PDA

View Full Version : bfs turned better than spitfires in real life



raaaid
05-28-2004, 07:46 AM
at instant turn bfs had a better turning rate than spitfires, only in holded turning spitfires were superior

i dont think this is well modelled in the game the bfs have many disadvantages and only the climbing advantange they should also turn better at least at instant turning

raaaid
05-28-2004, 07:46 AM
at instant turn bfs had a better turning rate than spitfires, only in holded turning spitfires were superior

i dont think this is well modelled in the game the bfs have many disadvantages and only the climbing advantange they should also turn better at least at instant turning

Huckebein_UK
05-28-2004, 08:05 AM
Only early '109s mate - from Gustav onwards they were pigs in any type of turn. Physically speaking, the '109 airframe was capable of tighter turns than a Spit, but in RL the Spit was a lot more stable in a tight turn, which meant it could always out-turn a '109. A Spit would catch up with a Bf after about 0.5 - 1 second's turning.

--------------
Huckebein_UK
http://www.fpscentral.com/uploads/sig_copy17.jpg
http://www.fpscentral.com/uploads/sig1_copy2.jpg
Il2skins.com for skins http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-28-2004, 08:18 AM
Dont believe it..... where did you get your info? Any sources to back yourself up?

Bf's had higher wing loading and similar power loading to the Spitfire I thru V and then the Spits improved while the 109's went slowly down the drain. All pilot accounts i have read, from both sides of the Channel, ALWAYS state that the Spit had a better turning circle, better turning speed and were less likely to stall in sustained slow speed fights.

This means that a Spit should be able to out turn a 109 in any form of sustained turn. Snap spins and rolls i can believe the Spit would get beat, marginally anyway. The Emil and Freidrich were damned good turn fighters as well as superior B'n'Zers to the early Spits. When the Spit finally moved towards aluminium covered alierons and thicker skinning on the wings they created a great BnZ and TnB fighter in the late mark V and later types.

Will post some figures on the wing loading of the BFs vs the Spit (BoB figures anyway) tomorrow. Its late and i jkinda need to sleep http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

NorrisMcWhirter
05-28-2004, 08:30 AM
Hi,

In a recent comparison between the 109E and BoB Spit (Mk1?), an ex-Spitfire pilot said that the Spitfire didn't necessarily turn any better/worse than the Spitfire but that the Spitfire gave a lot more confidence to the pilot as you had more warning as to when a stall would occur.

I would think that he would have had to have had combat experience in a 109E to suggest this or maybe he saw 109s that he had engaged stalling out often.

So, perhaps it could be said that an experienced 109E pilot could outturn a rookie Spit pilot but that with pilots of equal skill, the Spitfire could probably be used to greater effect in a turn.

Which is odd because, in FB, the 109E is a dog to turn whereas the Spit VB turns on a sixpence.

Cheers,
Norris

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

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-28-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_UK:
Only early '109s mate - from Gustav onwards they were pigs in any type of turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't lead ballast the Gs you know. Even from F-2 to K-4 there wasn't the kind of weight different you imply. And the thrust increase made up for much of it (as well as aero improvments on the K).

However, it was the G-6 that were the real change. People argue the G-2 as the very beginning, but, you're talking about a few kilos difference in weight, and a good deal more thrust. Kozedub felt that the G-2 was the most agile and capable of the 109s (Ivan had the quote in his sig for a long time, not sure if it's still there or not).

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

SeaFireLIV
05-28-2004, 08:40 AM
Why is raaaid always complaining? It`s like he looks for new things to whine about? Say something positive at least once, m8!

Zyzbot
05-28-2004, 08:41 AM
this link has some thoughts about the relative turning ability of the Spitfire and Me-109.

I remember reading somewhere that Adolf Galland claimed he could outturn the early Spitfires in his 109E at slow speeds..


http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm

k5054
05-28-2004, 11:13 AM
This is the worst situation in which to accept anecdotal evidence without scepticism. Why? The pilots in many cases don't know what aircraft they are up against. Germans claimed Spitfires in the desert fighting long before the spits arrived, and carried on claiming them in places where spitfires were not, and at twice the rate of hurricanes in the BoB although twice as many hurris were in fact shot down.. British pilots claimed He113s, which did not exist. Many other examples back up this point. They are also in no position to say what is going on in the other cockpit. Are they really co-speed? Is the other guy really pulling as much g as he can?
If you want to compare instantaneous turning rates, compare the 1g clean stall speed. That takes care of all the differences in wing area and Cl, and the slats. But beware, the stall speed in the manual or other ref is always IAS, and the indicator does not work without error at stall speed, so a correction must be made. Spitfire II stalled at 73mph (in the manual, 80 corrected), the French tested the 109E with flt test instrument as a corrected 96mph.

