It's official...

[1K3]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH?  It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.

All the best,

Crumpp

In your dreams (no offense)

I've run SPIT (F. XIV and LF. XVI)  vs  109 (G-14 and K-4) late war setup in H2H.  The settings are 1.0 fuel and ammo, no external views, and forced STALL LIMITER DISABLED.  It was good fights for both sides but we 109s still have to combat spit 16s by using Wolfpack (TM) mentality/tactics just to maintain respectable air superiority.  We also find SPIT 14 and 109K-4 a good match.

back to original question... does Bf-109 outturn the spitfire 16 in AH?

yes if you're flying Bf-109E-4.  If you want a lil bit more speed, climb, and better armament to keep up with spit 16 in dogfights, get 109F-4:)

[Crumpp]

I think it interesting that it's LW fliers that are the ones leading the charge to neuter the Spit XVI, and in some cases LW junkies who don't even play the game.

There is no charge to neuter the Spitfire.   IMHO it would be silly to not model the aircraft as accurately as possible even if it is not one I routinely fly.  


If the FW-190 was doing things it should not in the game, I would be the first to speak out.   I don't run around and post every flight test of exceptional aircraft screaming that this is what a Focke Wulf should be doing in this game.     I would want Focke Wulf Gmbh published figures to RLM modeled.  The ones they staked their company reputation on that every Focke Wulf produced could come with 1.5% above or below.

In fact you will see I have complained in several threads that the FW-190A5 is too light.  It's all up weight is completely wrong.  The AH FW-190A's gain almost as much weight between the two variants modeled as the entire series in reality.

It seems to me that the Spitfire experts should be doing the same thing.  Instead of picking "the best" data they should be picking the most representative.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[Urchin]

I think part of the Lw "quest" to nueter the spitfire is just a misunderstanding of the air war in Europe (or air wars in general).  Another facet is the fact that the German aces had simply obscene kill tallies.  

So people come with the argument that "Oh my god, the LW planes here suck!  How could they have sucked so bad and Hauptmann von Epeen scored 856 kills??!!" (Yes, that is exageration, cut me some slack).  

For one, we have a WW1 type (and I'm not even sure WW1 was like this) arena where the emphasis is on "fighting" mano y mano.  The fact that we use late WW2 equipment does not change the WW1 mentality (or maybe pre WW2 Japanese mentality) of the MA.  The emphasis is on manueverability (particulary flat turning and low speed handling) and acceleration, not so much on any other facet of an airplanes performance.  So a good fighter can turn well, handle forgivingly, and as a tie-breaker, packs a wallop.  Someone mentioned earlier that it wasn't the Spit, or La-7, that makes the LW planes ineffective, it is the combination of the two.  I agree with that wholeheartedly.  1v1 vs a Spit, the 109/190 can fight for a bit, and at least run away if the fight isn't going well.  Even if a 109/190 gets in over its head vs multiple Spits, it still has the option of running away (assuming the 109/190 and Spit are of similar vintage).  However, the MA has lots of different planes, and it is fairly rare to be fighting 1 spit, or X spits without any other planes.  The La-7 is actually the LW killer, to me.  It does everything better than any 109 or 190, it is kind of a mix between the two except with better performance and firepower.  

Anyway, the MA is an arena where "hi alt" is 12k, and the most common altitude for fighting is 0-5k.  Generally, an engagement is Co-alt (within a couple K of the enemy, anyway) and both sides know there is a fight.  The war in Europe took place at all kinds of altitudes, but was generally considered to be a "high altitude" war... it would be considered an alt-monkey war in the MA... to put it in terms of planes... if the most common altitude band for fighting in the MA was the same as it was in Europe in 1944, the Ta-152 wouldn't be quite as worthless as it is.  It still probably wouldn't reign supreme, but it wouldn't be useless.  More importantly, in Europe... both sides did NOT know there was a fight.  More often than not, "fights" lasted one pass.  You either killed your unsuspecting opponent, or blew it and ran away.  That was true no matter what nationality the pilot was, or what plane he was in.  So what made a plane a good "fighter" in Europe is different from what makes a plane a good "fighter" in the MA.  

