PDA

View Full Version : Oleg please fix the spit turnrate



gkll
05-22-2004, 02:09 AM
My son and I flew the 109G2 against the spit lf vb in patched and pre-patched, in a series of 'no shot' trials. We would make a breaking turn into each other and try and stay horizontal, after entering at around 400.
The first one to have to start slicing to maintain turn rate would then start a spiral down. Then we'd furball it into the ground until all the e was gone. No shooting but after the horizontal turns try and get the guys six

It was a good format and was quite informative,

The spit Vb is porked for e-retention and turn rate. In pre-patch form the Vb can fairly certainly beat a G2 in that kind of fight. Post patch it's a lot tougher. Of course the G2 might be slightly better too.... didn't check.

But the Spits sure felt different.

Tomorrow we'll set up a blind comparison. We'll fly the two versions of the game and try and guess which is which.

People who have access to data should post some spit turn rate info and whatever else might be handy and let's get this fixed gentlemen.

gkll
05-22-2004, 02:09 AM
My son and I flew the 109G2 against the spit lf vb in patched and pre-patched, in a series of 'no shot' trials. We would make a breaking turn into each other and try and stay horizontal, after entering at around 400.
The first one to have to start slicing to maintain turn rate would then start a spiral down. Then we'd furball it into the ground until all the e was gone. No shooting but after the horizontal turns try and get the guys six

It was a good format and was quite informative,

The spit Vb is porked for e-retention and turn rate. In pre-patch form the Vb can fairly certainly beat a G2 in that kind of fight. Post patch it's a lot tougher. Of course the G2 might be slightly better too.... didn't check.

But the Spits sure felt different.

Tomorrow we'll set up a blind comparison. We'll fly the two versions of the game and try and guess which is which.

People who have access to data should post some spit turn rate info and whatever else might be handy and let's get this fixed gentlemen.

Tetrapharmakoi
05-22-2004, 02:13 AM
The G2 turns with the Spit IX ,there is nothing wrong here ,it is normal .

gkll
05-22-2004, 02:40 AM
Well a couple of things Tetra.

First the wing loading, power loading and the anecdotal evidence certainly suggest the spit was better than the G2. There's already been a thread on this and some data - that plus all my reading and I guess I just weigh in favor of the spit.

Second there seems to be a distinct difference between patches. So the first one was wrong? or what?


And then finally, and I'll test it more rigorously, the Vb post-patch hardly out-turned the IX. The point is that this is correct historically, the two were in reality quite close. So this is not a IX problem, this is a Spit problem generally.

Naturally it is possible that it has been fixed - now it is right. I think not, though

Tetrapharmakoi
05-22-2004, 02:54 AM
I am sorry but in IL -2 Compare , the spit V clearly outturns the IX below 200 mph , but maybe you are right that the spit changed from 2.0 to 2.01 .
The Spit IX was more heavy than the V ,but with my respect, i think you under estimate thet turn ability of the 109 G2 which was outstanding, i think the planes were pretty equal regarding the turn ability .

gkll
05-22-2004, 03:11 AM
I haven't read the thread I admit but I just noticed one about P51's outturning spits. OK that relationship is well documented - think about the numerous anecdotes about P51's vs Spits. Those Brits and Yanks would have been mixing it up every time they met, and I think the rule was that P51s had to keep their speed up against IX's, and avoid a turn fight. That kind of weight of evidence is hard to discount as 'subjective' - so Tetra never mind the G2 maybe the previous Spit was about right?

Zen--
05-22-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:

Second there seems to be a distinct difference between patches. So the first one was wrong? or what?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't comment about the Spit vs G2 turn performance, but I will say that FM tweaks are normal when a new plane is introduced into the game. Most of the time E retention is a little too generous for new planes and must be toned down in subsequent patches, it appears we are seeing this with the Spits right now.

-Zen-

HamishUK
05-24-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tetrapharmakoi:
I am sorry but in IL -2 Compare , the spit V clearly outturns the IX below 200 mph , but maybe you are right that the spit changed from 2.0 to 2.01 .
The Spit IX was more heavy than the V ,but with my respect, i think you under estimate thet turn ability of the 109 G2 which was outstanding, i think the planes were pretty equal regarding the turn ability .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit outurned G models everytime!

See my Boscombe down report!

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

biggs222
05-26-2004, 12:49 PM
its true the spit turn rate is wrong....you cant even out turn a G-6, its unbelievable, and pathetic

Hunde_3.JG51
05-26-2004, 12:59 PM
Me and squad leader are going to try some stuff out, but if the 109's and P-51's are out-turning the Spitfire IX something is very wrong IMO. Not sure about the G-2 (but I think Spifire should be better) or F-4, I'll let others discuss that.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

biggs222
05-26-2004, 01:02 PM
Here you go, more proof that the mkIX easliy outturned the 109G series

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html


it is so pbvious that the spit turn rate is off, Its on par with giving the FW a bad roll rate or the P47 a slow dive rate.

lets get it right oleg please.

Faustnik2
05-26-2004, 01:03 PM
Hunde,

You will find that the Spit IX out-turns the G6 until 290kph is reached. Once speeds drop below 290kph, the G6 will turn inside the Spit.

Faustnik2
05-26-2004, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
Here you go, more proof that the mkIX easliy outturned the 109G series

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html


it is so pbvious that the spit turn rate is off, Its on par with giving the FW a bad roll rate or the P47 a slow dive rate.

lets get it right oleg please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Biggs,

I agree with your conclusion but, I think that 109G6-U2 in that test (Werk-Nr 41 2951) had underwing cannons.

biggs222
05-26-2004, 01:12 PM
it dosent decrease the turn rate much and anyway the finding s said it EASILY outturn the 109G so if the G didnt have the pod the mkIX would most likely still out turn the G not quite as pronounced but still out turn it.

and even in combat the pilots noted that the mkIX outturned the G series.....it really is ludicris that the spit turns the way it does now.

Im not asking for the spit to do bat turns around the G i am just asking for soem difference in turn rate in the spits favor because that is what it was realyl like. not an uber spit just a realistic one.

VW-IceFire
05-26-2004, 01:54 PM
Thats the same series of combat trials as conducted for the Tempest V as I recall.

The Tempest V tactical trials mentions this comment with regards to turn circle in comparison with the 109G and the Tempest V.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of this I am highly suspicious of because all the research I've done puts the Tempest in between the FW190 and faster turners like the P-51. This was something that had me confused for quite some time.

The underwing cannons make quite a performance difference (in terms of feel anyways) in the game so you may want to try the tests with the cannons installed and see what its like.

So not to throw more fuel on the fire...but I am unsure of these results.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

JtD
05-26-2004, 01:59 PM
Underwing pods have a huge effect on turning. It's not the weight, but they disturb the airflow over the wing. It can and will most certainly have effects in the range of 5 to 15% in turning. That's 20 or 23 seconds, for example.

gates123
05-26-2004, 02:13 PM
flight models seem fine to me if you use elevator trim properly, if not then you have no right to whine and need to graduate from flight school first before complaining to the forum http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/index_photos/gunslinging.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

p1ngu666
05-26-2004, 02:42 PM
trim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
u know trim doesnt effect the planes ability to turn or some such?
u can do impossible turns with trim

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:15 PM
Salute

Ok, I was hoping this would not go public, and it could be dealt with privately with Oleg, but since it has:

In turning, the most important factor is the lift generated by the wing. A wing which carries less weight (ie. has lower wingloading) generates more lift. It's as simple as that. And high lift when the aircraft is banked in a turn, is what turns it.

Powerloading plays an important role in SUSTAINED turnrate, but only in allowing the aircraft to maintain its speed. Powerloading does not change the lift of the wing and the point at which a wing will lose lift and stall. Higher wingloaded aircraft with good powerloading can maintain their turns better, but the circumference of their turn is still governed by the lift generated by their highly loaded wing.

There are two different issues. Turn circle and and turnrate.

A highly wingloaded aircraft with good powerloading will typically do a large circumference turn circle at higher speeds. It can maintain that large circumference turn for longer periods. A lower wingloaded aircraft, with lower powerloading will do a smaller circumference turn, but will have to back off the tightness of the turn after a short time due to speed bleed as a result of its poor powerloading.

What this means is that the lower wingloaded aircraft will initially be able to turn inside the higher wingloaded one, but if it maintains the turn, it will stall out. Meanwhile the more highly wingloaded, but better powerloaded aircraft will not stall out of its turn nearly as soon and eventually can gain the advantage.

Of course, the lower wingloaded aircraft can reduce the AOA of its turn, thus increasing the circumference of its turn, but also reducing speed bleed and allowing it to sustain the turn longer.

The pilot in a lower powerloaded aircraft can also lose altitude in the turn to maintain speed, and thus keep up the same turn circle.


The models of the 109 I have tested, (G2 and G6) either outturn the Spitfire IX, (G2) or turn with it, (G6).


For you Germans insisting that a 109 should be able to turn with a Spitfire, here are the realities:


Spitfire Mk IXLF (Merlin 66)

7400 lbs fully fueled.

Wing area of 242 Sq/ft

Max horsepower at +18 boost: 1705


109G6 (late) (DB605A)

6930 lbs fully fueled

Wing area of 172.75 Sq/ft

Max. horsepower: 1550


So with some basic calculations we get:


Spitfire IX LF

Wingloading: 30.57 lbs per Sq/ft

Powerloading: 4.34 lbs per Horsepower


109G6

Wingloading: 40.11 lbs per Sq/ft

Powerloading: 4.47 lbs per Horsepower


Do a few more calculations:

Spitfire has a 24% advantage in wingloading.

Spitfire has a 3% advantage in powerloading.


Now by any standards which acknowledges physics, the Spitfire IX LF is going to easily outturn the G6.

Yet we fly the planes, and the G6 holds tight on the tail of the Spit.

Look at IL-2 Compare.

It shows the AEP 2.01 G6's best turn time as 20 seconds.

Look at the aircraft viewer comments in IL-2, and you will see Oleg has listed the official Soviet test data for the 109G6's best turn time. It is listed as between 22 and 22.6 seconds.

It's clear that the programmer has erred in the lift he has given the 109's.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:17 PM
Salute

All models of Spitfires, when compared to 109's of their era, easily outturned them.

Here is the first.

The British did a number of tests with the Spitfire I versus the 109E and in all cases the Spitfire easily outturned the 109.

Here is my transcription of the tests:

(original documents available to anyone who posts e-mail. I will zip and send)

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

REPORT ON INVESTIGATION OF TURNING CIRCLES OF ME-109, SPITFIRE AND HURRICANE

by Wing Commander G.H. Stainforth

1. I was flying at 2000 metres at 160, 200 and 240 mph. In each case the Hurricane started behind the Messerschmidt and the Messerschmidt went into the turns as quickly as possible adn tried to outturn the Hurricane on the level or slightly downwards spiral at about 3-4 G. Tightening up beyond a certain point resulted in the slats opening unevenly and lateral flicking and slowing down of the rate of turn. The maximum rate of turn was obtained with the slats just about opening, either both just closed, or both just open, and at the maximum rate of turn the Hurricane remained clsoe to my tail. In each case the throttle was open fully after the turn was started and for one or two turns the airscrew pitch was set to give 2600 - 2700 rpm ie. 11:30 on the clockface pitch indicator, as for takeoff.

2. I then started two or three more runs on the tail of the Hurricane and was out-turned within about one complete turn...

(section 2 Spitfire)

4. These runs were then repeated in exactly the same way against the Spitfire as follows: 1, 2 and 3 at 160, 220, and 240 mph.

We then repeated the first run with the Messerschmidt starting on the Spitfire's tail but the Spitfire out-turned the Messerschmidt almost as easily as the Hurricane. A converging attack was then made, each aircraft attempting to get on the other's tail. The result was the same, the Spitfire quickly gaining the advantage and getting on the tail of the Messerschmidt. Increasing the speed in a downward spiral would not have any advantage as the opposing aircraft would have done the same. The rate of turn obtained was the maximum possible in every case. The effect of putting flaps down about 10 degrees was tried, but this had little if any effect....

(more details on the 109's handling)


7. ...the aircraft is generally unmaneuverable owing to:

a) Its large turning circle

b) Impossibility of tightening up the turn owing to the uneven opening of the slats and the tendency of the wings to stall unevenly, resulting in flick, and the slowing down of the rate of turn.

(more details on aileron control)

9. The Pilot of the Spitfire reports he had no difficulty in 'sitting on the Messerschmidt's tail', but could, in fact, have steepened up his speed quite a lot and got well on the inside. He was at +5 boost, almost full throttle.

9th June, 1940

Copies: 213 Squadron
AFDU
SSR
B.A. Dept.
Phy. Lab
A Flt.
E.F.U.
C.F.S.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:18 PM
The above 109E tested was a 109E3 captured by the French undamaged and handed over to the British.

This aircraft:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/ae479.html

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:18 PM
Salute

Here are another series of tests courtesy of Mike Williams Spitfire site, located here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304

Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
September 1940
Messerschmitt Me.109.
Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
Conclusions

.......Take off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aeroplane.

.......Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change in directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.

.......Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

.......The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.

.......At 400 m.p.h a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb2 for the Me 109 ailerons were estimated to be -0.145.

.......The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

There are also charts showing the turnrate of the aircraft here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

and here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif

Again, thanks to Mike Williams site.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:32 PM
Salute

Ok, now the issue of the 109G

To start with, the British captured quite a number of G models. (over 30) The most commonly provided test was of a 109G6/U2 with underwing gunpods.

This aircraft:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/tp814.html

The RAF also extensively tested a 109G2.

That is this aircraft:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/rn228.html

Here is the transcript of a test of the G6/U2 versus a Spitfire IX LF:


109G6/U2

Comparative trials flown at the AFDU, RAF Wittering, 1944

Flying Characteristics

The rudder was fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so, but as no rudder trimming device was provided it was nessesary to apply right rudder for takeoff and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons became increasingly stiff as speed was increased and were especially so at speeds in excess of 350mph. At speeds below 180mph the ailerons were not so positive and became non-effective as the stall was approached. The elevators also became increasingly difficult to operate as speed increased, and above 350mph this unpleasantness was accentuated as the elevator trim was almost impossible to operate.

The forward view for taxing was very poor and was little improved in flight because of the gun magazine bulges on the engine cowling and the thickness of the windshield framing. The brakes were positive but the tailwheel did not castor easily, and sharp turns on the ground were difficult. At all times when the engine was running at low speed the pilot suffered acute discomfort from fumes in the cockpit. Unless taking off directly into the wind, the aircraft had a strong tendency to swing into the wind, and the throttle had to be opened slowly. The tailwheel locking mechanism on this aircraft had been disconnected, and this increased the tendency to swing. When taking off directly into the wind the aircraft presented no control problems.

Comparisons with the Spitfire Mk IX LF

The Bf109G was compared with a Spitfire LF .IX for speed and allround manueverability at altitudes up to 25,000 ft, and it was found that up to 16,000 ft the Spitfire possessed a slight speed advantage when using 18 lb boost. Between this altitude and 20,000 ft the Bf 109G6 possessed a slight advantage in speed, but above 20,000 ft the Spitfire regained the speed advantage to the extent of 7 mph. When 25 lb boost was employed by the Spitfire it was about 25mph faster at all altitudes below 15,000 ft and some 7 mph faster above this height. The climb of the Spitfire was superiour to that of the Messerschmidt at all altitudes, and the British fighter enjoyed a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 ft when using 18 lb boost, this naturally being even more pronounced when 25 lbs of boost was employed. When both aircraft were pulled into a climb from a dive their performance was almost identical, but when climbing speed was attained the Spitfire slowly pulled away. Comparative dives showed that the Bf109G6 could leave the Spitfire without any difficulty, but the turning circle and roll rate of the Spitfire were markedly superior at all speeds.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Wed May 26 2004 at 09:47 PM.]

faustnik
05-26-2004, 03:35 PM
Buzzsaw,

What is needed is a test between a 109G in clean configuration against a Spit IX. Such a test must exist. Could the RAF have removed the wing cannons from the G6-U2 at Farnborough?

Oops, nevermind, typing at the same time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Actually, my question still applies.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:39 PM
Salute

The same 109G6/U2 was also tested against a
Spitfire XIV. This was as a part of a multi-aircraft comparison, which included the Tempest V, 190A5, Mustang III and Spitfire IX. I include only the Spit IX, Tempest V and 109G6/U2 for reasons which will be obvious later.

------------

AFDU Wittering February, March 1944 Spitfire XIV RB 179


Tactical Trials of Spitfire XIV


Introduction

Aircraft RB 141 was delivered to this Unit on 28.1.44 for comparative trials with the Tempest V. It was discovered that this aircraft was not representative of production aircraft for squadrons and Spitfire XIV RB 179 was made available and delivered on 25.2.44. The operational weight with full fuel and ammunition is 8,400 lbs. To give a clear picture to the greatest number, the Spitfire IX (maximum engine settings +18 lbs boost, 3,000 revs) has been chosen for full comparison, and not the Spitfire XII which is a low altitude aircraft built only in small numbers. Tactical comparisons have been made with the Tempest V and Mustang III, and combat trials have been carried out against the FW 190 (BMW 801D) and Me 109G.


Brief Description

The Spitfire XIV is a short range medium-high altitude fighter, armed with 2 x 20 mm cannon and 4 x .303 Browning guns in the wings. It is fitted with a Griffon 65* engine of approximately 2,000 hp. Pick-up points are provided for carrying of 30 gallon, 45 gallon or 90 gallon drop tanks. At present there are no bomb racks. In appearence is is very similar to the Spitfire XII with normal wings, except that it has a five-bladed propeller. The fin and rudder have been further modified.


