
and could be used at almost any speed. Tight turns at low and medium speeds required flaps.

Sergio

JG52Karaya-X
03-02-2007, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Typical arguments.

My observations.

The Neorevisionists can never accept a P-51 that out performs the much worshiped Nazi fighters.
Even if the Allied pilot is describing the actual fight, the revisionists can not accept it.
What about when a German/Nazi pilot describes getting out run, out climbed or out turned
by a Allied fighter? Is that propaganda? Is it a statement made at gunpoint (60 years later). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like a very objective and unbiased view there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, Karaya, fuel was in short supply at the end, but rarely sub standard quality.
Allied fuel was of higher PN/Octane and may have been a bit better quality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So? The Bf109lateG and K could run with fuel as low as 87 octane and still put out it 1800-1850PS, try that with a contemporary Spit or Mustang, you're not gonna get far...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bf-109 performance varied so much from model to model that it is nearly impossible
to be sure of which version was involved in any described combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, thats why one shouldnt put so much emphasis on pilot quotes, you will always find an anecdote to support whatever claim. Btw, in the Anderson video the 109s carry gunpods http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-51s were designed from the onset with combat flaps, designed to be quite rugged
and could be used at almost any speed. Tight turns at low and medium speeds required flaps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? You know the Bf109 had combat flaps at least from the E onwards (dont know about the earlier B, C and D versions), thats way before the P51 flew in any form http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

stathem
03-02-2007, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Really? You know the Bf109 had combat flaps at least from the E onwards (dont know about the earlier B, C and D versions), thats way before the P51 flew in any form http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What did the 109 pilot have to do to deploy those flaps?

ImpStarDuece
03-02-2007, 04:02 AM
...and they still wouldn't of made it a better turn fighter than the 109, which had better powerloading, similar wingloading and could use flaps as well.

fighter_966
03-02-2007, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Typical arguments.

My observations.

The Neorevisionists can never accept a P-51 that out performs the much worshiped Nazi fighters.
Even if the Allied pilot is describing the actual fight, the revisionists can not accept it.
What about when a German/Nazi pilot describes getting out run, out climbed or out turned
by a Allied fighter? Is that propaganda? Is it a statement made at gunpoint (60 years later).

Yes, Karaya, fuel was in short supply at the end, but rarely sub standard quality.
Allied fuel was of higher PN/Octane and may have been a bit better quality.

Bf-109 performance varied so much from model to model that it is nearly impossible
to be sure of which version was involved in any described combat.

P-51s were designed from the onset with combat flaps, designed to be quite rugged
and could be used at almost any speed. Tight turns at low and medium speeds required flaps.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats difference between neorevisionist http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif (whatever that is) and nazi http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif concrerning this subject.....Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?You have interesting way to classify people btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifBut this is written in humour http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gifso carry on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

arrowtalon
03-02-2007, 09:03 AM
So I tried 1 v 1's in-game last night with a P-51D vs a 109G-10. In level flight, full throttle, I could not catch up to the 109's...

I think we can all agree that at altitude, the P-51 should be well faster.

I also noticed that the AI pilots were taking shots from .6 km away and hitting me. Totally unrealistic. The vast majority of kills were under .3 km.

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 09:06 AM
Is the 109 then a super bird in this game? Yeah, it is a nice one!

JG52Karaya-X
03-02-2007, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
So I tried 1 v 1's in-game last night with a P-51D vs a 109G-10. In level flight, full throttle, I could not catch up to the 109's...

I think we can all agree that at altitude, the P-51 should be well faster.

I also noticed that the AI pilots were taking shots from .6 km away and hitting me. Totally unrealistic. The vast majority of kills were under .3 km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has to do with the AI cheating in regards to engine management, etc. Try again with a real human taking the Bf109G10 and him trying to catch you in a P51.

Human vs AI doesnt proove anything

horseback
03-02-2007, 09:17 AM
On the fuel issue: each side developed their engines according to the fuels available to them. I can accept the claim that the captured 109s and 190s did not run well on Allied avgases because their engines were not optimized for that type of fuel.

I think a reasonable person would also be able to accept the concept that Allied engineers wouldn't waste a lot of time on developing engines that ran well on coal based fuels when they didn't need to.

On quality: by mid-1944, there was a lot of 'forced labor' from captive countries used in German aircraft manufacturing, including fighters. If you choose to believe that a Pole, a Jew or a Frenchman taken from his or her home and living in prison camp conditions wouldn't be less than conscientious in their efforts on military aircraft, even with strict overseers, think again.