Second, the German pilots really WERE that good, at least the ones that posted absurd numbers.  They were fighting constantly for 6 years, and one can assume that it is safe to say that had the British or Americans had the same philosophy, there would have been several Allied pilots with scores in the triple digits.  

Hell, I flew AH for around 4 years.  In that time, if I recall correctly, I had around 3,000 kills in 190s (was ~1k in D-9, A8, A5) and a couple more thousand in 109s (mainly in G-10, but I flew the F4 and G2 with regularity as well).  I think I can say that I know the AH LW about as well as anyone (well, except for the latest changes, that is).  The planes WERE competitive.  The problem is they are harder to fight in (AH style) than almost any other plane we have.  Eventually people (myself included) get tired of handicapping themselves to that extent.. so they either burn out or switch planes.  I flew the Ki-84 almost exclusively for the last ~5-6 months I flew AH, simply because it was different from the LW stuff I had flown almost my entire time in AH.  

The only "LW gripe" that I really buy into is the guns issue.  I do feel that the way that AH models ammunition unfairly hampers the cannons that aren't Hispano's, but really hurts the LW in particular.  Anyway, this has been a wall o text, more than I've typed here in a couple years I think.  Congratulations if you got through it all lol.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
There is no charge to neuter the Spitfire.   IMHO it would be silly to not model the aircraft as accurately as possible even if it is not one I routinely fly.  


If the FW-190 was doing things it should not in the game, I would be the first to speak out.   I don't run around and post every flight test of exceptional aircraft screaming that this is what a Focke Wulf should be doing in this game.     I would want Focke Wulf Gmbh published figures to RLM modeled.  The ones they staked their company reputation on that every Focke Wulf produced could come with 1.5% above or below.

In fact you will see I have complained in several threads that the FW-190A5 is too light.  It's all up weight is completely wrong.  The AH FW-190A's gain almost as much weight between the two variants modeled as the entire series in reality.

It seems to me that the Spitfire experts should be doing the same thing.  Instead of picking "the best" data they should be picking the most representative.  

All the best,

Crumpp

So what is the most representative from your point of view?  Which reports fit what you believe to be most representative?

Back when they asked about the best representative Spit line up, my request was the Spit I, early Spit Vb, Spit FIX, Spit LFVIII and clipped Spit XVI along with the Spit XIV.  

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's wrong with the XVI numbers.  Kev pushed for +25 boost, but that went no where.  We've got a LFXVIe with 3 hard points, the standard (for the XVI) clipped wing and +18 boost.

Again, someone tell me what the XVI is doing so much better then other birds  in the MA?

I'll agree lots of folks fly it, but is that because it's the flavor of the month, and enough folks have screamed 'uber!" to get it to be the flavor of the month?  When some of the big guns started flying Tempests, guess what!  Lots of the crowd started flying Tempests.

When folks whined LA7s, the mob flew LA7s

Which of the guys posting here are actually flying it in the game and having it do all these amazing things?

I've flown it a lot and went back to the IX because the IX is overall the better bird to me.

What am I missing in the game about the XVI that is making it so uber?

So far in my limited flying this tour, I'm 20-2 vs XVIs and that's flying the 38G and the Spit IX.  And I suck!   It can't be that good if I'm knocking em down like that.

[Shane]

Originally posted by Guppy35
So far in my limited flying this tour, I'm 20-2 vs XVIs and that's flying the 38G and the Spit IX.  And I suck!   It can't be that good if I'm knocking em down like that.

it's not that you suck.  it's that they suck harder.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Shane
it's not that you suck.  it's that they suck harder.

The point remains the same.  If these guys in what they believe is the uber Spit XVI are sticking around to fight, because they think they can win in it, how can that be a bad thing?

They'd have been running for the hills after their HO in thier LA7.  So perk the XVI that they're at least trying to dogfight in, and send them back to LA7s?  How can that be a good thing?