As an aside, I'd appreciate any input as to stall speeds of any WW2 fighter types.

raaaid
05-28-2004, 12:00 PM
ill show first instantaneous then holded turning rate in grades per second at sea level:

spitfire I : 39.7-24.2

spitfire IX: 36.9-28.0

bf109e:41.0-23.2

bf109g:39.9-23.2

I got this from the oficial book of microsoft cfs i suppose the guy got it from real life fonts

nixon-fiend.
05-28-2004, 12:10 PM
^ Damn, I guess we can't argue with that now can we!

Cos everybody here knows and respects CFS's FMs and data sources much more than biased ol' IL2.

Raaaid, go buy your head in the sand.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
05-28-2004, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raaaid:
I got this from the oficial book of microsoft cfs i suppose the guy got it from real life fonts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you go fellas, Microsoft is always correct http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

"Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary force:
You are about to embark upon a Great Crusade toward which we have strived these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking" - Gen. Dwight D. Eiseinhower-Supreme Allied Commander.

www.vultures-row.com (http://www.vultures-row.com)

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

In a recent comparison between the 109E and BoB Spit (Mk1?), an ex-Spitfire pilot said that the Spitfire didn't necessarily turn any better/worse than the Spitfire but that the Spitfire gave a lot more confidence to the pilot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That should be key.

If in real life, a combat pilot is unwilling to take the risk of executing a manuever because of the aircraft's reputation, he is very unlikely to ever execute the manuever, no matter what testing or calculated data says, because his experience says it's more dangerous to fly the manuever than the enemy is.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by raaaid:
i suppose the guy got it from real life fonts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So should we just say we suppose you are wrong? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

ajafoofoo
05-28-2004, 12:18 PM
Sorry, but while IL2 may have some FM issues, any data you show comming from the mircosoft cfs series is less than useless.

It's not even a high enough standard to use for a cell shaded cartoon WWII flight combat arcade game.

HART_dreyer
05-28-2004, 12:25 PM
In turn fights I don't have too much trouble with the Spitfire in a 109 G6/AS. It is a very good challenge however.

Regards,
dreyer
the dreyer vs. Hartmann game! (http://www.dreyermachine.com/il2/)

BlitzPig_DDT
05-28-2004, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
As an aside, I'd appreciate any input as to stall speeds of any WW2 fighter types.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F6F-5 stall speeds -
Clean Power On - 62kts / 71.35mph / 114.82 kph
Power Off - 65kts / 74.8mph / 120.38 kph

Full "Dirty" Power On - 53kts / 61mph / 98.16 kph
Power Off - 58kts / 66.75mph / 107.416 kph

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

ploughman
05-28-2004, 02:00 PM
I remember reading that BoB Spits didn't necessarily turn better than contemporary Bf-109s, but everyone thought they did including 109 pilots.

Unrelatedly, the BoB ace Bob Doe used to fly with a little bit of rudder so that his nose wasn't quite pointing in the direction he was actually flying. On the occasions he got jumped he would see tracer to the side of his aircraft as Nazi fighters tried deflection shots on him. Pretty nifty, eh?

J30Vader
05-28-2004, 02:00 PM
Len Deighton's book Fighter has a diagram of the turning circles of the 109E, Spit I and Hurri I.

For a speed of 300mph at 10,000' in a vertical banked turn:

109: 750' W/L 25lbs/sqrft
Hurri: 800' 22lbs
Spit : 880' 24 lbs

This assumes a 1/2 fuel load.

In theory, the 109 could outturn both.

Take this for what it's worth. I make no claims.

ElektroFredrik
05-28-2004, 03:50 PM
I believe what Norris said is quite correct.
109s had a theoretically better turn rate but no
stall warning, while Spits had a tiny bit lesser
turn rate but a lot more stall warning.

Summary:
109 pilot: will not push the envelope due to
possible nasty surprise (i.e. stall, spin or whatever)

Spit pilot: good stall warning from buffeting
and such, therefore able to fly on the edge

Just my .02 euros...

http://www.scarysquirrel.org/ksk/tuftycard3.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels" - Jane Waterman, Ph.D.
Flying online as Furvert_Elektro

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 04:34 PM
according to naca rep. no 713, 714 & 715 N.A.C.A., the E had a better sustained roll rate then the spitmk1 but the spitmk1 had a improved sustained rate of turn. The F model did too but not the G.