Tactical comparison against the Spitfire IX

Range & Endurance- The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds- At all heights the Mk XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb- The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive- The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle- The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire Mk XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll- Rate of roll is very much the same.

Conclusions- All-round performance of the Mk XIV is better than the Mk IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 mph faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mik IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.


Brief Tactical Comparison with Tempest V

Range and Endurance- Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum cruising conditions of both aircraft. It is interesting that the indicated airspeed of each is about 280 mph and the range is about identical, both with full fuel load (including long-range tanks) and without (also no nose-tank-Tempest).

Maximum Speed- From 0-10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 feet, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 feet as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 feet.

Maximum Climb- The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V, however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed thoughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached then, of course, the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch up and pull ahead.

Dive- The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle- The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll- The Spitfire XIV rolls faster below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

Conclusions- The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling techique in combat. For this reason Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would never be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled the Tempest is the better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV the better above that height.


Combat trial against the Me 109G ***

Max speed- The Mk XIV is 40 mph faster at all heights except 16,000 ft, where it is only 10 mph faster.

Max Climb- Same results. At 16,000 ft indentical, otherwise the Mk XIV outclimbs the Me 109G. Zoom climb is practically identical when made without opening the throttle. Climbing at full throttle, the Mk XIV draws away from the Me 109G quite easily.

Dive- During the initial part of the dive, the 109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph is reached, the Mk XIV begins to gain on the 109G.

Turning Circle- The Mk XIV easily out-turns the ME 109G in either direction.

Rate of Roll- The Mk XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion- The Spitfire XIV is superior to the ME 109G in every respect.


---------------


NOTE: YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE SPITFIRE XIV AND IX HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TURNRATE, AND THAT THE SPIT XIV OUTTTURNS THE TEMPEST V.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Wed May 26 2004 at 09:46 PM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:48 PM
Salute

Now we come to the deductive part.

Remember the 109G2 I mentioned before?

This one:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/rn228.html

It was tested against a Tempest V, along with tests of the Tempest versus a Spitfire XIV, Mustang III, Typhoon 1b and 190A.

I will only include the comparison of the 109G2 vs the Tempest V and the Tempest vs the Spit XIV for reasons which will be obvious.

---------------------

1. According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.

2. In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).

COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV

Range and Endurance
31. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of each aircraft (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb/boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).

31A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-
The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft.
From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S.
Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high cruising speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long-range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. long-range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed
32. From 0 - 10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is little to choose until 22,000 ft. when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 ft.

Maximum Climb
33. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed throughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached, then, of course the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch and pull ahead.

Dive
34. The Tempest gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll
36. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350.00 mph.

Conclusions
37. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIV's, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV above that height.


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G

Maximum Speed
44. The Tempest V is 40 - 50 mph faster up to 20,000 feet when the difference in speed rapidly diminishes.

Climb
45. The Tempest is behind the Me.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph.

Dive
46. Initial acceleration of the Tempest is not marked, but a prolonged dive brings the Tempest well ahead.

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

Rate of Roll
48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction.

Conclusions
49. In the attack, the Tempest can always follow the Me.109 except in slow, steep climb. In the combat area the Tempest should maintain a high speed, and in defense may do anything except a climb at slow speed.


YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE TEMPEST TURNS THE SAME AS THE 109G2. AND THAT THE TEMPEST IS EASILY OUTTURNED BY THE SPITFIRE XIV.

By inference, we can quickly deduce that the Spit XIV will then outturn the 109G2. And since from the comparison in my previous post we know that the Spit IX and XIV have the same turnrate, we can then deduce that the Spit IX will also outturn the 109G2. Which is a clean model, no gunpods.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Wed May 26 2004 at 09:50 PM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 03:51 PM
Salute

CONCLUSION

It should have been obvious from my first post in this thread re. wingloading and powerloading advantages of the Spit IX LF that basic physics show it should outturn the 109's, but the above tests show that in practical reality, it also did have a better turnrate.

Fennec_P
05-26-2004, 03:57 PM
I tested the 109G2, 109G6 '43, Spit Mk Vb and Spit IXc sustained turn rates at 1000m. Summer, noon, 100% fuel. 2 Trials per plane.

109G2: 20s
109G6: 22-22.5s
SpitVb: 19-19.5s
Spit IXc: 21s

In any case, the 109s match their turn rates.

Before even timing the test, it was obvious that the Spit Vb turned much better than any of the 109s. At speeds where the 109G2 is shaking, the Vb is turning happily.

The IXc, while apparently heavier, would still force non-consentual ownage on a G6-early. The difference might not be apparent instantly, but I don't see how the Spit could lose a protracted one circle fight.

Does anyone know what the historical turn times for the Spits are? Surely this information exists somewhere.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 04:10 PM
Salute Fennec

As a fair minded poster how can you reconcile your test results with the G6 and Spit IX with the clear advantages that Spitfire holds?

(by the way, I get better results for the G6)

Once again:


Spitfire Mk IXLF (Merlin 66)

7400 lbs fully fueled.

Wing area of 242 Sq/ft

Max horsepower at +18 boost: 1705


109G6 (late) (DB605A)

6930 lbs fully fueled

Wing area of 172.75 Sq/ft

Max. horsepower: 1550


Spitfire IX LF

Wingloading: 30.57 lbs per Sq/ft

Powerloading: 4.34 lbs per Horsepower


109G6

Wingloading: 40.11 lbs per Sq/ft

Powerloading: 4.47 lbs per Horsepower


Spitfire has a 24% advantage in wingloading.

Spitfire has a 3% advantage in powerloading.


Yet your turn results have the 109 only 4% worse than the Spitfire.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 04:14 PM
Salute

This chart shows the turn time for a Spit I

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

18.3 seconds.

The 109E is turning in 25 seconds.

Fennec_P
05-26-2004, 04:28 PM
I see the wingloading difference.

But, to know for sure, you have to see turn time numbers. If power loading and wing loading told an airplanes performance, a 109G2 would rule the sky and a Yak-3 wouldn't get off the runway. The figures don't always create the performance one would expect.

So Spit I turns better than a 109E. Shocking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

patch_adams
05-26-2004, 04:30 PM
Actually buzzsaw, the spitfire is accurately modeled. Many historians agree that the spitfire and the bf109 were SO EVENLY MATCHED that it always came down to PILOT SKILL. While the bf109 held a slight advantage in climb, the spitfire held a slight advantage in flat turn. However, the aircraft could easily hang with each other. It seems that some people have unreal expectations based on a few "favorable" tests. Salute to you oleg on getting this right, I hope it remains this way for BOB.

gates123
05-26-2004, 04:31 PM
QUOTE]Originally posted by p1ngu666:
trim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
u know trim doesnt effect the planes ability to turn or some such?
u can do impossible turns with trim

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I recommend to trust IvanK, becasue he is real pilot with experience to fly real WWII planes, including Mustang.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ivank:
TRIM EFFECT
Again refering to the G readout via DeviceLink the effect of Trim is amazing. With the aircraft trimmed for 400KMH IAS A full backstick turn gets you 3.5G. Repeat the test but this time gradually wind n Full back trim, using forward stick to hold 6000m. The roll the bank on and apply Full backstick, 5+G can easily be achieved and sustained if nose position is lowered.


Trim IS everything!!! and so is air pressure so unless these tests are done with proper elevator trim and consistent altitude settings this debate will never end and Oleg will just continue to laugh at all of you. Spend more time learning how to use your planes strengths instead of debating its weakness.

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/index_photos/gunslinging.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Fennec_P
05-26-2004, 04:33 PM
In BoB, it will be the Spit I, which is a different story.

Spit I will rape 109E in turn.

Only with 109F could the Messers turn.

HEY, LOOK AT ME! I CAN DO A BAJILLION GEES IF I PUT THE TRIM THING ALL TEH WAY BACK!!!! OMGLOL OVREMODELLED!! WHY DOES THE WINGS BREKA oFF!?!?!?! GAY!!!

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Wed May 26 2004 at 03:43 PM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-26-2004, 06:38 PM
Salute Fennec

Go back and re-read the thread.

In official AFDU tests, the Tempest V outturns the 109G2, and in other AFDU tests the Tempest is outturned by the Spit XIV and Spit IX.

So it doesn't take a PhD to understand that the Spits should outturn the G2.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Wed May 26 2004 at 09:50 PM.]

biggs222
05-26-2004, 10:11 PM
gates u say "learn to use the planes strengths"....

the SpitmkIXs strength WAS its turn rate. how can u use a strength if u dont have one.

i will bump this till the cows come home or until this is corrected, but for some reason i dont think this will be fixed.

dadada1
05-27-2004, 04:44 AM
Maybe it's not the Spit turn rate which is wrong. I feel now that the 109s sustained turn feels quite generous since we got the 2.01 patch. Also the 109s stall characteristics don't seem to be as nasty as we probably believe it should be. I believe the finger points more at the overall flight model. All aircraft have more forgiving stall characteristics in game now. This seems to have robbed each aircraft of its uniqueness a little. Perhaps the overall flight model needs a little revision before individual aircraft are worked on. Anyone feel the same?

Fehler
05-27-2004, 05:16 AM
I totally agree with dadada1!

I cant comment too much on the 109 as I very rarely fly it. As a matter of fact, I fly the Jug more than the 109!

But the 190 is another story. It is way more forgiving than it was in 2.0. I can only stall it when I am being completely careless now. Although it was debated and whined about I feel the stall characteristics of the 190 were very realistic in 2.0.

OK, so why post this? Because I feel, but can not be totally sure, that stall characteristics have been made a little more "User friendly" in 2.01. Naturally this would mean that the differences between low and high wing loaded aircraft are closer now than they were in 2.0. That given, you would expect to see better turning of high wingloaded planes (Bf109).

On the other hand, I really feel energy retention is spot on now. If you pull hard G's you bleed E like a fool, even though the planes dont appear to stall as easily.

So here is my question. Can the two things be separated? Can the stalls be brought back and E retention stay the same as it is now? That would probably make the Spit turn as it should, but still bleed energy as it should as well.

In 2.0 the Spit seemed to turn rather well (The Zero too for that matter) as all the accounts I have ever read suggest they should. But they never seemed to be penalized for turning through loss of energy. Simply put, they seemed to make these types of sustained turns and come out of them with the same or nearly the same amount of energy as they went into them with. That never seemed realistic.

So again, can energy retention as is currently modeled in 2.01 be retained with stall characteristics of 2.0 reinstated?

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Bastables
05-27-2004, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

CONCLUSION

It should have been obvious from my first post in this thread re. wingloading and powerloading advantages of the Spit IX LF that basic physics show it should outturn the 109's, but the above tests show that in practical reality, it also did have a better turnrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree entirely, the tempest only slightly outturns the 109 G2 even with the RAF pilots worried about the ?popping? of wing slats, which means that they did not ride the 109g2 to it?s limit?.

Bastables
05-27-2004, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute Fennec

Yet your turn results have the 109 only 4% worse than the Spitfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As fennec has asked, find the sustained turn times at 1000m for the Spit V and IX. Then see if they match his tested figs.

Nub_322Sqn
05-27-2004, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

CONCLUSION

It should have been obvious from my first post in this thread re. wingloading and powerloading advantages of the Spit IX LF that basic physics show it should outturn the 109's, but the above tests show that in practical reality, it also did have a better turnrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree entirely, the tempest only slightly outturns the 109 G2 even with the RAF pilots worried about the ?popping? of wing slats, which means that they did not ride the 109g2 to it?s limit?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be, but either way according to Magister_Ludi AKA Huckebein_FW the Tempest V and the Bf109 have about the same turn rate with a slight favor to the Bf109.

During the trails in the UK between the Tempest V and the Spitfires all Spitfires could out turn the Tempest V with ease.
Even the MK XIV could out turn the Tempest V with ease.

So the RAF pilots had no experience with the German planes, I can understand that.
But they sure knew what they where doing in the Spitfires vs Tempest trials.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

VW-IceFire
05-27-2004, 07:06 AM
A big thanks to RAF74BuzzsawXO for doing what so many refuse to do and that is to present his argument using the basis of facts. Tests, official reports, and the like are infinitely more credible than a simple statement that Spitfire out turns everything. Well argued and well done.

I'm still partially confused with the 109G being out turned by the Tempest V because in relation to the Tempest V its only marginally better (according to tactical trials) than the FW190A that it was tested against and was not as good as the P-51 that it was tested against. That pretty much puts the 109 in last place and I'm not sure if that makes sense.

My general belief is that the two (the 109 and the Spitfire) should be VERY close and that all of the Spitfires should have similar turns but likely to be slightly different in turn based on weight (the XIV being heavier than the IX being heavier than the V). Similarly, the Typhoon/Tempest and FW190 should be fairly close as well (with slight advantage to the Tempest/Typhoon).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Bastables
05-27-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

CONCLUSION

It should have been obvious from my first post in this thread re. wingloading and powerloading advantages of the Spit IX LF that basic physics show it should outturn the 109's, but the above tests show that in practical reality, it also did have a better turnrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree entirely, the tempest only slightly outturns the 109 G2 even with the RAF pilots worried about the ?popping? of wing slats, which means that they did not ride the 109g2 to it?s limit?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be, but either way according to Magister_Ludi AKA Huckebein_FW the Tempest V and the Bf109 have about the same turn rate with a slight favor to the Bf109.

During the trails in the UK between the Tempest V and the Spitfires all Spitfires could out turn the Tempest V with ease.
Even the MK XIV could out turn the Tempest V with ease.

So the RAF pilots had no experience with the German planes, I can understand that.
But they sure knew what they where doing in the Spitfires vs Tempest trials.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Err I don?t know what game you?re playing, but the IX outturns, out dives and out climbs the G6 in game.

Fennec?s tests show this as well (out turning)

Nub_322Sqn
05-27-2004, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

CONCLUSION

It should have been obvious from my first post in this thread re. wingloading and powerloading advantages of the Spit IX LF that basic physics show it should outturn the 109's, but the above tests show that in practical reality, it also did have a better turnrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree entirely, the tempest only slightly outturns the 109 G2 even with the RAF pilots worried about the ?popping? of wing slats, which means that they did not ride the 109g2 to it?s limit?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be, but either way according to Magister_Ludi AKA Huckebein_FW the Tempest V and the Bf109 have about the same turn rate with a slight favor to the Bf109.

During the trails in the UK between the Tempest V and the Spitfires all Spitfires could out turn the Tempest V with ease.
Even the MK XIV could out turn the Tempest V with ease.

So the RAF pilots had no experience with the German planes, I can understand that.
But they sure knew what they where doing in the Spitfires vs Tempest trials.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Err I don?t know what game you?re playing, but the IX outturns, out dives and out climbs the G6 in game.

Fennec?s tests show this as well (out turning)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

Where did I say anything about the game in my response?

I just stated a fact regarding the pilots during the test trails done in the UK during WWII.

Another case of jumping to conclusions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

jurinko
05-27-2004, 07:46 AM
I remember the verbal fights here in past, because of Fw 190 FM, its bad forward view, weird MK108 effect etc. The blue whiners were allways adviced by other side to deal with it since it is just a game or PC simulation and our computers can not calculate everything exactly. Sometimes I wondered if Spitfire will get into FB and it will turn badly, whether the same arguments can be told - cool down guys, it is just a simulation, to get real FM you need hyperthreaded 5G CPU blablabla.. uhm, I could not resist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Btw, in my opinion Spitfire IX should really outturn 109s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Bastables
05-27-2004, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

CONCLUSION

It should have been obvious from my first post in this thread re. wingloading and powerloading advantages of the Spit IX LF that basic physics show it should outturn the 109's, but the above tests show that in practical reality, it also did have a better turnrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree entirely, the tempest only slightly outturns the 109 G2 even with the RAF pilots worried about the ?popping? of wing slats, which means that they did not ride the 109g2 to it?s limit?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be, but either way according to Magister_Ludi AKA Huckebein_FW the Tempest V and the Bf109 have about the same turn rate with a slight favor to the Bf109.

During the trails in the UK between the Tempest V and the Spitfires all Spitfires could out turn the Tempest V with ease.
Even the MK XIV could out turn the Tempest V with ease.

So the RAF pilots had no experience with the German planes, I can understand that.
But they sure knew what they where doing in the Spitfires vs Tempest trials.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Err I don?t know what game you?re playing, but the IX outturns, out dives and out climbs the G6 in game.

Fennec?s tests show this as well (out turning)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

Where did I say anything about the game in my response?

I just stated a fact regarding the pilots during the test trails done in the UK during WWII.

Another case of jumping to conclusions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No you?re right I did jump to the conclusion that you had a wider argument as opposed to merely stating the obvious.

NN_EnigmuS
05-27-2004, 08:29 AM
in my opinion spit pilot in this game don't know how to fly it lol(especially the new Mk9)

in Df arena they always want to go in doghfight with your 109,and all good 109 pilot know that at less than 300km/h with combat flap he will outurn the spit Mk9
but the Mk9 pilots always try to follow you because don't know how to fly it and they get kill fast and then go post in ORR lol

spit outurn 109 at more than 300km/h be sure so keep it up in your mind before trying to dogfight a 109G6 at 280km/h lol

just my opinion don't flame me lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Manos1
05-27-2004, 08:38 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO,

Many thanks for the time you spent explaining all this to us !

~S~

Manos

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr)

Nub_322Sqn
05-27-2004, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
in my opinion spit pilot in this game don't know how to fly it lol(especially the new Mk9)

in Df arena they always want to go in doghfight with your 109,and all good 109 pilot know that at less than 300km/h with combat flap he will outurn the spit Mk9
but the Mk9 pilots always try to follow you because don't know how to fly it and they get kill fast and then go post in ORR lol

spit outurn 109 at more than 300km/h be sure so keep it up in your mind before trying to dogfight a 109G6 at 280km/h lol

just my opinion don't flame me lol
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is truly the stupidest post in this thread.

Especially the last line.

You mock other people on an open forum and then note not to flame you.

How dumb can you get. lol

And while you're at it you could backup your claim that Bf109G6 should out turn a Spitfire IX in this game at 280km/h because it did also do it in real life.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-27-2004, 09:15 AM
the 109G6 is know to be very good turner at low speed not the spit Mk9(109 had advantage at low speed handling because of those things in the wing deploying for prevent of stall and help in turn at low speed sorry don't know the english word),i'm talking about G6 in the tread lol(and G2 too anyway)

i know i am stupid but said my opinion and i mock most of you because your're the first to make the same when blue complain but when something is on your precious spit it's not the same sorry not to me this time
learn to fly your spit Mk9 like most of you said for Fw pilot

for me the Mk9 in game is very good but all of you just complain and post test vs 109G6 with gunpods

you re asking me for tell why i'm right because oleg did this way he had data too and made his choise,he'll probably know that spit pilot we'll whine but did this way so he must have seen the same data as me,the Mk9 is a really good plane in Aep why i'm the only one to said that lol and you flame me for that

i know that spit is a legend but there is an huge dfference between a mk1 and a mk14 lol and the tactics changed in a war(less manouevarbility,more power like it was for 109)

anyway my opinion know this is stupid in a spit fan post but i do it
(sorry for my poor english)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Fennec_P
05-27-2004, 10:14 AM
Stupid in a spit fan post or not, it would still be nice to know Spit V and IX turn rates.

Strange that despite how famous and popular this plane is, I can't even find simple turn times on any websites. Only damn Air Warrior plane specs http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
05-27-2004, 11:51 AM
Buzzsaw, thank for all the interesting test reports you posted. I'd just like to throw in my four cent's.

First, apparently the British testers never were able to ride the Bf 109 to it's limits. They all complained about the slats popping open and stopping them from turning, while the intention of the slats is to porvide extra lift for sharp turns. This may mean, the British stopped at a limit that wasn't there.

Second: About flight physics:
Winglaoding and Powerloading might be nice crutches, but what really counts for sustained is power/drag ratio.
What you really need for evaluation of turning performance by numbers, is a lift/drag curve. Without it, everything else is waste.
A larger wing means a better lift/drag coefficient, but also means that this coefficient has to be multiplied with a larger wing area. Also, the larger plane will already have a higher zero lift drag.
Just one numerical example, numbes aren't true but not way off. You have three planes of the same weight, pulling 3g turns sustained at 300kph.
Looking up on a drag/lift graph (took a P-39 airfoil section, I think) shows you the following numbers:
Wing 1: 12m^2, neccessary lift coeff: 1.40, related drag coeff: 0.0150
Wing 2: 18m^2, neccessary lift coeff: 0.93, related drag coeff: 0.0087
Wing 3: 24m^2, neccessary lift coeff: 0.70, related drag coeff: 0.0075
Total lift: wing 1, wing 2, wing 3: 16.8
Drag:
Wing 1: 0.180
Wing 2: 0.157
Wing 3: 0.180
As you can see, there is an optimum with wing 2 and even though wing 3 has a smaller wingloading, it has higher drag and it would have worse sustained turn.
Are you willing to say that the Spitfire always produced less drag than the 109 in a sustained turn or even vice versa? I won't.

Third: Maximum turn is given by maximum lift the airfoils can create. You thus take the maximum lift coefficient for a Spitfire, which is low, and the maximum lift coefficient of the 109, which is high. (I think it was 1.12 compared to 1.5.) Take these numbers and you'll get a very equal maximum turning ability.

Forth: You give maximum power for both engines, but the had different altitude characteristics. While at maximum power there is a clear advantage for the Spit, it might be different at certain altitudes.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-27-2004, 11:57 AM
Salute

In regards to the turn times of the Spitfire V and IX.

First of all, we know what the turn times of the Spitfire IA.

From this chart, kindly provided by Mike Williams and his site:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

This shows the turn radius and turn times of the Spit IA and 109E3 at 12,000 ft. They were:

Spit IA

696 ft radius

18.3 second turn


109E3

885 ft radius

25 second turn


Now the Luft posters on this board are insisting that while the 109F, G and K IMPROVED on the turn times of the 109E, we should be expected to believe that later models of Spitfires, are going to turn worse than the Spit IA with its tiny 1030 hp.

Logical??? No.

Since the Spitfire Vb was almost an identical airframe to the Spit IA, it should be possible for Oleg to plug in the appropriate power figures and weight for the Spit Vb and determine the turn times.

There is also other info on the Spit V.

We do know its turn radius.

In May 1941 during the test of Spitfire Vb W3134, which was an early model, weighting in at 6525 lbs, with a wingloading of 26.96 lbs per Sq/ft, (the Spit IA was 24.8 lbs per Sq/ft) and propelled by a 1185 hp Merlin 45, the turn radius of the aircraft at 20,000 ft (6096 metres) was noted.

It was 980 ft, which is a circle of 6157.52 ft circumference.

Now this is a higher altitude than the previous test, (done at 12,000 ft) and the aircraft's turn at that height is going to be handicapped by the thin air, and the reduced power of the engine.

However we can make some educated deductions.

We know that the best turn speed of the Spit V was 165 mph at sea level, which is 264 kph.

At 20,000 ft, 264 kph IAS is 367.84 kph TAS.

367.84 kph translates to 335.229 ft/second

Divide the circumference of the known turn circle of the Spit V, (6157.52 ft) by the speed in ft/sec and we get a turn time of:

18.368 seconds

No surprise here, this would suggest the Spit V, with more power and slightly higher wingloading, should be turning the much same as the Spit IA, albeit in a larger circle. And of course this was done at high altitude, with the penalties that would incur.

All the above is an educated guess, but it is certainly agrees with what we would expect.

The Spitfires should be given a better turnrate.

p1ngu666
05-27-2004, 12:03 PM
maybe it was slats popping out not at the same time that caused bad things to happen.
its a abit odd that spit is outturned at 300kmph+ (ive heard that banded about i think) when 109 should have a stiff elivator while spits is light http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

spit1 and emil should be equal actully. funnly enuff the spit stalls first, the buffiting was the middle of wing/fusealarge stalling i think, but u could ride that easy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. the stall that thats the "real" stall we care about is same/abit after emil. emil didnt handle well at stall, so u hadto be brave and experienced to ride it.

oh and those slats on 109 wing will give u a muntload of drag if u pop them out

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-27-2004, 12:05 PM
Salute

The comment that the British tests of the German aircraft are not to be trusted because the British did not ride the 109's to the opening of the slats is clearly incorrect.

Go back to the post I made earlier in this thread and re-read it:

I quote Wing Commander Stainsforth's report again:

"...The maximum rate of turn was obtained with the slats just about opening, either both just closed, or both just open..."

The pilots who flew these tests were well experienced with the German aircraft.

The fact is, that the AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT, the ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT, and the ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT of the Royal Air Force were tasked with determining EXACTLY the performance of the German aircraft which the RAF pilots were going to be up against. Their instructions were not to sugar coat any tests, but to be completely factual and accurate. None of their findings were released to anyone but members of the RAF, and were focused in particular towards the pilots who were flying in combat. To provide false data to these pilots would be counterproductive and likely to cause more casualties. The members of the 3 test organizations were FULL TIME assigned to that role, and did nothing but test German aircraft, or in the case of the ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT, they would take the German aircraft round to the various RAF Squadrons so the pilots of those Squadrons could dogfight with them for practice.

JtD
05-27-2004, 12:16 PM
FYI, someone told me that the Russians did a turning test with a Spitfire Mk. IX and got 17 seconds sustained.

So if all of you keep looking for that test we might end up with a real Spit IX turning test.

Whatever you say/quote, Buzzsaw, I don't think 25 seconds sustained is the maximum for an Emil. There is no reason for it to suck that bad. ;-)

Fennec_P
05-27-2004, 12:23 PM
That makes total sense. It never occured to me that you could use speed and radius to calculate turn time.

So in that case, one would imagine the Spit V turn time at 1000m to be around 17 seconds. That is, if it is identical to the Spit V used in that test.

The Bf-109E has a turn time of 24 seconds at 1000m. At higher altitudes, it is totally possible that it would be 25 seconds.

However, the rate can be reduced to 22 seconds with flaps. It is one of the few planes that gets a better turn rate with flaps, than without.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-27-2004, 12:27 PM
Salute JTD

Once again you are making suggestions which are not bourne out by the facts.

In regards to the lift coefficient:

Look at the chart posted for the Spit IA and 109E:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

The lift coefficients are clearly posted there on the upper right of each chart. They do not fit your claims at all. The Spitfire's lift coefficient is only very slightly worse than the 109's but huge advantage the Spitfire has in overall wingloading easily cancels that out.

At 3 G's acceleration, a typical turn acceleration, the 109's CL Max. is 1.49. the Spitfire's is 1.45. That is only a 2.3% difference in favour of the 109. On the other hand, the wingloading difference is 23% in favour of the Spitfire.

Second, you mention drag:

First of all, the lower wingloaded aircraft does not have to generate as high an angle of attack with its wings to achieve the same lift as the higher wingloaded aircraft, so therefore it incurs less drag, and less speed bleed. Go back and re-read the post of the first test. The report says:

"The Pilot of the Spitfire reports he had no difficulty in 'sitting on the Messerschmidt's tail', but could, in fact, have steepened up his speed quite a lot and got well on the inside."

Ie. while the 109 is pulling max AOA, the Spitfire was not turning to its maximum.

Re-read the other posts: The most common term used when comparing the Spitfire's turn to other aircraft is "...EASILY outturns"

Second, the 109 had very poor drag characteristics, most of which was caused by the turbulence over wings and the airframe by the poor placement of the radiator intake and the in particular, the slats on the wings.

This is evidenced in the poor top speed of the 109's when compared to their peak hp figures. For example, the 109E, with 1150 hp, was actually slower at 349 mph than the Spitfire IA with 1030 hp and 354 mph.

GR142-Pipper
05-27-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
(...snip...)It's clear that the programmer has erred in the lift he has given the 109's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right on target, Buzzsaw. The question really is, "Is the programming actually an error at all or simply a conscious decision to artificially even the aircraft out?". My contention is that it is a conscious decision and one done strictly for commercial game-selling reasons.

GR142-Pipper

JtD
05-27-2004, 01:54 PM
Buzzsaw,

airplane turning tests aren't the best way to find out Cl's. Anyway, quite interesting to see these numbers. Wonder why they got 1.12 from airfoil testing. (Yes, 1.12 is correct.)

Was this Spitfire tested with wing gun ports sealed or open?
The lower wingloading allows for less angle of attack. That why it's drag coefficient is lower than the one with the smaller wing. That's exactly what I wrote in my larger post above. But since you have a larger wing, you might end with more total drag.

I really don't care wether or not the Spitfire outturned the 109 easily, it's just that many say so, while others don't. I for my part won't ignore the others.
Why on earth would you compare peak hp and top speed? Maximum hp for 109E were at sea level, afaik. Top speed wasn't. Basically both planes reached the same speed at the same alt with same power.
Do you know that gun openings at the leading edge of a wing are probably the worst thing you can do to clean aerodynamics? Spitfire had 8 of them. Didn't the Spitfire use washout as well? That would be another poor feature for lift and drag coefficients.

Chadburn
05-27-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
Maybe it's not the Spit turn rate which is wrong. I feel now that the 109s sustained turn feels quite generous since we got the 2.01 patch. Also the 109s stall characteristics don't seem to be as nasty as we probably believe it should be. I believe the finger points more at the overall flight model. All aircraft have more forgiving stall characteristics in game now. This seems to have robbed each aircraft of its uniqueness a little. Perhaps the overall flight model needs a little revision before individual aircraft are worked on. Anyone feel the same?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's a common misconception that the stall characteristics of 109's was nasty. Here's a quote from Dave Southwood about the stall characteristics of Black 6, a restored 109 G2 that he flew:

"The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis."

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

Nub_322Sqn
05-28-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
the 109G6 is know to be very good turner at low speed not the spit Mk9(109 had advantage at low speed handling because of those things in the wing deploying for prevent of stall and help in turn at low speed sorry don't know the english word),i'm talking about G6 in the tread lol(and G2 too anyway)

i know i am stupid but said my opinion and i mock most of you because your're the first to make the same when blue complain but when something is on your precious spit it's not the same sorry not to me this time
learn to fly your spit Mk9 like most of you said for Fw pilot

for me the Mk9 in game is very good but all of you just complain and post test vs 109G6 with gunpods

you re asking me for tell why i'm right because oleg did this way he had data too and made his choise,he'll probably know that spit pilot we'll whine but did this way so he must have seen the same data as me,the Mk9 is a really good plane in Aep why i'm the only one to said that lol and you flame me for that

i know that spit is a legend but there is an huge dfference between a mk1 and a mk14 lol and the tactics changed in a war(less manouevarbility,more power like it was for 109)

anyway my opinion know this is stupid in a spit fan post but i do it
(sorry for my poor english)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No reference, no tests, no nothing.

Just words.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-28-2004, 05:00 AM
roger but it's you who want to change the spit Mk9 in the game not me so it's you who must put some serious data here not me hehe

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Nub_322Sqn
05-28-2004, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
for me the Mk9 in game is very good but all of you just complain and post test vs 109G6 with gunpods<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This clearly states that you did not even read this thread before making a reply.

According to other tests the Bf109G6 had only a slight advantage in turn radius against the Tempest V. (This regarding the test with the Tempest V against the Bf109 with gunpods where the Tempest V out turned the Bf109, but that is not the issue here)

That said, during the combat trails between the Tempest V and Spitfire IX and even the XIV, both Spitfires could out turn the Tempest V with ease.

It's simple logic really.

Unless you now want to claim that the Tempest V had gunpods as well and the British test pilots didn't know how to fly their own plane.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Nub_322Sqn
05-28-2004, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
roger but it's you who want to change the spit Mk9 in the game not me so it's you who must put some serious data here not me hehe
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The data is already here, all you do is make counter claims without reference.

Typical. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-28-2004, 10:00 AM
how such data can be serious lol
those test are made by brits(how can a british is able to fly a german plane when he flow a spit since he is pilot),and with test made for british pilot(in wartime how can you said the truth when you compare two plane and when one plane is from your country).

just give here serious data in turn rate with various speed,flap,speed at different altitude etc...for spit MK9'with correct octane used in unit)and we will see it vs G6 data and we will make the comparison by ourself
and will see if the spit Mk9 is so uber as you want it lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
05-28-2004, 10:27 AM
you want your spit be uber,the best plane with only better performance than G6(how can a 109 destroye my spit bouhouh,it's the game not me it's impossible,the spit must be the best plane ever ,no spit was destroye by those 109 in WW2 lol,they were inferior cannot outurn even a tempest),

it's your choise but for me your're just one more whinner

a spit Mk9 Vs G6 in game can kill it and the G6 can kill the spit,they have both advantages and disavantages(at you,pilot,to make the other plane in disavantaged situation) but your the one don't want to see the disavantages on your precious spit Mk9 and said it's an Fm error lol

anyway if you show me data showing that a G6 had no chance at all to destroye a spit Mk9,will not believed it.
a perfect plane doesn't exist lol good plane yes and spit Mk9 and G6 were good plane

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

nixon-fiend.
05-28-2004, 10:54 AM
enigmuS... The British test pilots would've flown a variety of planes .. tigermoth, hurricane, gladiator etc.

Think about it.. A test pilot NEEDS to be able to compare planes against each other - it follows that he would make a point to fly as many planes as possible.

It's plain stupid to say a british test pilot is unqualified to test a german plane... the ww2 fighters weren't that different for God's sake!

Nobody here wants the spit mk.iX to be 'uber' - but simply to perform as well as it did in RL.

You talk of uberwhiners but from you're sig I see you fly the yak3.. need I say more?

except "Go away"

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-28-2004, 11:06 AM
Salute

Moderator:

Certain people are posting in this thread, and adding nothing useful to the discussion, instead are focused on repetitive personal attacks. Please warn them about their behaviour.