Fit and finish alone can easily add or take away 15-20kph of your top speed, and the problems are not readily apparent to the naked eye. A radio improperly wired, a fuel line improperly secured, a bolt not quite tight, a weld not exactly right...there were a wealth of opportunities to 'get back' at your enslavors, and you know that those opportunities were often taken advantage of. Ask the survivors of those factories, or read a few concentration camp memoirs.

As to the gunpods in the Anderson video: that's TV, not the actual guncamera film and I don't recall hearing Anderson saying that he saw gunpods on his opponent in this case. It seems unlikely to me that a 109 driver with any sense would try a high alt bounce on four Mustangs with pods on his wings and leading a flight of less than veteran pilots.

Finally, Mustang climb: the Mustang over Germany was a lot lighter than the one that took off a couple of hours earlier, and it's strength was not only its power to weight ratio, but its aerodynamic efficiency. It had to be considerably less draggy to be faster and more fuel efficient than the much lighter Spitfires with near identical engines.

A Mustang with 60% fuel load was rated a pretty good climber, well ahead of the paddle blade P-47s and just a step behind the P-38. With an engine that continued to be quite efficient over 25,000ft, and very responsive handling in those conditions, a shallow dive and zoom would give the faster, heavier, more slippery & controllable aircraft a significant head start over a lighter, draggier aircraft with a similar power to weight ratio.

Further, it wouldn't be readily apparent to anyone but the pilots flying the participating aircraft, and maybe not even to the guy in the lighter fighter.

cheers

horseback

arrowtalon
03-02-2007, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That has to do with the AI cheating in regards to engine management, etc. Try again with a real human taking the Bf109G10 and him trying to catch you in a P51.

Human vs AI doesnt proove anything </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally, I would agree with that. I should have also mentioned that I flew the 109G10 against P51's and had not trouble staying with them, turning with them (at high speed, high altitude, and low speed, low altitude), or out-climbing them.

In the 109, I never got touched and shot down every Mustang I faced. In the P-51, I could usually score one kill before the second 109 clipped me.

I am curious to hear more about how the AI cheats with engine management, however.

Manu-6S
03-02-2007, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Normally, I would agree with that. I should have also mentioned that I flew the 109G10 against P51's and had not trouble staying with them, turning with them (at high speed, high altitude, and low speed, low altitude), or out-climbing them.

In the 109, I never got touched and shot down every Mustang I faced. In the P-51, I could usually score one kill before the second 109 clipped me.

I am curious to hear more about how the AI cheats with engine management, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want to be serious since you seem not joking.

You should tell to us above all the difficulty settings you used and the initial altitude of the engagement.

You know, Ace AIs usually extend when they are in a faster planes (in many dogs I find myself chasing the AI at 8000m when the dog started at 4000m), so I find very strange for you to catch a P51 who's extending.

The AI cheat is really evident: did you never make a single player mission, with your plane as 8 and you see your squadmates who fly straight and climb away while you are at full throttle with closed radiator?

AIs cheat also in the roll rate (speed doesn't affect it), G-Force turn, diving speed and zooming speed.

Simply, limitations for the human player doesn't work for AI.

arrowtalon
03-02-2007, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The AI cheat is really evident: did you never make a single player mission, with your plane as 8 and you see your squadmates who fly straight and climb away while you are at full throttle with closed radiator?

AIs cheat also in the roll rate (speed doesn't affect it), G-Force turn, diving speed and zooming speed.

Simply, limitations for the human player doesn't work for AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't want to bog down this thread too much with this, but all difficulty settings, etc, were the same when I flew either aircraft. I was also surprised at catching the Mustangs after chasing 109's for several minutes...

I've also seen quotations by Oleg and Company saying that the AI use the same flight model. That isn't to say that Ace AI aren't perfect at not-stalling and so-forth. But I thought the new PF/46 flight model specifically eliminated any difference in AI and human flight models.

Hoenire
03-02-2007, 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 MrMojok:
Here is Anderson's account, and the CG recreation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

The guy who uploaded that to YouTube cut out a small part at about 2:05, where the stricken 109 pilot rolled his plane upside-down and held it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anderson - "I knew I had more energy."

Ta for the link.

arrowtalon
03-02-2007, 01:14 PM
I spoke to my brother last night. He's a n engineer and did reseach into airfoils, so he got a really good look at aerial dynamics over surfaces.