Also the

p40e
hurricane
p36
h75

have a faster roll rate and sustained rate of turn then the spitfire mk1, 109e and F

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

raaaid
05-29-2004, 05:33 AM
im confused with real life turning and game turning

in european air war the one who turned at a slower speed (full throttle on)would turn tighter and faster

in cfs2 the one who was closer to 250-260 while turning won (this is more real life like)

now in 2.1 it seems to depend on the plane whether you go close to stall(to turn at the slower speed) or you keep it at 250-260 for the best turning performance

ive seen charts of the la vs 109g published in this forum that clearly show that once you go under 260 you lose turning ratio

so at holded turning rate you wouldn keep close at stall you would keep close at stall at instant turning rate when you exchange as fast as posible E for turn

what i think is that if they model a plane like the la (unreal) they could model BOB with the spitfires and bfs equall because if theres someone who says that spits turn better someone could argue the bfs turned better

BBB_Hyperion
05-29-2004, 05:42 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/1092spitturn.tif

nt .)

Regards,
Hyperion

Chuck_Older
05-29-2004, 06:52 AM
raaaid,

I'm not sure how you are confused between game turning and real life turning.

Game turn- you aren't going to really die if you screw up

real life turn- you are in real danger of becoming a greasy spot on the ground if you screw up

game turn- based on flight model information

real life turn- based on the actual structure of the airplane, which doesn't give a damn what the blueprints say, it does what the aerodynamics make it do

game turn- can be changed by reveiwing facts or considering new developments in the flight model

real life turn- ain't changing

game turn- unaffected by several factors, such as the ability to select fuel tanks

real life turn- affected by every little thing, no omissions, it's not numbers plugged into a game engine, it's for-real. If it's on the plane, the effects of that are going to show up, plain and simple


game turn- unaffected by random chances of failure, but when damaged by gunfire, systems fail completely or not at all

real life turn- things break sometimes, but there is a redundancy of controls. For example- the Hurricane had a double redundancy- four sets. (not four control columns, obviously)


European air war was fun, and CFS2 was as well. What I cannot understand myself is why you choose to compare them to Il*2:FB when speaking of "real life vs. game". If you want to compare FB to real life, then do that. Comparing FB to older flight sims is simply a case of examining the evolution of the flight model. If that seems confusing, let me ask you this:

What makes you think EAW or CFS2's flight models should be an example of right or wrong flight characteristics?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

JG27_Dacripler
05-29-2004, 06:53 AM
I found out while playing this game there are a lotta planes that don't seem just right.
But I found out I was right and I deal with it.
I am honored everytime he graces Hyperlobby. Mr Monroe Williams. I note his factual and quick responses about his recollection of flight performance of the P-47 and take that to heart over any developer.
As good as a game can get, I doubt many of the aircraft in IL2-FB AEP are historically correct.
No mattter how you look at things on a computer, to tweak and change certain attributes (DM/ FM).. I doubt the accuracy of any airplane in this game is true to life.
Not direspecting Oleg, he has given us all nice samples of these bygone aircraft the best he could given the code he wrote the game. I think by the compairison of other WW2 prop sims this one "feels" the most authentic in my perception. (enjoy it and make the best of what ya have)

ericson
05-29-2004, 08:56 AM
The turns for the fighters in Len Deightons book refer to theoretical turn rates. At this maximum turn the 109E was pulling 8.1G. Pilots pass out at 4 or 5 G. At 9G the airframe would start to break up. Its too complex a subject to give a definate answer to. Some pilots fly at 10 tenths others others at 8 tenths. Also dud planes need to be taken into account. Squadron accounts on both sides refer to these dud planes that pilots would avoid flying and often ended up in the hands of novice pilots.

raaaid
05-29-2004, 09:05 AM
i compare this game with other version and real life because i think the flying model of cfs2 was better compared with real life.

there are many things that make not sense to me:

for example if the bfs are able to turn at much lower speed shouldnt they be better turners? I even try to keep them at 260 but that doesnt work either

Kondor99
05-29-2004, 10:09 AM
Guys, when flying a real airplane, stall warning and stability at the "edge" is the real determinant of how much use you can make of your wing loading, etc. This opinion shows up time and again when reading accounts by actual pilots. The planes in IL-2 are all inherently completely predictable and the 'pilot' is therefore able to exploit their capabilities to a degree which would have been highly dangerous in a real life situation.