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Urchin
....Congratulations if you got through it all lol.

Thanks

[straffo]

Originally posted by Urchin
Congratulations if you got through it all lol.

Can I have my brownie now  ?

[Kweassa]

Does the Bf-109 outturn the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH? It should as the RAE determined that the 109 was greatly superior.

 The proverbial 'not a chinaman's chance', Crumpp.
 
 My tests on 109/Spit turn performance, normal flight conditions, no flaps, no external equipment, tightest turn possible. Some 'typical' planes left within the list for comparison:

 ------ Type ------------------------------ Radius --------

Spitfire Mk.I: 147.5m
Spitfire Mk.V: 157.0m
Seafire Mk.II: 170.6m
Spitfire Mk.VIII:           170.7m
Spitfire Mk.IX:         174.1m
Spitfire Mk.XVI:         182.6m
Ki-84-I-Ko:         185.1m
F4F-4: 186.8m
Bf109E-4:         188.3m
Bf109F-4:         199.5m
N1K2-J: 202.0m
Spitfire Mk.XIV:         203.2m
La-7: 207.5m
La-7(3x20mm): 207.5m
Bf109G-2:         214.0m
Bf109G-14(20mm): 214.0m
Bf109G-14(30mm): 217.2m
Bf109G-6:         218.8m
Bf109K-4:                  233.3m
Typhoon Mk.Ib: 232.0m
P-51D:         248.1m
P-47D-11:         254.5m
Fw190D-9:         283.4m
Fw190A-8:         296.3m
Fw190A-8(30mm): 296.3m
Me262A: 392.0m

 Theoretically, the results could change with flap use... but actual testing usually proves that if plane A outturns plane B at normal flight conditions, no amount of flaps can make plane B outturn plane A, unless the flaps are very efficient, such as those in the Ki-84.

[storch]

Originally posted by Guppy35
The point remains the same.  If these guys in what they believe is the uber Spit XVI are sticking around to fight, because they think they can win in it, how can that be a bad thing?

They'd have been running for the hills after their HO in thier LA7.  So perk the XVI that they're at least trying to dogfight in, and send them back to LA7s?  How can that be a good thing?

I was just thinking that last night as an endless wave of spit16s was hitting a base they were trying to capture.  sadly the anti spit medicine for me is the La7 once it's fighting more than one spit.  it's a conundrum.  the spits take an average of 5-6 20mm cannon hits to kill from the LW cannon so in a single popgun 109G2 it takes me forever to kill one. I've been in the 110G2 and the La7 mostly now.  but you are right.  they stick around until they realize their buds are down and then they can't run away.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Kurfy - At least with Crumpp it's possible to have a civil, if sometimes heated discussion, maybe a little humor and sarcasm also.
With you it always ends up with you resorting to personal insults, think from now on your IGGIED.

Sure. I guess it was awfully rude and personally insulting of me to note that I don't think the XII or the 21 is anything scary or special, and to when I noted the XII has poor altitude performance, you replied "shows how much you know". Sure, it's me who's full of personal instults.
I guess I missed the logic between the statement and the reply of a guy shouting 'you ignorant n00b it's a low-alt version'.
Guess if the uber-scary, whine-o-meter riser XII gets modelled (hopefully) and finds itself facing enemy at 20k ft, the pilot opens canopy and wave the flag : "I am a low altitude version of the Spitfire. Engaging me at this altitude is considered unfair and is against the rules. Be assured I am uberscary, but right now I'd opt for running away."

How rude I was, truely.

1.98ata, I can count guys with the self-emberassing partisan attitude on that subject one hand, so I guess I shouldn't care about it too much.

[Charge]

I'd like to add my stuff to this soup, too.