His conclusions after playing the sim for a while:

At high speed, he thought the laminar flow wing of the P-51 bled too fast in a turn. (We were going bloody fast, approaching 700 kph.)

He suggested a general problem with the flight model might be the failure of any engineer at this point to correctly model turbulent laminar flow well enough for a game.

There are essentially two regimes engineers use: turbulent laminar flow, and laminar flow. The P-51 fits in the latter, the 109 in the former. At speeds in between those extremes, it would be very hard to model. That gray area is unfortunately where most dogfights take place (300-450 kph approx.).

Badsight-
03-02-2007, 03:52 PM
no plane with a prop hanging out the front is going to have true laminar flow over its wings

not possible for warbirds

Trigger_88
03-02-2007, 03:56 PM
I think the in game p-51 cant turn well because of the fuselage gas tank being modeled as always full. The stang would be able to turn tighter if the snap/spin characteristics caused by the fuel tank in the fuselage were modeled correctly. Pilots said they would empty the fuesalage tanks on the way to the target so they would be empty when they got into combat.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-02-2007, 04:39 PM
Seriously people what does anything like this ever prove? It always and I mean always turns in My plane is better then you plane. Everyone always says they are not biased but clearly are as their past history in these forums shows.

Most of these threads are started by new guys who frankly just are not good. And of course its the plane. I know this because 5+ years ago I was one of them.

Its gettting silly with every 5 threads or so we get plane A is clearly better then plane B because so and so says so. And every single one ends up the same and usually locked. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

otpisan
03-02-2007, 05:04 PM
O.T.: Hellcat vs. Zero, including a great example of the randomnes of war-luck... I just adore this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ob3lvqowHo&NR



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

DKoor
03-02-2007, 05:26 PM
To respond to the video itself.
Great video.

What does it prove?
Bud Anderson to be superior pilot to his unfortunate and overconfident German opponent.

What did 109 do? Beginners mistake, he went into the fight vs. more enemies. Alone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
That and the fact that he went for a vertical 90?climb *after* he basically did the scissor evasive manoeuver tells us everything about the 109 pilot experience/quality.

Noone experienced underestimates his opponent.
You don't follow opponent who has more energy than you into vertical kill/be killed type of maneuver *unless* you are *sure* that you can destroy him. That scenario happens very rarely.

What Anderson did? He didn't followed him into scissors, he just zoomed up like you'll notice, 99% of P-51 pilots on WarClouds do. You'll get into 100 fights vs. P-51 on WarClouds and perhaps you could drag 101st P-51 to follow you into that manoeuver... even Spitfire cannot follow 109 in scissors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So, Anderson zoomed up with more energy, German recovered and went after him. Classic.
Now Anderson realized that he has upper hand and he used it...
That is what made him a good pilot. Proper judgement and respect for the opponent.
If he by any chance disrespected his German 'comrade' he would follow him into scissors thinking "I can kill him right now", and throw away all his advantage if he miss...

And there's that initial turn in which 4 P-51s get onto 4 109s tails... nothing weird either. I suppose 109s didn't drop their speeds on around 300km/h they tried to keep it up, high and 51s used that in their advantage.

In my opinion it was the man in charge that turn the tide in that fight, in this case Anderson.

MrMojok
03-02-2007, 06:20 PM
Good post Kuna http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

La7_brook
03-02-2007, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
@Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> if u watch that clip again u will see that the p51 had higher E to start with , most planes will bet the other plane with more E in that same type of fight

Sergio_101
03-03-2007, 03:05 AM
All piston fighters were under powered.
Mantaining E was essential and the pilot
that had the E had the edge.

Bf-109s out climbed P-51B/C/D.

Generaly this is true. (depending on model)
But IRL it is only at high angle of climb.

In a climb, as Bud Anderson described, the E remaining
is far more important.
Also, you Luftwhiners give climb way to much
importance in a dogfight.
Climbing in a high speed dogfight, while is
a nice edge to have it is suicidal to try to
escape by climbing.
Your opponents ammunition WILL out climb you.

Bud Anderson got away with a suicidal move to
escape.
He surely knows that he got lucky.

JG52Karaya-X , I have studied the internal workings
on all the "modern" V-12 aircraft engines.
the German engines were generaly much larger
in displacement than their Allied counterparts.
That is how they made good power with poor PN fuels
like the 87 grade.
Even with high PN fuels like 115/145 it is VERY un likely
you could get more power since the way to get the greater
displacement is by longer stroke.
As a result you can not turn a DB-605 very fast.

American and British V-12s were more highly stressed
and posessed a more favorable bore stroke ratio, but were smaller.
the RR Griffon is an exception.

High boost pressures and high RPM allowed by higher PN fuels
made for the same or greater HP from a smaller engine.

Oh, yes, the BOB was fought mostly with 87 octane av gas.
Some Spitfire units got American ESSO 100 grade fuel.
Seems the Brits did pretty well on 87 grade fuel.

The much worshiped DB-605 had a miserable oil system.
Since the overall engineering and workmanship is excellent
I got to wonder how the Teutonic engineers got the oil system so wrong.

IMO the Junkers engines were the best Germany had to offer
with the possible exception of the P&W or Wright radials pirated by BMW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sergio

Fork-N-spoon
03-03-2007, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
@Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Unlike many people that I know, I have never worshiped anybody. For whatever reason, many WWII combat flight simulator enthusiasts worship WWII veterans as if they were Gods.

WWII veterans were/are human, thus fallible either intentionally or not. The more that you drag into a conversation/debate, the more chances there are for errors.

DKoor
03-03-2007, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Good post Kuna http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
03-03-2007, 07:27 AM
Sergio you need to learn that the Germans rated their fuel at lean mixture while the Brits and Yanks rated their fuel at rich mixture. German 87 (B4) fuel is equivelent to Allied 100 fuel. German C3 fuel had a rich mixture PN of between 130 and 150.

There was very few, if any, Spitfire squadrons that did not use 100 rich mixture rated fuel during BoB. Any 109s and 110s using the 601N engine required C3 fuel which at the time had a PN of ~120 (rich).

What is more important is the BMEP.

JG14_Josf
03-03-2007, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is how they made good power with poor PN fuels
like the 87 grade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel tests (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Engine%20Testing)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings burn less easily, yet are popularly thought of as more powerful. Using a fuel with a higher octane lets an engine be run at a higher compression ratio without having problems with knock. Compression is directly related to power, so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more power. Some high-performance engines are designed to operate with a compression ratio associated with high octane numbers, and thus demand high-octane gasoline. It should be noted that the power output of an engine also depends on the energy content of its fuel, which bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. Some people believe that adding a higher octane fuel to their engine will increase its performance or lessen its fuel consumption; this is false - engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating they were designed for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A high octane fuel such as LPG has a lower energy content than lower octane gasoline, resulting in an overall lower power output. However, with an engine tuned to the use of LPG this lower power output can be overcome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One interesting historical issue involving octane rating took place during WWII. Germany received nearly all her oil from Romania, and set up huge distilling plants in Germany to produce gasoline from coal. In the US the oil was not "as good" and the oil industry instead had to invest heavily in various expensive boosting systems. This turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise. US industry was soon delivering fuels of ever-increasing octane ratings by adding more of the boosting agents, with cost no longer a factor during wartime. By war's end American aviation fuel was commonly 130 to 150 octane, which could easily be put to use in existing engines to deliver much more power by increasing the compression delivered by the superchargers. The Germans, relying entirely on "good" gasoline, had no such industry, and instead had to rely on ever-larger engines to deliver more power.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, someone pointed out that: German aviation engines were of the direct fuel injection type and could use emergency methanol-water and nitrous-oxide injection, which gave 50% more engine power for 5 minutes of dogfight. This could be done only five times and then the aero engine went to the scrapyard (or after 40 hours run-time, whichever came first). Most German aero engines used 87 octane fuel (called B4), some high-powered engines used 100 octane (C2/C3)fuel.
Another pointed out in reply that: This historical "issue" is based on a very common misapprehension about wartime fuel octane numbers. There are two octane numbers for each fuel, one for lean mix and one for rich mix, rich being always greater. So, for example, a common British aviation fuel of the later part of the war was 100/125. The misapprehension that German fuels have a lower octane number (and thus a poorer quality) arises because the Germans quoted the lean mix octane number for their fuels while the Allies quoted the rich mix number for their fuels. Standard German high-grade aviation fuel used in the later part of the war (given the designation C3) had lean/rich octane numbers of 100/130. The Germans would list this as a 100 octane fuel while the Allies would list it as 130 octane.
After the war the US Navy sent a Technical Mission to Germany to interview German petrochemists and examine German fuel quality, their report entitled "Technical Report 145-45 Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany" chemically analysed the different fuels and concluded "Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighter planes was quite similar to that being used by the Allies". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RON (http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/kitcar/kb.php?aid=124)

AVGWarhawk
03-03-2007, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
@Jaws,

I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Unlike many people that I know, I have never worshiped anybody. For whatever reason, many WWII combat flight simulator enthusiasts worship WWII veterans as if they were Gods.

WWII veterans were/are human, thus fallible either intentionally or not. The more that you drag into a conversation/debate, the more chances there are for errors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly I do not see any worshipping here in my statement. I see a fellow who was there, reinacted the sequence of events, agreed with what was televised and put his name to it. I'm going to believe this individual first over a deskchair jockey. Errors or not. Until deskchair jockey is put in a simular situation with different outcome will I consider an alternate conclusion.

Sergio_101
03-03-2007, 10:47 AM
In USAF tech school we were taught that the
US system is Lean/Rich.
For example, 115/145 is 115 lean, 145 rich.
This is not counting water/alcohol ADI.
110-130, 115/145 and so on.
We were also taught that 100LL grade (a new grade at that time 1972)
was a lean rating by the RM2 method.

The 100 grade that arrived in Britian on the USS Beaconhill
just prior to the heating up of the BOB was 100-130.
Civillian grading is to call the fuel by it's lean grade.
100-130 military becomes 100 grade as ESSO sells it
at the dock.

I am aware of the difference in German grading. Thanks.

US fuels for Avgas were of high octane base, 80+ before additives.
That was because of a new high temprature cracking procedure.
NO one else used that procedure at that time.
Addition of TEL and other additives brought the mix
to the desired rating.

We watched a demonstration of how low octane fuel propagated
a flame MUCH faster than 115-145.

Contrary to popular belief the higher the octane the slower the burn rate
and more importantly the flame travel/propagation speed.

Also, increasing the octane rating beyond your needs will REDUCE power
and lower the specific power output (fuel economy).
best fuel for your application will have trace detonating at max BMEP.
Best for long engine life will not have any detonation.

Sergio

Kettenhunde
03-03-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I watched History Channel Fighter Series. It had the Old Crow episode. The 51 climbed because he know that the 51 could climb better than the 109 and the 109 would stall first. It happened just as he said it would. The 109 stalled and then the 51 finally stalled leaving the 51 on the 109's tail for the kill. Just something I had seen on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


IIRC from that episode, the Bf-109 pulled a defensive high-G left turn and then a high-G right turn to reverse. This led to the 109 being on the P51's tail when Anderson pulled straight up.

I would think the aircraft which did not pull the high G turns would have more energy regardless of the type.

All the best,

Crumpp

joeap
03-03-2007, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Good post Kuna http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that...Anderson won that fight, not the P-51. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Just like Hartmann won his fights, not the 109.

JG14_Josf
03-03-2007, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is how they made good power with poor PN fuels
like the 87 grade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am aware of the difference in German grading. Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So poor' means what exactly?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were two (2) grades of aviation gasoline produced in volume in Germany one the B-4 or blue grade and the other the C-3 or green grade. Both grades were loaded with the equivalent of 4.35 cubic centimeters tetraethyl lead per gallon. The B-4 grade was simply a fraction of the gasoline product from coal and coal tar hydrogenation. It contained normally 10 to 15 percent volume aromatics, 45 percent volume naphthenes, and the remainder paraffins. The octane number was 89 by a measurement corresponding to the C.F.R. motor method. The C-3 grade was a mixture of 10 to 15 percent volume of synthetic isoparaffins (alkylates and isooctanes) and 85 percent of an aromatized base stock produced by hydroforming types of operation on coal and coal tar hydrogenation gasolines. The C-3 grade was permitted to contain not more than 45 percent volume aromatics. This aromatic limitation sometimes required that the base stock component include some diluents other than the aromatic fraction, which could then be balanced if necessary by the inclusion of slightly more isoparaffin. (The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is B-4 a poor fuel compared to C-3 fuel?


-------------------------------------------------B-4-----------------C-3
Density at 59 deg F -------------------------0.710-0.760--------0.760-0.795
E.P. -------------------------------------------338 max.-----------356 max
Reid Vapor Pressure volume------------------7 max-------------6.3 max
Aromatic Content percent volume ---------- 25 max.---------- 45 max.


Is B-4 poor in energy content compared to C-3?

Is B-4 poor compared to American gasoline?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings burn less easily, yet are popularly thought of as more powerful. Using a fuel with a higher octane lets an engine be run at a higher compression ratio without having problems with knock. Compression is directly related to power, so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more power. Some high-performance engines are designed to operate with a compression ratio associated with high octane numbers, and thus demand high-octane gasoline. It should be noted that the power output of an engine also depends on the energy content of its fuel, which bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. Some people believe that adding a higher octane fuel to their engine will increase its performance or lessen its fuel consumption; this is false - engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating they were designed for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would happen if an engine designed for C-3 used American gasoline (87)?

Sergio_101
03-03-2007, 01:12 PM
German aviation fuels were not poor!
But they were of less octane than the fuels
refined in the US.
Reason is simple, the high temp cracking
developed to extract more light hydrocarbons
from crude oil (accidently) resulted in a low
hexane base fuel of roughly 80-90 octane!
This method is still in use.
(in 1939-1945 ONLY US refineries used this method).
The result is, after blending the PN could
be pushed to over 150.
Although not done in quantity during WWII
the PN could be pushed to over 200 lean 300 rich
with the addition of "triptane".

Were german fuels of poor quality? The answer is NO.

Were non American fuels of less PN/Octane? The answer is YES.

As to energy per a given volume, lower octane
fuels usualy are of higher energy.
This is NOT a set rule, but is usualy the case.

Sergio

Xiolablu3
03-03-2007, 01:24 PM
I am quite sure most RAF fighter squadrons in the BOB were using 100 Octane fuel.

I have een interviews with RAF pilots stating how greatful they were for the 100 Octane fuel from the USA which helped win the battle for them.

JG14_Josf
03-03-2007, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JG52Karaya-X , I have studied the internal workings
on all the "modern" V-12 aircraft engines.
the German engines were generaly much larger
in displacement than their Allied counterparts.
That is how they made good power with poor PN fuels
like the 87 grade.
Even with high PN fuels like 115/145 it is VERY un likely
you could get more power since the way to get the greater
displacement is by longer stroke.
As a result you can not turn a DB-605 very fast.

American and British V-12s were more highly stressed
and posessed a more favorable bore stroke ratio, but were smaller.
the RR Griffon is an exception. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">German aviation fuels were not poor! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
That is how they made good power with poor PN fuels
like the 87 grade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seemed reasonable to ask the question.

USA Gas (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The airplane is powered with a BMW 801-D engine, fourteen cylinder, twin row radial engine equipped with a two speed internal supercharger. Propeller pitch and fuel mixture are automatically controlled by the throttle setting and require no attention from the pilot. 140 grade fuel was used for all tests since this grade fuel corresponds to the fuel used by the Germans; 140 grade fuel is superior to standard 100 octane (130 grade) fuel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wondering,

A highly stressed engine makes more heat and/or requires more strength to handle the added stress and/or needs slower burning (lower energy) fuel to lower the stress?

Does higher stress tend to break down metal and therefore "make metal"?

The BMW (P&W copy only smaller?) used the B-4 fuel up until the Spring of 1942 with the introduction of the 801D-2.

Here:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Focke-Wulf 190A-3
BMW 801D-2 engine series production started in the Spring of 1942, to be introduced on all the Fw 190 production lines and led to the creation of a new variant, the Fw 190A-3. The increased power output of the BMW 801D-2 (rated at 1,730 HP) was achieved by increasing both the compression ratio in cylinders and the low and high speeds of the two-speed super-charger. Greater compression and super-charging pressure necessitated use of 96-octane C3 fuel, instead of the used 87 octane B4 fuel used before.

Focke-Wulf 190A-4
In July 1942 production of the A-3 was stopped in favour of the new Fw 190A-4.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source: FW 190 A/F/G/S Adam Skupiewski

The added stress of high compression and higher boost necessitated the slower burning (less energy) fuel or is that like putting the cart before the horse? Did the availability of the slower burning, higher octane, higher aromatic content, (lower energy) fuel allow the increase in compression and the increase in boost pressure?

The engine can handle the stress so long as detonation does not occur?

At some point every engine can be over boosted and/or set to an excessive compression ratio by reducing volume in the cylinder (larger piston or lower head clearance) and over-boosted to self-destruct in minutes due to higher heat and/or higher stress - no?

Use of 12 lb./sq. in. Boost Pressure (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Merlin II and III Use of + 12 lb./sq. in. Boost Pressure alterations and Precautions
(B55774/39. 20.3.40.)

2. The increased boost pressure obtained will be effective up to 10,000 ft. altitude, after which the boost will fall to the normal pressure at the operational height of the aeroplane.

3. The higher boost may be employed only in conjunction with the following: -
(i) Modified boost control cut-out valve (Mod. No. Merlin/154.)
(ii) Modified cylinder top joint (Mod. No. Merlin/64, 77, or 138).
(iii) 100 octane fuel must be used.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">11. The use, in an emergency, of this high boost pressure is a definite over-load condition on the engine and therefore all occasions on which it is essential to make use of the + 12 lb./sq. in. must be reported by the pilot and recorded in the engine log book so that the engineer officer may be able to assess the reduction in life between overhauls and need for special inspections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Old problems (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HANDLING of MERLIN in HURRICANE, SPITFIRE and DEFIANT AIRCRAFT

A resent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an indication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boost cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of + 12 lbs. per sq. in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstance demand it. Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion.

3. The introduction of Constant Speed Airscrews permits an increase in the rate of climb. This has led some pilots to climb their aircraft at too steep an angle, with the result that there is a considerably diminished forward speed and the engine does not receive the cooling which it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later on:

25 Nov 1942 (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The operational limitations of the Merlin 45 have been increased, the use of 3000 R.P.M. and +16lb/sq.in. boost being now permitted for periods not exceeding 3 minutes during combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thermostats were removed from the coolant system before the tests were made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The results show that the rate of climb is increased by about 1,100 ft/min. below 8,800 ft. by the use of combat rating. Above this height the increase is less, falling to 300 ft/min. at 15,000 ft.

It will be noted that in the tables and figures, the time to height is given as if combat power was used throughout the climb. These figures, of course, cannot be obtained in practice without exceeding the permitted time limit. The curve is useful, however, as it gives the height that can be covered in the permitted 3 minutes at combat power.

In level flight the maximum level true airspeed is higher by about 35 m.p.h. below 13,000 ft.; above this height the increase in speed is less and falls to zero at 19,900 ft., the full throttle height at normal rating. The speed difference below 16,000 ft. is obtained by extrapolation of the normal rating curve.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

arrowtalon
03-03-2007, 04:38 PM
I want to recant some of what I posted earlier.

I think alot of the "overmodelled" effects we see are due to things that have nothing to do with particular planes or flight model.

To note the P-51 specifically: I've noticed it handles much better at lower fuel levels, as American vets would have had when reaching combat. Does anyone know if the Mustang Mk III's fuel tanks were mounted/balanced differently from the P-51?

I think the 109 still has some bugs, but after researching this a bit more, I think the FM is about 90% correct. The stability at extremely low speed turns begs scrutiny.

I did also find an account (and forgot to save the url) of a P-51 pilot describing the instability we see in-game at low speed. He said that they would drain the center fuel tank first, along with drop tanks. When they reached combat with the central tank empty, they planes were much more stable and maneuverable. In CFS you could select the fuel source by tank number... Anyone know if we can do that in IL-2? I couldn't find a way.

joeap
03-03-2007, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arrowtalon:
In CFS you could select the fuel source by tank number... Anyone know if we can do that in IL-2? I couldn't find a way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 for CFS, one thing that series (I did like CFS 1 and 2, never wasted my cash on 3) did right. No we can't in Il-2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

La7_brook
03-03-2007, 08:20 PM
watching that vid i see the late mod 109g in steep dive with the mustang doing 400mph , now he said the 109 pulled a hard turn in dive and he mustang could not follow ,giveng the over shoot and given the 109 his six , point is try this in game with 400kpm lock up on 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Pinker15
03-04-2007, 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 La7_brook:
watching that vid i see the late mod 109g in steep dive with the mustang doing 400mph , now he said the 109 pulled a hard turn in dive and he mustang could not follow ,giveng the over shoot and given the 109 his six , point is try this in game with 400kpm lock up on 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First when 109 was doing 400mph P51 was have propably around 420mph . For me Anderson could not pull afther 109 not because of low elevator autority but because higher speed what could lead to black out. Seccond he knows that 109 can slow down much faster than P51 and following this manover is wishing of death because of overshoot at low speed. Overshoot happened anyway but P51 keeps hes higher E state at time when 109 was loosing it. Thats why 109 was outclimbed in zoom climb. Many players here can say that Anderson got luck in that climb that he was not shooted. Its not quite like this because in real gunnery is much more difficult than in game. Its difficult esspecially when U fly 109 in a zoomclimb when yours speed is loosing rapidly, plane becomes unstable and target is small from dead six. That at high speeds, 109 had verry stiff elevator not necessary means that he could not do one or two sharp turns. U could do that when U are strong and helped yourself by use of trims. It becames a problem when U must do few more and pilot became to be tired that could not pull any one more. At this aspect P51 had great advantage. Propably thats why P51's could do high speed turns and 109's dont. In ours game I dont see any elevator lockups at high speed at any plane even on P38 but I use alot of trimming

BfHeFwMe
03-04-2007, 11:27 AM
Bud can consider himself lucky the 109 jock didn't have his prop mapped to a slider.

Pinker15
03-04-2007, 01:59 PM
I thought that can be somekind interresting for some of U guys. Link to relation of nice P51 MkIII vs 109's dogfight.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/cwynar/cwynar.htm

MrMojok
03-04-2007, 08:07 PM
"With the fuselage fuel tank still full and the Mustang's adverse lateral stability, there wasn't much room for imaginative maneuvering, so I had to hold a steady, smooth turn. With a few hundred revs always in reserve, I held on patiently. For 360 degree circle or more there was stalemate. I lowered flaps 10 degrees and was gaining on him.".

"When Mustang's speed dropped to 220-240 mph, by lowering 10 degrees of flaps the pilot could get on to his opponent's tail in no time."

Uh-oh... a lot of our gaming community isn't gonna like this. Get the popcorn ready.

TheBandit_76
03-04-2007, 11:09 PM
109 turning too well fellers.

We've known for a while.

La7_brook
03-04-2007, 11:58 PM
elevator autority at 400kph is too low for late mod 109,s in game too its RL counter parts ,even going by that vet flying that p51 in the vid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Abbuzze
03-05-2007, 01:55 PM
Found some interesting Dokuments:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/matcom109g.html

109G6 with bad trim and elevator setup, weapons not mentioned

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Pilot's Comments on ME 109G, AAF No. EB-102, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
1 March 1944

E. General Comparisons

1. Advantages over U.S. AAF Aircraft.

The airplane has a higher rate of climb than most of our fighters. The automatic propeller control is good as it automatically gives the proper RPM for a given throttle setting thus relieving the pilot considerably. The gun sight is small, more compact than ours, and far easier to change a bulb.

2. Disadvantages over U.S. AAF Aircraft.

It is not as maneuverable, does not have the range, and has inferior visibility to practically all our first line fighters.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this one is a G6 with Gunpods, remeber they reduce performance by 20-25 km/h in Topspeed and also turning and climbing. By this test the 109 was 7mph slower at certain alt without gunpods the 109 would be 8mph faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
A.F.D.S Report No.147

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE LF.IX


Speeds
17. The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h. When 25 lbs.boost is employed in the Spitfire it is about 25 m.p.h. faster at heights below 15,000 feet and 7 m.p.h. faster at heights in excess of 15,000 feet.

Climb
18. The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.


TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH THE MUSTANG III USING 18 LBS. BOOST

Range and Endurance
37. In view of the fuel capacity of the Mustang III, the Me.109 is obviously at a great disadvantage as far as range and endurance are concerned.

Speeds
38. The comparison between the Mustang and the Me.109 found that the Mustang possesses the advantage in speed even at 16,000 feet (the rated altitude of the Me.109). At this height the Mustang was approximately 30 m.p.h. faster than the Me.109 and at 30,000 feet the advantage in speed possessed by the Mustang increased to 50 m.p.h.

Climbs
39. The Me.109 has a slightly better rate of climb up to 20,000 feet, but between 20,000 and 25,000 feet the Mustang has a very slight advantage. When the aircraft are dived and subsequently climbed there is very little to choose between their performance.

Dive
40. The comparison of the respective merits of the two aircraft in dives proved that the Me.109 is steadily out-dived by the Mustang III and as the dive is prolonged the Mustang gains appreciably.

Turning Circle
41. Here again the Mustang has no difficulty at all in out-turning the Me.109 in either direction.

Rate of Roll
42. The rate of roll of both aircraft is almost identical.

Conclusion
43. From the forgoing, it is apparent that the Mustang III has a formidable advantage over the Me.109 in all respects except climb, but even this disadvantage will be cancelled if the Mustang has the initial advantage of a high speed overtaking speed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 109 with gunpods is similar in climbs with slight advantages depending to altitude. And both has a identical roll rate?