Thankyou

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Fri May 28 2004 at 11:09 AM.]

faustnik
05-28-2004, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:

a spit Mk9 Vs G6 in game can kill it and the G6 can kill the spit,they have both advantages and disavantages

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Enigmus,

All I see here are poeple asking that those relative advantages and disadvantages be examined more closely by 1C. Don't pull the BS tactic of labeling them whiners because of it.
(Us LW fans had seen enough of that gargbage already http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

NN_EnigmuS
05-28-2004, 01:12 PM
Real Life isn't british test made by and for british pilot the only things i said
and i ve seen no data here only comparison made by british during the war,for me it's not valid data for changing FM

and to faustnik if you remove to G6 is low speed handling you'll remove one of the only advantage of G6 against spitMk9

to nixon-friend i've a yak3 in my sig because i am in a red squad called Normandie Niemen who flown only on yak during the war but i enjoy flying all plane

to RAF74BuzzsawXO,no personnal attacks here just say that for instance for 4 page you just put nothing on the table,is there no Data here of turn rate at different speed,configuration,flap etc... it will help a lot and make me change and perhaps the Fm too if it's valid

just give you help indeed because for the moment no data here only comparison from brits.
sorry to call you whinner i apologize for that but lot of you did the same and use this word with no apologize.

sorry if i hurt someone here

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Nub_322Sqn
05-28-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
how such data can be serious lol
those test are made by brits(how can a british is able to fly a german plane when he flow a spit since he is pilot),and with test made for british pilot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not about the test of British pilots flying German planes, it's about British pilots flying British planes.

You're not even reading what is posted. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-28-2004, 01:29 PM
who test Bf109G6 with tempest and say that 109 outurn the Tempest just a little lol the tempest is know to be poor in turn not the 109,this affirmation is strange isn't it

what is turn rate of tempest at 1000m?we know it's 22-22.5s for 109G6

according to fennec test Spit5B made 19s what's wrong here and spit Mk9c made 21s if you compare the 2s gained by G6 over G2 turn rate,and the fact that spit Mk9c is heavier than spit5 it gain 2s too and have 21s that's better than G6 too
what is the problem here indeed the spit outurn 109 yet,do you want something like the same turn rate for Mk5 and Mk9?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Fehler
05-28-2004, 01:46 PM
If I may chime in here.

First of all, this sim and it's creators have not placed as much weight from test pilot or pilot accounts as raw data. I believe that is the point that Enigmus is making. Look for example at the BRITISH test results on the FW190 A-2 about things like climbing ability and forward view. Look also at accounts of field modification of increased boosts of various aircraft, etc.

One can not overlook some of those accounts while adhearing strictly to others. If that occurs, then the game truly becomes biased.

With regards to Buzzsaw's posts, I have found them very informative and good reading. On the other hand, calling for a injunction by the moderators against people that do not follow his own claims is quite hypocritical. In the past, I have seen respected people like Hunde make an observation and people attack him. Yet, I never once saw "Buzzsaw to the rescue", so to speak. Remember that righteousness is never one sided. It is dealt with impartially and fairly.

IMHO, I really do believe that the Spit does not turn as well as it should from all accounts that I have read, it should easily outturn a 109. But it should not easily dive with it according to those same accounts, yet is does in this sim. So, if we are looking to make things more realistic and not just gain unfair advantage for "Our side" as most people would like to say about "Luftwhiners," perhaps all errors should be corrected. Not just the ones that people deem "Detrimental" to their cause.

So how do you correct them? You bring raw data and charts to the table. That is what Enigmus is saying, and correctly so. Supposition and conjecture have no place in this sim, and has had no place for some time. Similar arguements can be made about the P-51's turn ability at slow speeds where many pilot accounts have been quoted here about the loss of turning ability above stall speeds due to laminar air flow design. And still there are pilot accounts (Like from Greg Boyington) that stated the P-40 could turn inside a Zero! He could do it because of his physical stature, but not all pilots could. The simple fact here is, no numbers, no change. That's the way this works.

And again, I really think the Spit SHOULD turn better, but probably with a little greater loss in energy. My conjecture is based on no numbers or facts, much like accounts listed in this thread. The only difference is that the author actually flew ONE or at least a limited number of 109's in comparison.

Well, lets look at this for a second. Go test drive 5 Ford Mustangs and you will soon discover that they dont all drive the same, even same year models with identical powerplant designs, straight from the factory. So if we were modeling a racing game, who would you believe? Me that test drove the worst one, or you that took the best one for a spin? -OR- why not use the manufacturers data to be fair and impartial?

Now imply that logic to test flight stories and add in things like servicability of seized enemy aircraft, airfoil damage and repair, and the overall history of the individual plane. Soon you should be able to realize that basing a sim on pilot accounts is the most subjective thing there is. As Enigmus said, where is the numbers? That's what I would like to see as well. I suspect the numbers SHOULD and WILL collaborate the turn claims of the Spitfarters, but the numbers have to be there for a change.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

biggs222
05-28-2004, 02:10 PM
yeah see, when people read things like this they get all dismissive, say we are just whining or that we are just want "our" plane to fly better. hell im not even british.

the point that Buzz and i and other are trying to make are very valid and can be backed up by fact not just opinion.

its disapointing that we have to do this, but i feel that it is definatly somethign worth addressing. i hope that this was not the last patch for AEP.

Nub_322Sqn
05-28-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
who test Bf109G6 with tempest and say that 109 outurn the Tempest just a little lol the tempest is know to be poor in turn not the 109,this affirmation is strange isn't it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello?

Am I talking to a wall here?

I said the Bf109 out turns a Tempest V.
According to German test data provided some time ago in a different thread and the Bf109 has only a slight advantage against the Tempest V.
What I said was that the Spitfires could turn inside a Tempest V with ease in the test trails against the Tempest V.

All you did so far was make claims without reference of any kind that a Bf109 G6 has a better slow speed turn then the Spitfire IX.

All I wanted to see was your proof for your claim but instead you keep trolling around in this thread.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

nixon-fiend.
05-28-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
Real Life isn't british test made by and for british pilot the only things i said
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think that the british tests are biased towards British planes then I have to say.. that is pure nonsense.

If anything the tests would be overestimating the capabilities of the enemy aircraft to ensure there exists a suitable counterthreat!!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Remember this is NOT propoganda - these were stop secret tests!

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
Real Life isn't british test made by and for british pilot the only things i said
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think that the british tests are biased towards British planes then I have to say.. that is pure nonsense.

If anything the tests would be overestimating the capabilities of the enemy aircraft to ensure there exists a suitable counterthreat!!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Remember this is NOT propoganda - these were stop secret tests!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, this was PURE GRADE propaganda. The results of those tests were known to combat pilots, but they vigurously questioned their accuracy (or even veracity). Some of the mistifications done by British "test pilots" are discussed at large even by British authors (a tabu subject until the '70s). Read William Green's book on Bf-109, it discusses how the Spitfire's "advantages" revealed in those tests against 109s were not to be found in real combat. For example all British "tests" claim that Spitfire outrolled 109s at any speed (they made this claim from the earlier comparison with Emils to the latest 109 types), British pilots on the other hand found themselves at no advantage in roll compared with Emils, and in clear disadvantage compared with Gustavs.

In general tests that do not measure performace shold be disqualified as a serious source beforehand. Most of the British tests (RAE) fall in this category, only claims with NOT EVEN ONE performance figure. The second category are the tests in which performance is actually measured but in the case of Bf-109s they are always obviously underperforming compared to original (factory) specs, and what's even worse for the credibility of those tests is that 109s are underperforming even compared to the data found in Russian tests (which cannot be suspected of bias towards German equipment).

And yes, Bf-109F-4 did turn in 18-19 sec, G-2 in 19-20 sec, G-6 in 20 sec, SpitV in 18 sec, SpitIX in 19-20 sec. Any turn rate figure larger than 21 sec for a Bf-109 (which was true for K series), regardless of model was either from a test on a defective model, done with a pilot not accustomed with the plane or just a propaganda exercise.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri May 28 2004 at 04:01 PM.]

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 05:41 PM
oleg has it correct, if you looks at statistics and charts you will see the 109 e f g have a faster rollrate and sustained turn then the spitfire. Its also why they clipped the wings to give it a better roll rate to compete with the 109.

aircraft that should be able to outroll and have a better sustained rate of turn

cr42
j8m
i16
i15
i153
yak3
p39n
hawker hurricane
b239
p40e m n
p36
h75
109e
109f
ju87

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

biggs222
05-28-2004, 06:19 PM
Lead thats not right, the clipped wings were for fighting against the FW190, because it had a better roll rate, NOT THE 109, the spit roll rate was already competative with the 109.

ur claim that it was ment for the 109 is unfounded. wheres did u hear that nonsence

what charts are u looking at??

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
Lead thats not right, the clipped wings were for fighting against the FW190, because it had a better roll rate, NOT THE 109, the spit roll rate was already competative with the 109.

ur claim that it was ment for the 109 is unfounded. wheres did u hear that nonsence

what charts are u looking at??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In two consecutive comprehensive tests NACA found the PEAK roll rate for metal aileron Spitfire (MkV in test) to be aprox 65 degrees for 50lb stick force. Peak was reached at a low speed (150-200mph), at speeds higher than this Spitfire was highly uncompetitive. Link to those tests were posted many times, even this week. Do a search.

nixon-fiend.
05-28-2004, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
No, this was PURE GRADE propaganda. The results of those tests were known to combat pilots, but they vigurously questioned their accuracy (or even veracity). Some of the mistifications done by British "test pilots" are discussed at large even by British authors (a tabu subject until the '70s). Read William Green's book on Bf-109, it discusses how the Spitfire's "advantages" revealed in those tests against 109s were not to be found in real combat. For example all British "tests" claim that Spitfire outrolled 109s at any speed (they made this claim from the earlier comparison with Emils to the latest 109 types), British pilots on the other hand found themselves at no advantage in roll compared with Emils, and in clear disadvantage compared with Gustavs.

In general tests that do not measure performace shold be disqualified as a serious source beforehand. Most of the British tests (RAE) fall in this category, only claims with NOT EVEN ONE performance figure. The second category are the tests in which performance is actually measured but in the case of Bf-109s they are always obviously underperforming compared to original (factory) specs, and what's even worse for the credibility of those tests is that 109s are underperforming even compared to the data found in Russian tests (which cannot be suspected of bias towards German equipment).

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri May 28 2004 at 04:01 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that very hard to believe...

Why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that?

That seems very stupid - are you sure?

I'm not well read on this subject so I have no trouble taking your word for it but damn.

I do find it hard to believe.

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 07:11 PM
N.A.C.A. Reports from the satability and control comittee, & aeronautical committee.

Public Ref Report# DSIR 23/12117

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

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 07:12 PM
N.A.C.A. Reports from the satability and control comittee, & aeronautical committee.

Public Ref Report# DSIR 23/12117


Now go watch battle of britian again

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

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 07:13 PM
N.A.C.A. Reports from the satability and control comittee, & aeronautical committee.

Public Ref Report# DSIR 23/12117


Now go watch battle of britian and dont believe what they say

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

biggs222
05-28-2004, 07:16 PM
this is so silly for 60 years it was accepted that one of the good characteristics of the spitfire mkIX was that it out-turned the 109 and 190.

then one day a sim adds the spitmkIX and it doesnt have that particular characteristic, and its is supose to be accepted as correct. (sarcasm)--&gt;this one sim has pulled the wool from the entire WWII comunity's eyes, saying, "All of you have been lied to all these years, the spits turnrate wasnt that good at all. the 109 actually easly outturned the spitfire!"

Its almost to the point of trying to re write the history books.
so now i guess i should throw all my boscombe down reports and other spitfire books in the garbage because they are apperently now, all wrong...

cmon now, fix the damn turnrate.

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
N.A.C.A. Reports from the satability and control comittee, & aeronautical committee.

Public Ref Report# DSIR 23/12117


Now go watch battle of britian again

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sorry LeadSpitter, but the report you mention is not a report on Spitfire, but a summary of research on lateral control. In this report no source is given for the Spitfire performance presented there, not even the model of Spitfire. You have to consider that the report is from '47, and if the data is correct, though I very much doubt that because it is in such a big contradiction with NACA own tests (keep in mind the data in the report you mention is NOT NACA data), which were very comprehensive, then it should be for a post war Spitfire.

Here is one of the extremely detailed NACA own tests on Spitfire:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

on page 45 there is a nice chart with roll rate against speed and stick force. There clearly says that Spitfire could do only 1.1 radians/sec (aprox 65 degree/sec) at 50lb stick force. Read it!

Magister__Ludi
05-28-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:

I find that very hard to believe...

Why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that?

That seems very stupid - are you sure?

I'm not well read on this subject so I have no trouble taking your word for it but damn.

I do find it hard to believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Check the NACA test above and see for your own (page 45)

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 07:47 PM
biggs they were so close in turnrate and also the spit had much better stall warning syetems the 109 didnt.

Sometimes online the spits9s are vulching with bombs ill take off in a g2 with 25 fuel be able to catch them and out turn them becuase they have more fuel. then they scream bloody murder about oleg being wrong blah blah.

Show proof, from your governments records dept is all I can tell you rather then believing past video games and what movies with alot of fiction say like BOB.

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

GR142-Pipper
05-28-2004, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
(...snip...)and to faustnik if you remove to G6 is low speed handling you'll remove one of the only advantage of G6 against spitMk9<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If the G6's low speed handling is incorrect and its advantage is unwarranted, it should be removed. All anyone is asking is that the flight models accurately represent as closely as possible those capabilities achieved by the real aircraft...no more, no less.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-28-2004, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(...snip...)Its almost to the point of trying to re write the history books.
so now i guess i should throw all my boscombe down reports and other spitfire books in the garbage because they are apperently now, all wrong...

cmon now, fix the damn turnrate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not the history books that are influencing this issue...it's the ledger books. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142-Pipper

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-28-2004, 09:00 PM
Salute

Not a big surprise that Magister Ludi (aka Huckbein, funny how both he and Isegrim/Kurfurst found it nessesary to change their names) will show up with disinformation.

First of all, we are not talking about rollrate, we are talking about turnrate.

Please provide some data which proves the 109's turned as well as the Spitfires. If you cannot provide any data, then you are obviously just expressing a valueless opinion.

So far the only person who has presented emperical data is myself.

And as mentioned previously, the British testing agencies were objective bodies, tasked with providing objective scientific results. The members were full time assigned to fly the German aircraft, and logged hundreds of hours in them.

Their results were certainly not 'propaganda'.

Propaganda is defined as follows:

"ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; and a public action having such an effect"

In fact, the AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT reports were not made public. They were supplied solely for the information of a few selected Fighter Pilots in the RAF. And contrary to Magister Ludi's statement, the results were not rejected by those pilots, but were instead anticipated as being very helpful in knowing the true facts.

Magister Ludi, aka Huckbein, has in fact many times quoted from AFDU reports when it has suited his purposes, namely the report on the FW190 vs the Spit V. Do a search of the boards and you will find the thread. He is being hypocritical in dismissing them now.

Finally, on the subject of rollrate, he is pointing to incorrect data once again.

The aircraft tested by NACA was the only Spitfire V provided to the USAAF, and was flown by every pilot who had a chance. Spitfire VA W3119 was also one of the first Spit V's to come off the production line and did not incorporate many modifications adopted later.

Robert Stanford Tuck, the British Ace, was in the U.S. as a liason officer at the time and had a chance to fly the aircraft. I quote from his book:

"It happened that Wright Field had the only Spitfire in America-a Mark V. Unfortunately almost every pilot in the Air Corps had had a go on her and like a car that had too many drivers, she was the worse for wear...'She was very tired, very sloppy-she'd had the guts caned out of her all right."

Later models of Spitfires were tested by the US, and the rollrate was greatly superior to that of this dilapidated aircraft. Those test results have been posted on this board many times and incorporated by Oleg into the current model of the Spitfire. The issue is not rollrate, it is turn.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Fri May 28 2004 at 11:59 PM.]

gkll
05-28-2004, 09:58 PM
lot of paranoia running around these posts... People are all up tight about data and so forth... any subjective stuff gets slammed repeatedly. For my part and as an example, I think that that brit subjective test of the FW190 had a lot of valuable info. For instance they said it flew nose down and was easy to see out of. So I've always had a lot of sympathy for the FW guys and their porked visibility. ... ditto for the poor slobs with their concrete elevators, and the 47 roll rate crowd and so on and so forth. A lot of sympathy, particularily when the common sense weight of evidence is contradicted by the game. In this case an excellent case can be made for the spit having poor relative turn performance to at least a couple of planes, as some of the zero crowd have also reported for their birds (my hunch is that in some way the effect of wing loading has been changed - so the spit may have been porked by accident..... ).

As to data it would seem that perhaps the best comparison would be to the 51, to check turn rates -who all collected turn times and how did they do it? And on the subjective side there must be a ton of quotes from 51 and spit drivers about mixing it up for fun, what were the commonly successful tactics? At the end of an exhaustive comparison it might be clear that a spit should pretty easily out tnb a 51... so then something is wrong for sure since there is no clear advantage for the spit in the game.....

For hard data there has been a mention of a soviet 17 sec turn time for the IX - where is this test?

BlitzPig_DDT
05-28-2004, 10:22 PM
http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/YesNo.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

NN_EnigmuS
05-29-2004, 03:22 AM
i ve tried spit Mk5 and Mk9 all night long yesterday so in aep2.01:

-spit Mk5 outurn G2 at any speed(and yak1b too i ve made this with a guy of my squad lol),at 1000m 18-18,5 for spit Mk5(it was very close of the chart give for spit Mk1 as posted before http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif)

-spit Mk9 outurn G6 at any speed(with practise you have to pull the stick not too hard near 300km/h for prevent of stall then with loss of speed you can pull the stick harder,with flap you can easily turn at lower speed than G6 whitout stall,hard turn allowed at 190km/h with spit Mk9e),it's 20-21s for a 360?turn at 1000m,regarding to the difference with Mk5(weight,power etc....)it's very correct(22-22.5s for G6,to compare with 20s for G2)

-spit Mk9 and G2 had quite similar turn rate at any spit

so i think Aep 2.01 in this aspect is very well made,why complain?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
05-29-2004, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

Moderator:

Certain people are posting in this thread, and adding nothing useful to the discussion, instead are focused on repetitive personal attacks. Please warn them about their behaviour.

Thankyou

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Fri May 28 2004 at 11:09 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then you post that:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

Not a big surprise that Magister Ludi (aka Huckbein, funny how both he and Isegrim/Kurfurst found it nessesary to change their names) will show up with disinformation.

you're the one making personnal attak here,it gave some data and you just made reference to his name as a not "good" guy for you,so implied that all he said is wrong,why don't you attack leadspitter form being a luftwhinner too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

moderator must advice you from personnal attack haha

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Nub_322Sqn
05-29-2004, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
hard turn allowed at 190km/h with spit Mk9e),it's 20-21s for a 360?turn at 1000m,regarding to the difference with Mk5(weight,power etc....)it's very correct<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

20-21 seconds is not very correct, it should be 19-20 seconds.
You have absolutely no idea what the correct turn times of the Spitfires are.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-29-2004, 04:31 AM
it's 18-18.5 for spit Mk1 and 5
you can easily imagine that a mk9 make 2s more than spit MK5 because of the weight add and more power.
weight of spit:full loaded(100%fuel)
Mk5:3078Kg
Mk1:2651Kg
Mk9:4309Kg
Mk14:3856Kg

empty:
Mk1:2049Kg for 1040Hp
Mk5:2313Kg for 1460Hp
Mk9:2556Kg for 1565Hp
Mk14:2994Kg for 2080Hp

so in comparison G2 weight:empty:2255Kg for 1475Hp
take off:3100kg
G6:empty:2676Kg for 1550Hp
Take off:3153kg
with an add of 400kg,G6 loss 2s turn rate timefrom G2,and have 22s 360?turn
with an add of 500Kg,spit Mk9 loss 2s turn rate time from spit MK1(chart said 18.3 for spit Mk1)and have 20.5s 360?turn
it's logical to me and it's like that in game

you want a add of only 1s from spit Mk1 turn rate for 500kg more in empty conditions in spit Mk9lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Sharpe26
05-29-2004, 04:48 AM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

now someone please explain why I shot down a ki 84 with the spitfire V.

Kwiatos
05-29-2004, 04:58 AM
Spitfire MK IX Take Off Weight - 3400 kg not 4300 kg !!!!
And turn time should be about 19-20 sec.

Bastables
05-29-2004, 05:16 AM
Still more hysteria and calls that the IX is out turned by the G6?
But the IX can carry out sustained turns at 1000m of 21 secs; while the G6 carries out it?s sustianed turns at 22sec.

Is 21sec to high? Don?t know as no-one has yet posted any evidence that the IX can carry out sustined turns at 19-20 sec.

Would sombody actully post a report showing the IX carrying out better than 21sec? If not you have no basis of argument.

NN_EnigmuS
05-29-2004, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Spitfire MK IX Take Off Weight - 3400 kg not 4300 kg !!!!
And turn time should be about 19-20 sec.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

anyway empty weight bigger than Mk1 of 500kg lol and the spit Mk1 made 18.5s 360? turn,i cannot believe Mk9,with 500kg more than Mk1, made 19s lol the 20.5,21s in game is correct to me
the G6 with 400kg made 2s more than G2 360? turn at 1000,so why not the same for spitMk9 wich had 500kg more than Mk1?

i've seen many sources saying that maximum weight at take off for MK9 is 4309Kg.
anyway for the comparison i ve take empty weight.

and from a spit web site made for the 60th years old of the plane:
"Late in 1940, the first examples of the Bf-109F were encountered over Southern England. it proved far superior to the Hurricane and more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire above 25,000 feet."hope in Bob will see that hehe(if we have 109F lol)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

p1ngu666
05-29-2004, 09:43 AM
4300 is probably with bombs/drop tank
and 109F was probably more manaoverable like a 190 or it had better power over 25000feet

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-29-2004, 01:06 PM
Salute

Since the Lufties side likes to talk about the G2 a lot and suggest that it is natural that it outturns Spitfire IX LF, lets compare the two aircraft.

Spitfire IX LF

Engine: Merlin 66 1705 hp at +18 boost

Weight: 7480 lbs (this is higher than a lot of tested Spit IX's but Germans like to use it so ok)

Wing Area: 242 Sq/ft


109G2

Engine: DB605A 1475 hp (actually models of G2 had less hp when produced, since only 1.3 ata was allowed, but we'll give them higher rated 1.42 boost so Lufties will be happy)

Weight: 3100 kg or 6820 lbs

Wing area: 172.75 Sq/ft


COMPARISON OF BASIC VALUES


Wingloading

Spitfire: 30.9 lbs per Sq/ft

109G2: 39.48 lbs per Sq/ft

Spitfire has a 22% advantage in wingloading.


Powerloading

Spitfire: 4.38 lbs per horsepower

109G2: 4.62 lbs per horsepower

Spitfire has a 5.2% advantage in powerloading.


If you look at the climb charts for the two aircraft, you will see that the Spitfire, at 4700 ft/min, also outclimbs the G2 even if you use the Finnish climbcharts, which are far better than the factory charts for the G2 done at Rechlin.

The fact that the Spitfire IX outclimbs the G2 also tells us it has better acceleration.

So the Spitfire has better powerloading, better wingloading, better acceleration. And yet the Lufties are insisting that the G2 should outturn it? Unlikely.

The fact is, from the introduction of the Mk IX LF, the 109G's were at a serious disadvantage with inferior climb, turn, and no speed advantage. It wasn't until May 1944, with the introduction of the G6AS that the 109 got a speed advantage.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Sat May 29 2004 at 01:41 PM.]

faustnik
05-29-2004, 02:12 PM
Buzzsaw,

Could you please post a climb chart comparison instead of just giving a maximum initial climb rate for the MxIX. I'm sure the actual climb relationship between the Bf109G2 and the MkIX is not that simple.

Interesting also that you lump all the "Lufties" into one group when many are supporting your post here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-29-2004, 02:35 PM
Salute Faustnik

My apologies if I seemed lump you in with some of the others.

As far as the climbcharts, I do not have a webspace I can put up the finnish G2 chart. It has been up on these boards many times, and there still may be a link if you search.

The Spit LF climb chart is here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bs543climb.gif

courtesy Mike William's Spitfire site. I do not hotlink his images since he prefers not to have people do that.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 02:41 PM
Mix and match performance numbers where one number seems to blanket a wide
range and a partial set of factors is used... yup that's honest discussion
ain't it? And no, I'm not pointing.

I have seen accounts and data where in the BoB the higher you go, the more
supreme the 109's reigned as to performance. IMHO it's an engine and prop
thing plus those slats that don't get mentioned all the time. But down
lower, still high up enough and the Spits outdid them except maybe speed,
I'm not 100% sure there. And below about 8000 feet and the Hurricanes were
able to turn with and then outturn the 109E's. So where is the blanket of
one of those always being the better at turns? Nowhere for any of them.
Only in places although some have a wider range than others.

This is also true of about any fighters I can name in the war. Arguements
should either be about where one is better or include that. And as for best
fighters, those extra weights of weapons, ammo and fuel that take away from
performance should also add to the balance in firepower, trigger time and
flight time. The 109E was much handicapped by fuel capacity in the BoB, it
is not much good having a higher max speed when you can't dare use it for
long in battle that doesn't take you closer to home! Ditto Spitfires as
bomber escorts much into Europe and others so maybe where the fight occurs
makes a real difference in outcomes, much more than A) Top Speed, B) Best
Climb, C) Best Turn, trying to say "My plane is better.". Top speed is only
good so much time and only if your engine is not already very hot and if you
have the fuel to waste, cruise or combat speed has as more meaning don't it?
Best climb is only good if you are fighting at or near best climb speed and
altitude. And the same for best turn, it is not only the wings but power
there. And yet I keep seeing post after post with single performance numbers
per category used to show (prove is far too strong a word) that one plane is
better or to show it is not as things get uglier and uglier like politics.
How to respect arguments like those?


Neal

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-29-2004, 02:47 PM
Salute

For those who point out the Spit IX weighs 500 kg more than the Spit I, and how that should somehow preclude it from having a faster turn time than the earlier plane, I would suggest they look at the 109's.

The 109G2 weighs 554 kg more than the E3, but it turns faster.

So we are expected to believe that the later model 109's can turn faster, but that the later model Spitfires cannot?

Not too much logic there.

faustnik
05-29-2004, 03:02 PM
Buzzsaw,

You can't really compare the E to later models as there were so many design changes.

Like Neal said (I'm hoping this is what you were saying Neal) you would have to be very specific in your comparison. The issues is relative turn of the Spit IX and the Bf109G6 under 290kph at altitudes under 5K meters (at least those are the altitudes at which I have tested). Going back to the leading edge slats, is this about the speed at which they deployed? Again, how much did the slats increase wing area and lift? Maybe the issue is simply a matter if the 109's leading edge slat modeling and nothing else?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Kurfurst__
05-29-2004, 03:39 PM
I was reading this little thread with enjoyement, and really do not wish to add other to BS`s whinings about should the Spitfires much better even when he couldn`t even state better than what... I`ll just point out the correct facts.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

Once again you are making suggestions which are not bourne out by the facts.
In regards to the lift coefficient:

Look at the chart posted for the Spit IA and 109E:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

The lift coefficients are clearly posted there on the upper right of each chart. They do not fit your claims at all. The Spitfire's lift coefficient is only very slightly worse than the 109's but huge advantage the Spitfire has in overall wingloading easily cancels that out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well BS, to me it appears he`s right and you are wrong. He stated that the wingloading comparisons don`t make much sense alone, in which he is 100% correct. At every G-load, even the assumed lift coefficients are higher for the 109E`s airfoil, not to mention they arrived it with a pilots that most likely did not take full advantage of the wing slats.
The Spitfire had a thin wing section with a lower lift coeff, the 109E had a thicker wing with higher lift coeff. Simple physics, and the great plus on the 109`s side it`s having leading edge slats, which provide high lift even under very high angle of attack, ie. in hard turns as the below diagram shows :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/TH17G2.jpg

The clear advantage in lift coefficient of the slotted wing is obvious under high AoA.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At 3 G's acceleration, a typical turn acceleration, the 109's CL Max. is 1.49. the Spitfire's is 1.45. That is only a 2.3% difference in favour of the 109. On the other hand, the wingloading difference is 23% in favour of the Spitfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s probably true in case of the 109E and Spit I. Certainly not true for the later models of them, the Spits gained a lot of weight from 1942, this increaseed their wingloading rather drastically, the 109s gained a lot less weight, both in absolute numbers and in percantage.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Second, the 109 had very poor drag characteristics, most of which was caused by the turbulence over wings and the airframe by the poor placement of the radiator intake and the in particular, the slats on the wings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite laughable statements, BS, they have no connection with reality. Turbulance over wings? Airframe? No special case in the the 109, apart from the usual things you can expect from any prop fighter. On the other hand, the turbulant effects of the excessively steep Spitfire windshield, boundary layer separation in the radiators, the Hispano stubs over the whole wing area are well known. As a matter of fact, the 109E had the same design radiators as the Spits did - difference is, the 109s moved to a much more advanced layout with the 109F, whereas the Spit`s radiators remained the same through the war, in fact, they doubled in numbers in 1942, and got bigger and bigger as bigger engines were used.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is evidenced in the poor top speed of the 109's when compared to their peak hp figures. For example, the 109E, with 1150 hp, was actually slower at 349 mph than the Spitfire IA with 1030 hp and 354 mph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expect for the basic facts, namely:

a, You give powers at 0m vs. speeds reached at altitude. The two have connection with each other, altitute power output is very different than SL power output

b, Just as a sidenote, you gave speed figure for a Spit I without armor plates and ext. armored glass, which killed 9mph speed when fitted

c, Thirdly, your power figures for the 109E are incorrect, you quote a special low level WEP (1.45ata) power of 1150 HP for the 109E and compare it to the speeds it reached under it`s normal (1.35ata) WEP. Interesting, but I think you should refer to the power with 349mph was reached, 1.35ata, 990 PS or about 960 HP.

In fact, the drag differencies between the Spitfire and 109 are very much shown by their required power outputs at SL with the speed they reached with. In case of the 109E and Spit I, it`s 282-283 mph for both planes, but the 109E requires only 960 HP for that, whereas the Spitfire requires 1030 HP.

The same is evident if you look at any later 109 and Spit model, ie. 109G-2 w. 1310 HP achieved 525 km/h at SL, the Spit F. Mk IX achieved 501 km/h w. 1340 HP at SL. With 1475 HP the G-2 reached 540 km/h, with 1690 HP the Mk IX reached 543 km/h etc. The Spit always required a LOT more HP to haul it around, an obvious sign of high drag.

Clearly the drag is much higher on the Spitfire, and it`s no surprise that even with identical powerloading, which it did not have for most of the time, the Spitfire will have bigger difficulties not bleeding away E in hard turns, for it has greater drag to fight.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Kurfurst__
05-29-2004, 04:03 PM
Some little addon to those British trials done with Tempest vs 190A and 109G. A quick note certainly reveals a lots of things.

The report states :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Turning Circles
There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Bf.109G

Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ie. the report states that the FW 190 is supposed to be a better turner than the 109G... sorry..? every single report I have seen, let it be German or Russian, clearly states the 109 being the better turner, it`s also evidenced by the tech specs. The report gives the clue why was it so in the report though, i.e. the usual British testpilot unfamiliarity with leading edge slats on the 109s. As other put, the British believed there was a limit where there was actually nothing, and clearly could not push the 109s nearly as hard in turns as they could be. Unfortunately because of this the AFDU trials give us no insight in the turning abilities of the Bf 109s.

It should be also noted that the Tempest was compared to a rather different BF 109G than the others (Spit IX, XIV and Mustang III), as the latter testing groups 109s, the known 109 G-6/U2 with cannon gondolas crashed before the trials could be competed. Therefore, they included the earlier trials against the Tempest, in which a clean 109G-2 participated. This latter aircraft was much lighter, and thus more manouverable than the G-6/U2, though it didn`t help much if the pilots couldn`t push it to it`s limits. (TO weight of the G-2 was 3037 kg, for the G-6 somewhere between 3150 and 3196kg, depending on variant; however, the gunpods added another 215kg).



To me the only thing appearant from BS`s b*tchin and moaning about the Spit`s 'deficient' turn rate is that he can`t fly the plane. He reminds me to that Spit IX pilot I last fought in a K-4, after committing a tactical mistake to turnfight him (was a bit curious how it works), after a series of manouvers he got behind me. But he couldn`t handle his plane correctly, a series of scissor put him into the right place to be fixed with the MK 108 for good. He took off again, took up a good position behind me, again scissors, but this time, I didn`t even need to fire, all I can observe is him splashing into the ground... he could have been this Buzzshaw guy, who now tries to make up for his own skill with whining instead of practicing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It was already pointed out by others that the Mk IX actually slightly outturns the 109G-2 or G-6 in the game, which is I believe is most correct, and matches Mark Hanna`s own descriptio of them, who had quite experience with both types, flying them on a regular manner:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Mark Hanna put is the best way, and I fully agree with him. To my experience, it`s also like this in the game. One should not forget that the Mk IX took a lot of weight on compared to the Mk V, stall speeds were much higher, nobody should expect it as manouverable as the Mk V - but it`s a lot faster, and climbs a lot better.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

faustnik
05-29-2004, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

To me the only thing appearant from BS`s b*tchin and moaning about the Spit`s 'deficient' turn rate is that he can`t fly the plane. He reminds me to that Spit IX pilot I last fought in a K-4, after committing a tactical mistake to turnfight him (was a bit curious how it works), after a series of manouvers he got behind me. But he couldn`t handle his plane correctly, a series of scissor put him into the right place to be fixed with the MK 108 for good. He took off again, took up a good position behind me, again scissors, but this time, I didn`t even need to fire, all I can observe is him splashing into the ground... he could have been this Buzzshaw guy, who now tries to make up for his own skill with whining instead of practicing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't need garbage postings like that, it's just uncalled for. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Can't someone post a question on this board without silly name called and the old "learn to fly" line? I suppose the answer to any question you might bring up with a 109 modeling issue (like high speed controls) should be answered in similar fassion?

Just bring the data and discussion to the board please.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Buzzsaw,

You can't really compare the E to later models as there were so many design changes.

Like Neal said (I'm hoping this is what you were saying Neal) you would have to be very specific in your comparison. The issues is _relative turn of the Spit IX and the Bf109G6 under 290kph at altitudes under 5K meters_ (at least those are the altitudes at which I have tested). Going back to the leading edge slats, is this about the speed at which they deployed? Again, how much did the slats increase wing area and lift? Maybe the issue is simply a matter if the 109's leading edge slat modeling and nothing else?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Quite often specifics can make or break an arguement. The longest threads
often have pages devoted to two or more posters going back and forth over a few
such specifics, but of course not the same ones and never a resolution -- but
still there is one example made through and also ignored by often the same people.

I believe that by stating such specifics a point is better stated. By ignoring
them a point is poorly made. If it covers all cases of any category then it should
say so. Even wing loading is subject to fuel, ammo and ordinance. Turn performance
charts in full state a list of conditions including power settings that I see.

Self done tests should state specifics, the good ones do. Can you get the best of
turns at full power from the start? I don't think so from advice I've had before
and experience as well. Yet some people do and it takes a lot to find that out
sometimes.

By stating specifics, more people become conscious of those as factors. I think it
affects their flying if the learn. It helped me tremendously long, long ago when a
sim was a box with an instructor sitting behind and only a night view to look at.
Well, okay, there were these games called sims too. But they were too primitive to
use any real knowledge to gain advantage or compare about. F-15 Strike Eagle on the
Atari? LOL! The word is Arcade!


Neal

Slater_51st
05-29-2004, 04:29 PM
S! Ok, I've read this, seen alot of British opinion on Spits vs 109s. Why not look for a German source that says the Spit could/couldn't turn inside of the 109?

Here's what I've got, from The First and the Last, by Adolf Galland, comparing the 109E and the Spitfire Mk I, I believe(referring to BoB, so I'd assume it would be). Admittedly, this is a bit thin to base the later model comparisons on, but it does back up the British reports.
Ok, here's the quote, page 31:
"I tried to point out ME-109 was superior in the attack, and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which although a little slower, was much more maneuverable."
So, since we've ascertained that the Spit is slower, and does not roll as well, that leaves pretty much turning capabilities as the main remaining "maneuverablity factor."

I agree that Spits and Schmitts were evenly matched overall, but I still believe the Spit had the edge in the turn, the 109s had the edge in diving speed and overall speed.

My two cents, I'll probe my books again to see if I can't find better. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S! Slater

_51st_Slater at Hyperlobby
Oblt_A_Wolf at il2skins.com

p1ngu666
05-29-2004, 04:38 PM
kurfy, u can judge a radiator just by external looks, how dense, fin design etc effects it also. all rads are not the same, roughly same basic design yes but fin density, width etc would effect drag a fair amount.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 05:00 PM
{QUOTE]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Turning Circles
There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Bf.109G

Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ie. the report states that the FW 190 is supposed to be a better turner than the 109G... sorry..? [/QUOTE]

Perfect example of lack of specifics and ignoring those. Makes a good merry-go-round but
nothing else. Is it possible that at some different alts and speeds that the first two
trials are true? Yes, very. Or some other factors, different for each makes them both
true. Not at the same conditions. So trying to go from the first outcome and combining
the second to reach a third outcome unstated by any test but somewhere and somehow may be
true though not probable... that is called the ladder of abstraction by some.

The third thing stating a flaw in the outcome... isn't the 190 supposed to handle at very
high speeds much better than the 109's in general? Is it possible that somewhere above
say 500kph the 190 in question can outturn the 109 in question? Is that a valid question?


Neal

Magister__Ludi
05-29-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Turning Circles
There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Bf.109G

Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ie. the report states that the FW 190 is supposed to be a better turner than the 109G... sorry..? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfect example of lack of specifics and ignoring those. Makes a good merry-go-round but
nothing else. Is it possible that at some different alts and speeds that the first two
trials are true? Yes, very. Or some other factors, different for each makes them both
true. Not at the same conditions. So trying to go from the first outcome and combining
the second to reach a third outcome unstated by any test but somewhere and somehow may be
true though not probable... that is called the ladder of abstraction by some.

The third thing stating a flaw in the outcome... isn't the 190 supposed to handle at very
high speeds much better than the 109's in general? Is it possible that somewhere above
say 500kph the 190 in question can outturn the 109 in question? Is that a valid question?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don't try to fix it Neal, that section of the report is for sustained turns. Under any circumstance and regardless of models, Bf-109 always turned better than Fw-190. Except of course in British tests. Which tells a lot about the quality of British tests.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 05:27 PM
Well I'd have lost ten bucks there I guess.

At no speed and alt would the 190 have sustain-turned better? I am truely surprised.


Neal

Magister__Ludi
05-29-2004, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well I'd have lost ten bucks there I guess.

At no speed and alt would the 190 have sustain-turned better? I am truely surprised.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, you lost the ten bucks. You shouldn't be surprised however.
Sustained turns are not done at any speed, but at best sustained turn speed, if you want to win a turnfight.

For example best sustained turn speed is for both 109K4 and 190D9 around 350km/h (slightly higher for D9). At this speed K4 makes a 360 degree turn faster with 1 sec than D9. This as close as one 190 can get to a 109 model. For other variants this difference can be as large as 5 seconds (109F4 compared with 190A8 for example). Ta-152H turns better than all Fw-190 variants, but it has a completely different wing.

patch_adams
05-29-2004, 06:22 PM
Well it seems as though mr.buzzsaw's arguement is fallacious and has been effectively refuted. It seems like oleg did his research and gave us an accurate flight model. Furthermore, it is no wonder that Eric Brown believed that the flight models in il2 Ace Expansion Pack were extremely accurate.

CV8_Dudeness
05-29-2004, 07:25 PM
OH PLEASE

dont bring up Eric Brown & his Beached Whale Response joystick settings


back onto topic . . . .

one thing i seee in FB is that the Bf-109 Elevators (all of them) get reduced effectivness too soon speed wise

i know that they did stiffen up IRL ..... thats well documented

but from what ive read it happened at higher speeds than what happenes in-game in FB at the moment

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-29-2004, 08:14 PM
Salute Kurfurst/Isegrim

Only a matter of time till you showed up.

You claim to have all the original data on the 109, maybe you'd like to show me the test that shows one outturning a Spitfire?

The Germans captured lots of Spitfires in flyable condition, in fact they had enough that the Luftwaffe technicians actually installed a Daimler Benz engine in one. We know they did many comparisons with the 109.

So my question is: Where's the test?

Obviously the reason you haven't posted one, is that there never was a test result showing a 109 outturning a Spitfire.

In regards to the wing slats giving a higher lift coefficient at high AOA's, I will be the first to admit that the slats were a benefit at high AOA. They were a huge disadvantage in drag and the cause of enormous turbulence at higher speeds, but that's another issue, which of course, Oleg has addressed with the poor high speed handling of the 109's.

But even at high AOA the higher lift coefficient with the slats only affects the available wing area. Since the available wing area of the 109 is small when compared to the weight of the aircraft, a higher lift coefficient is not going to make enough of a difference.

There is only a 2.7% difference between the efficiency of the 109's wing at a high AOA than the Spitfire's. And since the Spitfire has a 22% advantage in overall wingloading, that means the lift generated by the Spitfire's wing is still going to be hugely better than the 109's.

Still waiting for that test... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 08:19 PM
Is there an AOA where the Spit would stall while the 109 would not?


Neal

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-29-2004, 08:53 PM
Salute

The important thing to remember is that the Spitfire's stall speed is less than the 109's. That relates to the overall wingloading. Lower wingloading, lower stall speed.

That is because the Spitfire generates enough lift at very low speeds, even when the amount of air flowing past the wings is low. Unlike the 109.

The Spitfire also doesn't have to generate as high an AOA to get an equivalent amount of lift, due again to its lower wingloading.

As I have quoted previously in this thread, the test report by Wing Commander Stainsforth says:

"The Pilot of the Spitfire reports he had no difficulty in 'sitting on the Messerschmidt's tail', but could, in fact, have steepened up his speed quite a lot and got well on the inside."

Ie. while the 109 is pulling max AOA, the Spitfire was not turning to its maximum.

Re-read the other posts: The most common term used when comparing the Spitfire's turn to other aircraft is "...EASILY outturns"

Willi Messerschmidt created an aircraft with high wingloading, and then decided he needed to do something to save what would have been a nasty aircraft. So he introduced the slats. But they are an attempt to compensate for, not a solution for the high wingloading.

Magister__Ludi
05-29-2004, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The important thing to remember is that the Spitfire's stall speed is less than the 109's. That relates to the overall wingloading. Lower wingloading, lower stall speed.

That is because the Spitfire generates enough lift at very low speeds, even when the amount of air flowing past the wings is low. Unlike the 109.

The Spitfire also doesn't have to generate as high an AOA to get an equivalent amount of lift, due again to its lower wingloading.

As I have quoted previously in this thread, the test report by Wing Commander Stainsforth says:

"The Pilot of the Spitfire reports he had no difficulty in 'sitting on the Messerschmidt's tail', but could, in fact, have steepened up his speed quite a lot and got well on the inside."

Ie. while the 109 is pulling max AOA, the Spitfire was not turning to its maximum.

Re-read the other posts: The most common term used when comparing the Spitfire's turn to other aircraft is "...EASILY outturns"

Willi Messerschmidt created an aircraft with high wingloading, and then decided he needed to do something to save what would have been a nasty aircraft. So he introduced the slats. But they are an attempt to compensate for, not a solution for the high wingloading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Germans, like almost everybody else did very little tests on turning, even more so on sustained turning. Sustained turning is a valid tactic only online, not in real life where you don't have lifes to spent. That's why you won't find any such test on sustained turning from Rechlin, when there are plenty of tests for speed and climb.

Germans, Americans did some tests on turning with speed bleed, Brits did some tests on sustained turning. However, only the Russians did sistematic testing on sustained turning, and have by far the most reliable and comprehensive gallery of turning tests, they tested the turning characteristics of almost every type they could get their hands on.

Magister__Ludi
05-29-2004, 11:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The important thing to remember is that the Spitfire's stall speed is less than the 109's. That relates to the overall wingloading. Lower wingloading, lower stall speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Complete bull.

Lower wingloading and thinner airfoil can result in the same stall speed with higher wingloading and thicker airfoil. This is precisely the case with early Gustavs (G2 and G6 before wooden tail and enlarged gear) and Spit IX. Those early Gustavs have a stall speed of 155km/h whereas Spit IX has a stall speed of 98mph(157km/h) with clipped wings and 95mph(152km/h) with eliptical wings, according to the manual. That's basically the same stall speed.

So I'm sorry dear Buzzsaw but there's no Spitfire advantage comming from the wing. From excess thrust /weight ratio even less, Spitfire generates more drag (that's why it is slower). This is why early Gustav and Spit IX had aprox the same turn time: 19-20 sec for a 360 degree turn.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-30-2004, 02:28 AM
Salute Mag/Huck

Wrong. As usual... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The stall speed you are quoting is for a bubble canopy Spit, (you seen any of those in IL-2 Mag?) and with engine OFF.

The scanned original manual I have clearly indicates clearly the facts. (anyone who wants a copy of the manual, send me a PM with your e-mail and I will send you it)

Stall Speeds listed:

Training load, (full fuel, guns, but no ammo) Total weight of aircraft: 7150 lbs.

Flaps and undercarriage up, engine on: 78 mph or 124.8 kph

Flaps and undercarriage up, engine off: 90 mph or 144 kph

Flaps and undercarriage down, engine on: 65-69 mph or 104-110.4 kph

Flaps and undercarriage down, engine off: 75-79 mph or 120-126.4 kph


Normal Load, (full fuel and ammo, plus one filled 45 gallon slipper tank) Total weight of aircraft and load: 7800 lbs or 350 lbs more than a clean Spitfire fully loaded with fuel and ammo.

Flaps and undercarriage up, engine on: 80 mph or 128 kph

Flaps and undercarriage up, engine off: 93 mph or 148.8 kph

Flaps and undercarriage down, engine on: 69 mph or 110.4 kph

Flaps and undercarriage down, engine off: 80 mph or 120-126.4 kph


The Spitfire has a far better stalling speed with its engine off and with a 45 gallon drop tank loaded than a 109 with its engine on... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Second mistake you made Mag:

The Spitfire is faster than either the G2 or G6. At both sea level and altitude.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/lfhfspeed.gif

k5054
05-30-2004, 03:03 AM
"Clearly the drag is much higher on the Spitfire, and it`s no surprise that even with identical powerloading, which it did not have for most of the time, the Spitfire will have bigger difficulties not bleeding away E in hard turns, for it has greater drag to fight."

Not only is this wrong, you know it is. IF the spitfire had a higher drag in level flight, it was from the extra wetted area, profile drag, which takes up about 95% of drag in thick air at high speed. The figure for the 109 would have slightly more induced drag and slightly less profile, under these conditions. When pulling G, induced drag rapidly becomes the major factor in drag. And when you rely on slats to pull g, that costs you more. That extra AOA you are so fond of means more induced drag, and the irregular lift distribution caused by the slats makes the oswald factor ( a measure of wing eficiency) worse. Induced drag increases with the square of the g, so if the Bf had 6% of its drag induced at s/l top speed, it would have 96% at 4g (+ the original 94% profile), where the 5% spit would have 80%, +95%. So the spits engine (more powerful for the same speed if your claim is true) has to fight 175%, the less powerful Bf 190%. Therefore the Bf will lose more speed in the turn.


The 5% and 6% I used here for example only, in fact the difference is greater. Give me your power/speed/alt combo for both a/c and I'll tell you what it is.

Kurfurst__
05-30-2004, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute Kurfurst/Isegrim

You claim to have all the original data on the 109, maybe you'd like to show me the test that shows one outturning a Spitfire?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS-XO, why would I have to ? Did I say the 109 should outturn the Spit ? No, I said the Spit should outturn the 109 slightly, altough I`d risk that it`s not true for the very late 109 models vs. very late Spit models because the latter gained a lot more weight during time and degraded aerodynamically. And to my experience, that is how it is in the game. The Spit IX is very easy to fly, IMHO a bit too easy, and I can turn better w. it than 109s. The trouble is, many Spit pilot just think all they need to do is the bank and the pull the stick and they will win.. they are completely surprised when the 109 actually beats them in their own backyard, in manouvering fights, utilizing the 109s manouveribility advantages over the Spitfire.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In regards to the wing slats giving a higher lift coefficient at high AOA's, I will be the first to admit that the slats were a benefit at high AOA. They were a huge disadvantage in drag and the cause of enormous turbulence at higher speeds, but that's another issue, which of course, Oleg has addressed with the poor high speed handling of the 109's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There`s no enourmous turbulance with wing slats or drag, BS. At high speed the slats are in their place in the leading edge, and if you have ever seen such device in your life, you would know how tight the connection is. No 2 Mach plus jet would utilize slats then today - yet 99% of them have them.. Speaking of 'turbulance' at high speed, the fact that even the Me 262 had them, in fact at twice the lenght of leading edge than the 109, is also very telling. The high speed handling of the 109 had even less to do with the slats. It`s caused by large control forces on the elevator, and in the game, appearantly either an FM or a joystick driver problem.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But even at high AOA the higher lift coefficient with the slats only affects the available wing area. Since the available wing area of the 109 is small when compared to the weight of the aircraft, a higher lift coefficient is not going to make enough of a difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what AoA you are talking about. At an AoA that both wings can support, the Spit will likely generate more lift. As we go higher AoA, the Spit`s wing is unable to support airflow over the wing anymore. Basically lift increases up to a point, then it becomes so turbulant that the boundary layer suddenly separates (refer to the pic I posted), and the wing will start to generate almost no lift as the AoA further increases = dynamic stall. Kinda if you try to steer your car too harshly, after a while it won`t turn better but only loose your control over it. At the same time, because of it`s slats, the lift the 109 generates is still increasing - the airflow will enter in the slot that appears when the slats open, that will increase it`s speed and the airflow can be maintained a bit more. I guess that also answers Neal`s question.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There is only a 2.7% difference between the efficiency of the 109's wing at a high AOA than the Spitfire's. And since the Spitfire has a 22% advantage in overall wingloading, that means the lift generated by the Spitfire's wing is still going to be hugely better than the 109's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That refers to the Spit I vs. 109E, and the results are based on British testing, which would favour the Spit, naturally, as pilots were experienced with it, but not with the 109s. We are talking about later, significantly different models though.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

JtD
05-30-2004, 05:37 AM
Buzzsaw, please stop making comparisms by powerloading and wingloading. I already said this just doesn't work. Now since you don't believe in engineering, one example might open your eyes:

Bf 109 E:
1175hp, 16.4m^2, 2700kg
Yak-3:
1240hp, 14.8m^2, 2700kg

Powerloading:

109: 2.3kg/hp
Yak: 2.2kg/hp

advantage Yak: 5.5%

Wingloading:

109: 165kg/m^2
Yak: 180kg/m^2

advantage 109: 11%

The same way you suggest the lower wing- and powerloading of the Spitfire makes it turn better, these numbers are suggesting the Emil turns better than the Yak-3. Which is wrong.

So please stop bringing in these numbers. They are no argument.

JtD
05-30-2004, 05:44 AM
regarding drag of Spit and 109:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/SpitVmitDB605Aspeed.jpg

Different airframes, same engine. 109 goes faster.

JG5_UnKle
05-30-2004, 06:06 AM
Nice post JtD thnx for the chart http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Functio
05-30-2004, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
The same way you suggest the lower wing- and powerloading of the Spitfire makes it turn better, these numbers are suggesting the Emil turns better than the Yak-3. Which is wrong.

So please stop bringing in these numbers. They are no argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nub_322Sqn
05-30-2004, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
regarding drag of Spit and 109:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/SpitVmitDB605Aspeed.jpg

Different airframes, same engine. 109 goes faster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at this chart with Huck/Issy logic it doesn't prove a thing.
They alway say that the British tests are full of propaganda and performed by pilots who didn't know how to fly the German planes, so why should a German test be any better about a British plane since they are no expert on them as well?

Not saying the chart you posted is wrong but you guys dismiss British tests this way so don't expect that others will accept info comming from German tests about Allied planes.

Heck, Hucky even challenges the quality of the British tests pilots.
I am sure Hucky is a much better expert when it comes to flying WWII planes since he has so many flying hours in them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

JtD
05-30-2004, 07:43 AM
The way you look at data, your logic and your attitude towards other members totally depends on you.

k5054
05-30-2004, 08:16 AM
********************
Different airframes, same engine. 109 goes faster.
**********************
Different engines, same airframe, 109, developed for years in wind tunnels and by refinement of A thru G models, goes 10kmh quicker than a lashup DB605 bolted to a spit designed for an upright V engine with no tuning for cooling systems, prop, all the things that are part of fighter development. Pretty good show for the Spit.
Also note that, with the same engine, in an undeveloped installation, the Spitfire manages to go faster than the 109G at over 10.5km. THIS indicates that the spit is more efficient when the wing has to work harder, ie it has less induced drag, and that means better sustained turn. Without a doubt, and from your own chart.
Spit/109 induced drag figs coming soon....

JtD
05-30-2004, 08:51 AM
The engine installation is less dirty than you suggest.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/spitvbdb605.jpg

Your observation regarding high alt charateristics matches mine. However, there also is a considerable difference in weight. Not only between 109 and Spit, but also between DB 605 and Merlin.

patch_adams
05-30-2004, 10:27 AM
Hi nub,
You can use German tests of the spitfire objectively. The british couldn't fly the 109 because it was more difficult to fly. This discredits their testing. However, German testing cannont be discredited in that same mannor because the spitfire was far easier to fly. (stall warning, etc) So the germans could easily fly it to the limit. On top of that, the luftwaffe had the most talented group of pilots in the war, as indicated by victory counts.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-30-2004, 10:39 AM
Salute

Anyone suggesting that this Spitfire with the Daimler in it was aerodynamically as clean as a normal Spitfire is blowing smoke.

This was a one off installation, achieved with essentially zero budget, and not intended to go into production.

The normal installation of the DB engine was the opposite of the Merlin, ie. the Merlin had its cylinders at the top, the DB had the oil pan at the top. Neither was the positioning of the oil cooler calculated for max. drag efficiency or the carburator air intake.

Any aerodynamic engineer would look at it and laugh.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-30-2004, 10:45 AM
Salute

And in regards to the suggestion that the British test pilots did not know how to fly the German planes, those posters are just displaying their lack of knowledge.

As I have mentioned twice previously in this post, the British AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT, and the ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT test pilots were FULL TIME flying German aircraft.

They flew German aircraft EXCLUSIVELY. They did not fly British aircraft.

If you want to read about the units, I would suggest "The Captive Luftwaffe". by Kenneth West. Maybe you might learn something... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Sun May 30 2004 at 09:55 AM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
05-30-2004, 10:54 AM
Salute K5054

Thanks for your educated comments. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you could summarize the points you are making and post them I'd appreciate it.

JtD
05-30-2004, 12:00 PM
I don't quite understand why you keep dissing the DB 605 Spitfire. You have no proof it's aerodynamics were really worse than the aerodynamics of a Merlin Spitfire. It's a good assumption, but that's it.

According to IL-2 the

Spit Vb has 1185hp, 450kph at sealevel and the
109E has 1175hp, 470kph at sealevel.

Everything I have seen points to less drag for the 109, exception maybe E models and earlier.

Well, whatever. If you put on British markings Spitfires will probably still have less drag than any 109.

Please show one single report:

Same alt, same hp, more speed for the Spitfire. If possible, it shouldn't be vs. an E, which had higher drag than other 109's, almost in the region of a Spitfire I. ;-P
Has anyone found the Soviet Spit IX turning test by now?

Nub_322Sqn
05-30-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patch_adams:
Hi nub,
You can use German tests of the spitfire objectively. The british couldn't fly the 109 because it was more difficult to fly. This discredits their testing. However, German testing cannont be discredited in that same mannor because the spitfire was far easier to fly. (stall warning, etc) So the germans could easily fly it to the limit. On top of that, the luftwaffe had the most talented group of pilots in the war, as indicated by victory counts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO.

Nice try though.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

k5054
05-30-2004, 04:38 PM
In general, it's likely that a spitfire had a better drag coefficient than a contemporary 109, but more profile drag overall because of the bigger wing. BUT that wing didn't have to work as hard for its lift as the highly loaded 109 (slats give more CL but at the cost of even more induced drag).
It's easy to find spitfire performance figures but a lot harder to find consistent 109 figs with power/boost settings, complicated by the periods when high boost was not allowed, and books which tend to give 1475hp for the 605A at 6km, when it's rated alt for that boost was around 5km. Even luftzeugmeister kennblatts have contradictions.
Anyhow, as promised, for the Spit Vb (using 9lbs boost, which was soon raised) compared to 109F, the induced drag at 280mph at s/l is 5.4% of the total, for the 109 6.6%. This amounts to a big difference when you are pulling g, and even more at altitude. I'll post soon how the turn develops over 360 degrees, some interesting results...

p1ngu666
05-30-2004, 04:44 PM
bet that converted spit was running on 87 or whatever the germans where using and not 100 that the british used.
so its only partly a fair test.

also in bed last nite i remmbered the spit has more wing area thats deeper, which would help it skid less than a 109 in a turn/climb etc.
this might mean its aoa is less than a 109 doing same manohover/turn etc.
i could be mixxing up aoa terms/deffinitions etc tho

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

DGC763
05-30-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patch_adams:
Hi nub,
You can use German tests of the spitfire objectively. The british couldn't fly the 109 because it was more difficult to fly. This discredits their testing. However, German testing cannont be discredited in that same mannor because the spitfire was far easier to fly. (stall warning, etc) So the germans could easily fly it to the limit. On top of that, the luftwaffe had the most talented group of pilots in the war, as indicated by victory counts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Patch. I am sure a test pilot has absolutely no idea how to fly a difficult aircraft. Obiviously a British test pilot with years of experience could not fly a 109 because it was more difficult than a Spitfire, even though Germans with a fraction of the test pilots experience could.

Onto another matter:

I also love throughout these post how the credibility of men who you all (myself included) could not hold a torch to in terms of aircraft performance and how they actually perform is so readily questioned. I bet if they gave you a real aircraft you would show these men how to fly it.

British test are described as biased and based on propaganda, yet the german test are not. Pure fantasy.

I would dare any of you to go up to a test pilot of any era from any country and claim they changed there findings on aircraft performance to suit propanganda needs. I would suggest however you wear a helmet.

The fact that different people can come to different conclusions over a similar piece of machinery is hardly suprising, even if they pushing it to the limits.Micheal Schumacher would probably come up with a few different conclusions to Nigel Mansell if you gave them similar cars to drive although almost everything would be same.

"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." (III.31) Sun Tzu

Chadburn
05-30-2004, 05:59 PM
The notion that test pilots didn't know how to fly certain machines, either German test pilots flying allied planes or vice versa, is ludicrous. These were extremely skilled pilots, and it's more likely that they were able to extract more performance from the planes they tested than a majority of frontline pilots could under the stress of combat.

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

JtD
05-31-2004, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyhow, as promised, for the Spit Vb (using 9lbs boost, which was soon raised) compared to 109F, the induced drag at 280mph at s/l is 5.4% of the total, for the 109 6.6%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now IF the Spitfire had a 22% higher total drag, the induced drag total would be the same...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This amounts to a big difference when you are pulling g, and even more at altitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...would this still be true?

Again from IL-2:
Vb: 1185hp, 450kph
109F-2: 1200hp, 510kph
Certainly points to lower total drag for the F.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll post soon how the turn develops over 360 degrees, some interesting results...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Waiting. :-)
What do you base your calculations on?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the spit has more wing area thats deeper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The depth of a wing (aspect ratio, iirc) does not matter very much in sharp turns, as the rear section of a wing does not generate much lift. The airflow is turbulent there. In fact, it's probably better to judge maximum turning performance from wingspan-loading than from wingloading. Going back to Spit I vs. Emil, the Spit's advantage in winglaoding is about 35-40%, while the advantage in weight/wingspan is only 15%. Imho this is much closer to the true relative turning performance than wingloading.

For sustained turn it's important to consider, that while the rear part of a wing does not create much lift, it still creates drag.

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 03:04 AM
mmm, now this thread is getting somewhere...Thanks! <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/Chad.jpg

The notion that test pilots didn't know how to fly certain machines, either German test pilots flying allied planes or vice versa, is ludicrous. These were extremely skilled pilots, and it's more likely that they were able to extract more performance from the planes they tested than a majority of frontline pilots could under the stress of combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

PzKpfw
05-31-2004, 06:20 AM
Let me get this straight, British test pilots were so inept, they coudln't fly a Bf 109, at it's full potential & anything they put in a report was propaganda etc.

Yet an German test pilot can hop in a Spitfire put it through it's paces & get it's full performance range in one flight w/o breaking a sweat, then write an accurate unbiased performance report??. Wow & were are talking about WW2 here? Ie, a German pilot from Nazi Germany?.

Some seem to want to forget, or want to ignore, exactly what Nazi Germany's political climate was like & that one of it's greatest tools was propaganda, and in Geobles they had an extremely gifted propagandast.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon May 31 2004 at 05:32 AM.]

Nub_322Sqn
05-31-2004, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Again from IL-2:
Vb: 1185hp, 450kph
109F-2: 1200hp, 510kph
Certainly points to lower total drag for the F.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparing an engine entirely build for high alt performance at sea level and then blame it all on the airframe now?

Here is a little quote regarding the Merlin 45 engine from the link below: "The result was the emergence of the single-speed Merlin 45, incorporating a number of supercharger improvements similar to those of the Merlin XX, but omitting the low altitude supercharger gearing"

http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/hangar/ac-uk/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin-br.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

JtD
05-31-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Comparing an engine entirely built for high alt performance at sea level and then blame it all on the airframe now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good question. I don't think it is now, it was more like 4-5 hours ago.

Are you suggesting the Merlin 45 did not make 1185 at SL?
Are you suggesting the speeds are wrong?
Are you suggesting the power was used for airconditioning?

The RR Merlin 45 had a rated altitude of 3350 meters (your link), higher than the DB 601. It developed way more power at this alt. So did the Spit V go faster than the F at 3350 meters? Answer: No.

What's your point?

Nub_322Sqn
05-31-2004, 07:53 AM
My point is that a HIGH alt engine doesn't perform VERY WELL at LOW alt because it doesn't have low alt super charger gearing.

That is why the Merlin 45M and Merlin 50 was developed.

With the Merlin 50 the Spitfire Vb (same airframe) is faster then the Bf109F2.

Also, above 7000 meters the Vb with the Merlin 45 is faster then the Bf109F2.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Mon May 31 2004 at 07:07 AM.]

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-31-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
My point is that a HIGH alt engine doesn't perform VERY WELL at LOW alt because it doesn't have low alt super charger gearing.

That is why the Merlin 45M and Merlin 50 was developed.

With the Merlin 50 the Spitfire Vb (same airframe) is faster then the Bf109F2.

Also, above 7000 meters the Vb with the Merlin 45 is faster then the Bf109F2.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

[This message was edited by Nub_322Sqn on Mon May 31 2004 at 07:07 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

may i note that JTD is talking about Drag, not about engine Power output.

he just compared the Top-Speed of 2 Planes (Spit and 109) with similar engine Power at SL.
The result, the 109 is about 60km/h faster by only having 15hp more.

so we can conclude that the 109 indicated less drag in total than the Spit.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

JtD
05-31-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
My point is that a HIGH alt engine doesn't perform VERY WELL at LOW alt because it doesn't have low alt super charger gearing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why it only has 1185 out of 1515hp as opposed to 1200/12xxhp of the DB601. It doesn't matter where the power comes from, it is there. And 3500 meters isn't that high, is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That is why the Merlin 45M and Merlin 50 was developed.

With the Merlin 50 the Spitfire Vb (same airframe) is faster then the Bf109F2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What powers? Which speeds? Source?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, above 7000 meters the Vb with the Merlin 45 is faster then the Bf109F2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has already been metioned, that this is because of the higher induced drag. This is not a good comparism. In the end, the aircraft with the highest ceiling will always win such contests.

Nub_322Sqn
05-31-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
What powers? Which speeds? Source?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a Merlin 50M engine.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Chadburn
05-31-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The depth of a wing (aspect ratio, iirc) does not matter very much in sharp turns, as the rear section of a wing does not generate much lift. The airflow is turbulent there. In fact, it's probably better to judge maximum turning performance from wingspan-loading than from wingloading. Going back to Spit I vs. Emil, the Spit's advantage in winglaoding is about 35-40%, while the advantage in weight/wingspan is only 15%. Imho this is much closer to the true relative turning performance than wingloading.

For sustained turn it's important to consider, that while the rear part of a wing does not create much lift, it still creates drag.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is interesting stuff. Let me just throw out some things I've been considering so others can comment.

Aspect ratio is an important consideration when looking at the amount of induced drag created at higher AoA (turns) . A wing with a higher AR generates less induced drag at higher AoA than a wing with a lower AR.

The Spit V had an AR= 5.6 (NACA report) or 5.8 (using Object Viewer) whereas the 109E series had an AR=6 and the F,G series an AR= 6.5. (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would guess the clipped wing version of the Spit would have an even lower AR.)

At first blush it would appear that the 109 wing induces lower drag at high AoA than the Spit wing. Also, the 109 wing had a marginally better lift coefficient than the Spit and could use this more efficiently.

The caveat of course, is that the AR of the 109's wing drops when the slats come out. But since even basic slats can add 40% more lift, help keep the boundary layer in contact with the control surfaces and increase the stalling AoA, I assume Messerschmitt kept the slats because they were a distinct benefit to the 109's performance. There's lots of evidence to support this since the stall of the 109 was benign and aileron effectiveness was good right up to the stall. It also allowed him to avoid the use of wash out to control tip stall which again helped with the wing's overall efficiency.

Looking at the Spit's wing, its elliptical planform was regarded as the theoretical ideal, but in practical terms that wasn't the case. The need to add wash out to delay tip stall compromised the gains of the elliptical shape. NACA reports point to the low lift coefficient but comment on the Spit's excellent stall charactersitics. What's interesting is that a tapered wing with an AR between 6 and 7 and a taper ratio of .5 (which describes the 109 wing)is very close to an elliptical planform for efficiency.

So although the Spit enjoys a distinct advantage in wing loading, it doesn't tell the whole story. Therefore, I find it credible that during BOB a pilot like Erwin Leykauf could state that he was successful in turn fights against Spitfires. He stated:

"Many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were still closed. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitifre turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up and then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot six of them doing it."

This seems plausible in a fight between a Spit MKI and a 109E, and it is BOB where many of us have formed our opinions about the relative turn capabilities of the two planes.

But, Leykauf adds, "This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered." He doesn't detail which model of Spitfire he's referring to, but apparently even a skilled pilot like Leykauf found the tables had turned in dogfights when facing later model Spits. Does that mean later 109's were flying drones? Of course not. Leykauf finished the war with 33 victories. Does it mean you can just yank and bank a Spit and expect to win an engagement? No again. Pilot skill is an essential quality, but I would tend to favour the argument that later 109's should enter turn fights only under ideal conditions, and that sustained turn fights should always favour the Spitfire.

Edit: I should add that I haven't done any extensive comparisons of the turn capabilities of various Spits vs BF 109's since 2.01 came out to see how their relative differences are simulated.

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

[This message was edited by Chadburn on Mon May 31 2004 at 09:40 AM.]

JtD
05-31-2004, 09:46 AM
Found some more stuff:

First:
Picture of the Spitfire DB605:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/spit/capspit-02.jpg

Second:
Comparism of Spit V with 109F
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109f_spitvb.jpg

Here I'd like to point out that the speeds of the 109 F are severly understated. Top speed for F should be around 600, SL about 500. The graph shows roughly 15-30kph to little.

Third:
Apparently the numbers I gave for Spit V and BF 109-F are wrong, the 1185hp come from 12lb boost, the 450 kph from a 9lb boost flight.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3322fig.gif

Fourth:
Same thing for the Merlin 50, the estimated 525 kph @ SL come from a 18lb boost flight, the usually quoted 1230 hp from 12lb boost.

Anybody got a flight test with 12lb boost?
Or power output for Merlin 45/50with 9 lb boost?

From Nub's link 3lb make about 150 hp difference, so it would roughly be

Spit V, M45:
450kph at 1035hp
Spit V, M50:
525kph at 1530hp
109F, DB 601:
510kph at 1200hp

Don't see lower drag for Spit airframe.

FA_Maddog
05-31-2004, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JtD:

Here I'd like to point out that the speeds of the 109 F are severly understated. Top speed for F should be around 600, SL about 500. The graph shows roughly 15-30kph to little.

What are you saying JtD? Here's the chart BUT it's wrong? LMAO This is the first time I have seen someone disagree with their own findings. Unbelievable.

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Mon May 31 2004 at 11:32 AM.]

JtD
05-31-2004, 01:08 PM
It's an interesting graph which shows a comparism between Spit V and Bf 109F. Why not show it? Is there a better direct comp, pref. British?

Sorry, but I tend to point out shortcomings of data if I know them. Make of it what you want. Imho there is no wrong information, it's just more or less accurate.

k5054
05-31-2004, 03:15 PM
I have a problem with the F-2 speeds, and that's that these figures are all over the place, when compared to F-4 and G-2 speeds which really ought to show similar drag at low alt, but don't seem to, engine power increases show no higher speeds. Would somebody like to tell me the power of the 601N at 6km so I can make the comparison there instead? Spit V performance is well-documented there ,and the boost differences don't apply.

JtD
05-31-2004, 03:48 PM
The small differences in SL speed between F-2 and later warbirds could be explained with a different propeller, more suited to higher altitudes but less efficient at low alts.

Sorry, I have no data about 601N 6k performance, but Col.Kurtz posted

DB601N
950PS/6000m
1100PS Not

I don't know where he got it from, maybe you ask in the German forum.

FA_Maddog
05-31-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
It's an interesting graph which shows a comparism between Spit V and Bf 109F. Why not show it? Is there a better direct comp, pref. British?

Sorry, but I tend to point out shortcomings of data if I know them. Make of it what you want. Imho there is no wrong information, it's just more or less accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


HEHEHEHE....Just messing with you my friend. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hop2002
05-31-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anybody got a flight test with 12lb boost?
Or power output for Merlin 45/50 with 9 lb boost?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you'll find a Spit V test with 12 lbs boost. If you do, post it here, because I've been looking for a long time.

Power output for a Merlin 45 at 9lbs at sea level should be almost exactly 1000 hp.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spit V, M45:
450kph at 1035hp
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bit less than 1035, I'd have thought, but arguing about 20 hp differences would be silly.

Speed is wrong, though, W3134, a Spit V "operationally equipped" achieved just over 290 mph at sea level, 470 km/h.

I'm also interested in the 109F figures. What's the source? A British test of the F1/F2 at 1.35 ata, 2600 rpm (about 1150 hp) gave slightly less than 300 mph (about 480 km/h) iirc.
German figures were no doubt higher.

hop2002
05-31-2004, 06:32 PM
Just found the report on the captured 109F, which I think came from Ring's website.

There's a note that the engine wasn't running well, and the performance figures (480 km/h at sea level) should be treated with "reserve".

However, on the topic of the thread, it has the following to say on the F1 turnrate:

"It is considered, however, that the aircraft could have been easily outturned by a Spitfire".

and

"At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric covered ones on the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones"

JG52_Meyer
05-31-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Would somebody like to tell me the power of the 601N at 6km so I can make the comparison there instead?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.jagdgeschwader52.com/meyer/DB601N-Chart1.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAF74_Buzzsaw
06-01-2004, 01:51 AM
Salute

Another AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT report, this one on the 109F1.

Quote: "...it is considered that the Spitfire, (Spitfire V) could easily outturn the 109, especially at high speeds."

Page in question is here, thanks to Wolf's site:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/109Ftrial3.JPG

Rest of the report under TACTICAL TRIALS OF THE 109F, as well as many other's dealing with the handling of 109's vs Spitfire's is here:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/axisair.htm

Still waiting for German report than shows 109 outturning Spitfire.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Tue June 01 2004 at 12:59 AM.]

k5054
06-01-2004, 01:57 AM
Thanks, Meyer. Now what's the F-2 speed at Notleistung at 6km? Surely the usually quoted 600kph is from before this boost was allowed?
(If you've got the same chart for the 601E of the F-4, I'd love to see that too. It's sometimes surprisingly difficult to get speed/alt/boost/power all at the same time for a 109 of any mark)

Bastables
06-01-2004, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

Another AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT report, this one on the 109F1.

Quote: "...it is considered that the Spitfire, (Spitfire V) could easily outturn the 109, especially at high speeds."

Page in question is here, thanks to Wolf's site:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/109Ftrial3.JPG

Rest of the report under TACTICAL TRIALS OF THE 109F, as well as many other's dealing with the handling of 109's vs Spitfire's is here:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/axisair.htm

Still waiting for German report than shows 109 outturning Spitfire.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Tue June 01 2004 at 12:59 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought we were talking about the Spit IX?..

Several pages later and you have still not shown any tests of the IX sustained turn rate at 1000m that are better than the 21 sec shown in game.

Again sustained turns
G6= 22sec
Spit IX= 21sec

JtD
06-01-2004, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think you'll find a Spit V test with 12 lbs boost. If you do, post it here, because I've been looking for a long time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can however make good estimations with the other tests. Take this chart

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878speed.gif

of a Merlin 45 SpitV with 16lb boost and draw a line at 12lb boost the same way they drew a line at 9lb boost. Will get you to around 300+mph at SL.

Thank you for pointing out the wrong speed for Spit V, it was probably taken from Merlin 46 Spit V @ 9lb. Well, I guess IL-2 has more errors in it's object viever than I expected.

Same source for F series, makes me wonder...There is a free Kennblatt supposed to be around, which shows 495 for combat/climb and 515 with emergency, at higher boost than the chart above.

F-2: 1070hp, 495kph
Mk. V: 1020hp, 470kph

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now what's the F-2 speed at Notleistung at 6km?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/index2.html

Take a look at the 109 F-1/F-2 Kennblatt. These numbers come from higer boost, but there is a footnote that the reduction from 1.42 to 1.35 reduces power by 6% and reduction from 1.3 to 1.25 reduces power by 4.5%.

However, at 6000meters the boost drops off anyway so the power from the chart will probably be correct.

[This message was edited by JtD on Tue June 01 2004 at 06:42 AM.]

JG52_Meyer
06-01-2004, 10:27 AM
DB601E:

http://www.jagdgeschwader52.com/meyer/DB601E-Chart1.jpg

PikeBishop
06-02-2004, 10:00 AM
Dear All,

I've just spent the best part of an hour carefully reading all these posts concerning the spit and 109's turn rates.
This point I would like to explain.
The wing loadings are a DIRECT measure of STALL speed. This can be used to calculate the approximate stall speed: which is the square root of the wing loading. Now the lift coef just modifies this slightly because in the formulae it modifies the wing area, so you have weight divided by the (wing area X the lift coef) all square rooted.
This is the stall speed!!
Now to find out what the turning ability is at any given speed you just choose this speed and divide it by your calculated stall speed. This answer is the amount of G that can be pulled at that speed before the aircraft stalls.
The more G you can pull without stalling the tighter you can turn. This is not allowing for power loading and speed/height loss in the turn
By further calculation you can convert this into a radius.
NOTE THAT THIS IS 100% CORRECT AND WILL TELL YOU INSTANTLY WHICH MACHINE WILL OUTTURN THE OTHER.
I have done this very quickly and have not time hear to explain more but if anyone wishes I will explain further later.

Regards,

SLP

k5054
06-02-2004, 11:55 AM
you is wrong. It's really more complicated than that. However, if you compare stall speeds from flight tests, ignoring wing loading and CL, you will get a basis for how many g you can pull. The question is which stall speed (I support power-off clean) and whether you can find a source for it, mostly you find the indicated stall speed, which is what the pilot flies by but is NOT the actual figure.

PikeBishop
06-02-2004, 01:08 PM
OOPs sorry I rushed it and made a mistake.

Now once you have divided your speed by the stall speed you then SQUARE the answer. This represents the amount of G your wings can sustain at that speed without stalling.
To convert this to a Radii you square the speed you are going and then divide it by 'G' (9.81 dynes for meters/sec or 32.2 for feet/sec times the maximum G that you calculated.
using one of your examples:
109g2 stall = SQRT (390x6820lbs) divided by (172.75 x 1.49 x air pressure (1 at SL))
Ans=101.6mph
spit = SQRT (390x7480) divided by (242 x 1.45 x air pressure (1) = 91.2mph

now even if we are a little off on our estimates the spit has a lower stall.
so if we take a speed of 250mph =366.7fps
91.2mph = 133.76fps

so 366.7 divided by 133.76 = 2.74 then square it = 7.5 G max

109 101 =148 fps

so 366.7 div by 148 = 2.47 squared = 6.1g

then square the 366.7 = 134468.9 and div by the G x 32.2fps
spit = 7.5g x 32.2fps = 241.5
134468.9 div by 241.5 = 556.8 feet radius

109 = 196.42
= 684.6 feetradius

sort that out.
regards SLP

Magister__Ludi
06-02-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,

I've just spent the best part of an hour carefully reading all these posts concerning the spit and 109's turn rates.
This point I would like to explain.
The wing loadings are a DIRECT measure of STALL speed. This can be used to calculate the approximate stall speed: which is the square root of the wing loading. Now the lift coef just modifies this slightly because in the formulae it modifies the wing area, so you have weight divided by the (wing area X the lift coef) all square rooted.
This is the stall speed!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely incorrect, you cannot aproximate stall speed without taking into consideration coef of lift. Unfortunatelly coef of lift is not really easy to determine, because wing does not have the same airfoil along the whole wing span, and fuselage itself contributes to lift (and drag) also. So for simple calculations like those we do, we can only compute stall speeds for different loadings, after a stall speed for a weight was already given. Such stall speeds values can be found in POHs.

The calculations go like this:

Given_Weight = lift_coef * wing_area * (air_density * given_stall_speed^2)/2

from here we compute the coeficient of lift: lift_coef, then we use it to compute a new stall speed for another loading, with the same formula as above:

Desired_Weight = lift_coef * wing_area * (air_density * new_stall_speed^2)/2

new_stall_speed = sqrt[2 * wing_loading/(lift_coef * air_density)]

You can see that in the formula for stall speed both wing_loading and lift_coef have the same importance in the final result (since wing_loading is multiplied with the inverse of lift_coef). Therefore you cannot ignore the coeficient of lift in any calculation over stall speed if you need a meaningful result.

Magister__Ludi
06-02-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Now to find out what the turning ability is at any given speed you just choose this speed and divide it by your calculated stall speed. This answer is the amount of G that can be pulled at that speed before the aircraft stalls.
The more G you can pull without stalling the tighter you can turn. This is not allowing for power loading and speed/height loss in the turn
By further calculation you can convert this into a radius.
NOTE THAT THIS IS 100% CORRECT AND WILL TELL YOU INSTANTLY WHICH MACHINE WILL OUTTURN THE OTHER.
I have done this very quickly and have not time hear to explain more but if anyone wishes I will explain further later.

Regards,

SLP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is also incorrect. You cannot tell which machine outturns the other just by looking at the stall speeds. For example most ww2 bombers had lower stall speeds than most late war fighters by a significant margin (20 mph), would that imply that early war bombers have a better turn rate than late war fighters?? The answer is of course NO (in large majority of cases).

However from stall speed one can tell which plane will turn tighter. Indeed early war bombers turned tighter than late war fighters. One extreme case is Me-262 which had an enourmous turn radius (but decent sustained turn rate at higher G-load than all piston fighters).

PikeBishop
06-03-2004, 02:07 AM
I don't quite understand what you are saying. The calculated stall speed will tell you exactly how much g the wings will sustain at that speed regardless as to whether its a bomber or a fighter. The problem with bombers is that the drag is so high and the speed drops off so fast that it would stall and appear not to be able to turn that tight. If you could supply that power the bomber WOULD outturn the fighter.
Secondly the coef of lift.....because it is a divisor in the formulae and is invariably around 1 - 1.5 does not change the result to any great extent especially since the coeficiences for these wings are within that range. You will still be able to see which one can outturn the other.
The only other factor to consider is pilot and stuctural tolerance because although the figures will tell you who outturns who this does not mean that a wing will break off first. There is no getting away from the stall speed governing the turn radius and the wing loading governing the stall speed.

regards,

SLP.

fritzthefox
06-03-2004, 03:38 PM
Y'know, there has been a pretty lively thread about this topic going over at SimHQ, and after considerable debate, and some experimentation, it has been generally agreed that the Spit is being out-turned by the 109 in the game, and that this is in contradiction to just about every bit of historical testimony from the pilots that were there.

I sincerely hope Oleg reads it.

Magister__Ludi
06-03-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PikeBishop:
I don't quite understand what you are saying. The calculated stall speed will tell you exactly how much g the wings will sustain at that speed regardless as to whether its a bomber or a fighter. The problem with bombers is that the drag is so high and the speed drops off so fast that it would stall and appear not to be able to turn that tight. If you could supply that power the bomber WOULD outturn the fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What you are describing is the difference between instantaneous turning and sustained turning. If a plane can pull more G at a certain speed it does not mean that in the end it will outturn any fighter that cannot pull the same G load at the same speed, because if it has a worse powerloading it will loose speed faster so it will pull more Gs for less time, when the second will pull less G for more time. Also when the turn speed becomes sustainable it might have a smaller turn rate that the other plane that has a higher stall speed, if the other plane has a (significantly) better powerloading.

Stall speed tells you a lot about instantaneous turns but a lot less about sustained turns. One plane outturning the other refers strictly to sustained turns simply because you cannot outturn another plane before loosing the speed to sustained turn speed. A plane with better sustained turn rate always wins a turn fight (it might have troubles shooting down a plane with smaller stall speed simply because its turn are larger in radius).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Secondly the coef of lift.....because it is a divisor in the formulae and is invariably around 1 - 1.5 does not change the result to any great extent especially since the coeficiences for these wings are within that range. You will still be able to see which one can outturn the other.
The only other factor to consider is pilot and stuctural tolerance because although the figures will tell you who outturns who this does not mean that a wing will break off first. There is no getting away from the stall speed governing the turn radius and the wing loading governing the stall speed.

regards,

SLP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again wing loading is not the only factor affecting the stall speed. Coefficient of lift affects it exactly in the same amount. A plane with 15% procent worse wing loading than another but having a 30% higher CLmax will have a lower stall speed. I hope it's clear now, because Spitfire IX and early Gustavs are exactly in the same situation. They have aprox the same stall speed at loaded weight even if Spit IX has a better wing loading, simply because 109 has a thicker airfoil and therefore a higher CLmax. Stall speed was about the same, around 95mph (depending on model).

Magister__Ludi
06-03-2004, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
Y'know, there has been a pretty lively thread about this topic going over at SimHQ, and after considerable debate, and some experimentation, it has been generally agreed that the Spit is being out-turned by the 109 in the game, and that this is in contradiction to just about every bit of historical testimony from the pilots that were there.

I sincerely hope Oleg reads it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can't believe this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif after all you wrote about whining typical to Il2 community you have become just like the rest of us http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif One thing you have to consider though: Spit IX is not outturned by any 109 in AEP (though it should be by E4/F4 and be equal to G2). If you're not convinced I invite you to an online turnfest, and even if my joystick has recently broke down (it's terribly imprecise now), I'm very confident I can outturn any 109 with a Spit IX in a strictly horizontal fight.

Any other concerned spit lovers? I can take challenges this weekend.

Functio
06-03-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
Y'know, there has been a pretty lively thread about this topic going over at SimHQ, and after considerable debate, and some experimentation, it has been generally agreed that the Spit is being out-turned by the 109 in the game, and that this is in contradiction to just about every bit of historical testimony from the pilots that were there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest you reread that thread - so far it looks as if the 109 cannot outturn the Spitfire. People are getting into turnfights and exploiting the 109s 'combat flaps', which the Spitfire doesn't have. But some recent tracks posted by one guy show that even with combat flaps the Spitfire still beats the 109 using them in sustained turns. The 109 only has an edge at a certain narrow band of low speeds - but not much to warrant any change to the FM.

People think the Spit is being outturned, but that's not the case - it's just that a 109 using combat flaps can appear to cut out some of the angle of attack needed to get a bead, if the pilot uses flaps. But this sort of move can't be sustained and the Spitfire soon catches it if it perseveres. I guess some Spit drivers are not riding it out and not staying with their turn.

PikeBishop
06-04-2004, 05:50 AM
Really I have no interest in whether the Spitfire out-turns the 109 or not........the point is that the MATHS WORK PERFECTLY if you care to try them. The sustained turn you speak about again the 2 aircraft's power loadings are so close there will not be much in it.
The maths will show you everything you want to know with any data you supply.

regards,

SLP

k5054
06-04-2004, 03:28 PM
In the sustained turn the induced drag is the most important part of the drag. This increases as the square of the lift coeff, so even if a 109 has the same cl x area (which I don't admit) it still has much more induced drag at high g, and therefore needs a better power loading to sustain as well. these little things matter, and I don't think any of this is amenable to shortcut methods.

PikeBishop
06-07-2004, 09:22 AM
If you again look at the maths with the data supplied if you substitute the spitfires Cl max (1.45) for the 109's (1.45) the stall speed changes by less than 2mph. Sustained turn is maintained by losing height.

SLP

JG5_UnKle
06-07-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fritzthefox:
Y'know, there has been a pretty lively thread about this topic going over at SimHQ, and after considerable debate, and some experimentation, it has been generally agreed that the Spit is being out-turned by the 109 in the game, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I'm hosting the tracks and if you actually read the thread you will find that there are a lot of people who "think" the 109 is out-turning the spit.

The 109 can bleed more energy and turn slower therefore gaining angles on the Spit, this isn't out-turning it though as it cannot be sustained.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

LeadSpitter_
06-07-2004, 12:29 PM
fly against jimmygiro in the spit, and you in the spitfire. I bet you will ***** about his turn rate too.

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

DarthBane_
06-07-2004, 12:36 PM
spitfire turns just fine, turnfights should be avoided whenever possible so maybe it is not flown properly by some pilots?

karost
06-09-2004, 12:11 AM
as I know when 109G2 meet Spitfire I like to "climb turn" not flat turn with him keep me stay out of gun range then I see his energy loss alot then I roll back drive turn with flap combat to out turn him in 6-position. that is the way to out turn Spitfire.

flat turn in Spitfire is master over 109s, every 109s pilots know about that and avoid to play flat turn with Spitfire

this patch 2.01 seem moving to right way...

...that is a man not a machine....
...that is a man not a patch... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
S!