Roll rate
The Spitfire's wing design did not change significantly and the wing tip removal is not a magical way to unleash hidden roll rate potency. I'd imagine that although the wingtip removal did increase the roll rate the same problems affecting the roll rate were still there which were caused by the basic design of the wing. The wing was made large to provide low wingloading and because it was so big it was made elliptical to decrease drag. The wing is relatively thin for its area so I don't think that in rigidness it cannot come close to that of FW190. I wonder how fast the CW spit was to inititate roll compared to 190? I'd think it should either be slowish to initiate roll, or the roll rate deteriorates after certain aileron deflection due to wing twist. The differences in wing stiffness has to show somewhere.

Also the better handling characteristics caused by wing clip is not a surprise. The leading edge profile changes thus changing the pressure build-up areas at the leading edge causing a build-up at near the tip  inceasing the stability (and drag) and probably giving more control upon stall, too. So the clipped wing does not stall totally on whole its length as a pure elliptic wing does.

XVI vs. 109G
I find it hard to believe that the clipped wing Spits suddenly became vulnerable to 109Gs in turning. The change in turning ability simply was not that big. Again, I believe that 109s generally should have different handling capabilites in turning due to it having the slats. That is not against XVI but all Spits. (Note:NOT a 109,190 against Spit rant!!!) I believe that 109s were capable of executing very tight turns by using their slats, while at the same time heavily bleeding E. The wingloading is still in favor for XVI so I think that the capability of 109 being able to turn WITH Spits was more marked against XVI than it were against normal winged ones, but still in sustained turn it was inferior.

Flap usage in combat
According the chart (about flaps and slats) Crumpp posted months ago flaps do add lift, but at the same time the critical AoA the wing can handle actually decreases. By employing the flaps in combat too much gives you added lift and control in slow speeds but it also makes sharp AoA changes dangerous as the wing easily stalls if too much angle is pulled because its profile and thus critical AoA has changed. So if the critical AoA for a wing profile is around 16 deg. (in cetrtain R number) it may go down several degrees upon flap deflection as the effective top profile of the wing is now of different shape from airflow point of view, and it usually does not change into better...
And thus I'd think that IF the flaps were used in combat they were usually only slightly deployed.

Just my opinions and observations, not  f a c t s.

-C+

"Eventually people (myself included) get tired of handicapping themselves to that extent.. so they either burn out or switch planes."

I'm burning out...

[Crumpp]

So what is the most representative from your point of view?

Supermarines published specifications....

The proverbial 'not a chinaman's chance', Crumpp.

Well according to the RAE, the real one could.  I imagine that more than anything kept the "clipped wing" from becoming the "universal wing".

Also the better handling characteristics caused by wing clip is not a surprise.

Hey Charge!

Just wanted to point out that according to the report, handling deteriorated due to stall speed raising.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Great post Charge, I agree 100% what you are saying there.

Re: clipping the wings, there seem to been major problems with the Spitfire's design regarding roll rate :

1, the elliptical form called for the use of ca2% washout on the outer wing, which shielded the Frise-type aileron noses and more or less cancelled their good effect on stickforces, and the same time caused problems with aileron flutter (Frises are quite intolerant to such).

2, In connectio to 1, the very heavy aileron forces on the ailerons limited their available deflection angle, it's some question of gearing, the oddstick and the rather large surface ailerons, whatever, fact that it was very heavy.

3, the thin wing lacked neccesary rigidity, twisting at higher speeds under aileron loads, basically working as a huge counter-aileron itself, effecting roll rate quite badly at higher speeds


AFAIK there's a rule of thumb how much roll rate improves with change in the wingspan, clipping the wings didn't effect this much, maybe around 1 meter in total or less. I can't attribute effect to the the wingspan decrease alone, unless there was some other factor, too.

[Crumpp]

We can kind of get an idea of the reduction in turn ability by examining the reduction in climb.  We can also get an idea of the scope of speed increase:
 


Roll rates seem to vary rather wildly in the Spitfire due to flow seperation at the aileron surface.  So I imagine when you had one which was not experiencing such difficulties, there was not much of a difference as the report concludes.  That is essentially all clipping the wings did was remove or reduce the amount of  flow seperation at the tips.
 

All the best,

Crumpp