Simply put, the ME109 was never (when flown by AVERAGE PILOTS) able to exploit its turning ability due to its propensity to snap roll without much warning in an accelerated stall. This, of course, did not apply to the 'experten' who knew the a/c like the backs of their hands.

I really think some of the people who post to this board should go out and get just a few flight lessons to see what it's like to just fly a docile trainer, much less a fire-breathing beast like these old warbirds.

horseback
05-29-2004, 10:47 AM
One of the reasons that 109 drivers originally hit upon the 'zoom & boom' tactic was the perceived superior maneuverability of RAF Hurricanes, French Hawk 75s, and later on, Spitfires, which had the added liability of being about as fast as the 109.

Early 109s also had a reputation for losing wings, attested to by memoirs of pilots on both sides. Whether or not the a/c in question had been hit by enemy fire, the sight of a friend and comrade losing a wing during a tight turn will make a profound impression on you, and probably affect your future decisions about taking the same risks in the same model of a/c. After a while, entering a turning fight becomes nearly unthinkable, especially if you've been successful using other tactics.

As for the great successes in North Africa, there's the little matter of a thing called the Vokes'filter, which knocked Hurricane and Spitfire performance down a couple of notches compared to the aerodynamically superior filters mounted on the 109 and Macchi fighters. The 109F models didn't enjoy nearly the same level of success on the Channel Front, and was largely replaced by the FW-190 for that reason.

Finally, there's the matter of reliability. All the figures I have indicate that LW fighter Gruppe did not enjoy the same level of 'availability' or aircraft 'up time' that their Western opponents had. As the war ground on, they often had less than 2/3 of their available planes operational for maintenance reasons. I don't know about you, but if my car has a major breakdown, I never have the same level of confidence in it again. I would expect that a pilot who had a bird **** out on him (particularly in combat) might have a certain hesitance about pushing that aircraft to its limits.

Given the demands that the 109, and especially the later models, made on the pilot just to take off and land, I don't see a lot of them being willing to test its theoretical turning ability.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Stanger_361st
05-29-2004, 02:57 PM
Qoute:Summary:
109 pilot: will not push the envelope due to
possible nasty surprise (i.e. stall, spin or whatever)

Spit pilot: good stall warning from buffeting
and such, therefore able to fly on the edge:

In real life yes but in this game stalling out is not a problem because you can recover.
I see online all the time 109 and 190's Fish flopping and stalling out on purpose and recover as you zoom by.
Maybe stalls need to be much harder for all planes to recover.

CV8_Dudeness
05-29-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Bf's had higher wing loading and similar power loading to the Spitfire I thru V and then the Spits improved
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wing & power loading dont tell the whole story

Bf-109 E's turned just about as tight as the Mk1 Spitfires but were harder to fly at the limit

Spitfires were eaiser to handel at their limit than Bf109s were

the Bf109 E gave the Bf109s the heavy elevator reputation

& it was at high speed that it came on strong ..... not the slow speeds that it does in FB

BlitzPig_DDT
05-29-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
Qoute:Summary:
109 pilot: will not push the envelope due to
possible nasty surprise (i.e. stall, spin or whatever)

Spit pilot: good stall warning from buffeting
and such, therefore able to fly on the edge:

In real life yes but in this game stalling out is not a problem because you can recover.
I see online all the time 109 and 190's Fish flopping and stalling out on purpose and recover as you zoom by.
Maybe stalls need to be much harder for all planes to recover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, if I ever get the time (and energy) I'll have to try to dig it up but, I recall seeing a lot on the 109 stall and it was always described as gentle and easy to deal with.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Stanger_361st
05-29-2004, 08:28 PM
Quote:Hmmm, if I ever get the time (and energy) I'll have to try to dig it up but, I recall seeing a lot on the 109 stall and it was always described as gentle and easy to deal with."

I am not doubting that this might be true. I was pointing out that if it was true that German pilots did not fly plane to the edge because of fear of stalling, then their was some penalty of stalling in real life not like it is in this sim.

Chadburn
05-29-2004, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
Quote:Hmmm, if I ever get the time (and energy) I'll have to try to dig it up but, I recall seeing a lot on the 109 stall and it was always described as gentle and easy to deal with."

I am not doubting that this might be true. I was pointing out that if it was true that German pilots did not fly plane to the edge because of fear of stalling, then their was some penalty of stalling in real life not like it is in this sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The penalty of stalling was simply that the enemy would rapidly gain an e advantage and be on your six. RL pilots couldn't hit "Refly" like we can, so stalling out in a dogfight (whether a gentle stall or not)could be a deadly error.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg