arena monsters

[Jappa52]

Originally posted by Karnak

So?  You are ignoring what I am talking about.  It wouldn't go nearly so easy for you if you replaced the Hurri's Merlin XX with a Merlin 61 or 70, or with a Griffon 65.

Hey don’t get bent out of shape. I was responding to Frodes statement about flying a hurricane or LA7 at those altitudes.  You really don’t see too many hurricanes at 17k anyway and I thought it was something to smile about.

Have a nice day : )

[Karnak]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3


...I thought the point of this was the aircraft as modeled in RL and in AH, not some fantasy paper-ship. He wasn't ignoring what you were talking about; He was giving an example of what I myself had pointed out earlier, e.g. That alt changes' things drastically. Did Stanford Tuck spend his whole RAF career in -5k furball's with Planes' of every nation in the conflict attacking him? I think not.  I'm fairly sure that he lasted as long as he did by keeping his aircraft in it's performance envelope-which tended to be higher than what we fly in AH, I believe.

Still ignoring what I am talking about.

Arguing with people who don't understand what makes a fighter perform the way it does is pointless.

[Motherland]

Originally posted by Karnak
Still ignoring what I am talking about.

Arguing with people who don't understand what makes a fighter perform the way it does is pointless.

I cant speak for British planes, as I dont fly them nor know anything about the real history of them. But I would like to know what specifically you are talking about.

[B3YT]

Originally posted by Karnak
I still think the handling of the Hurricane and Bf110 are overmodeled in AH.  I don't have proof, but my gut feeling is that if the handling in AH is accurate then the Bf109 and Spitfire would have been reduced to secondline status as development focused on the Huricanes and Bf110s.

the hurricain was a truly awsome plane but it had a low speed and bad dive . It also was not so good in the thin air at  alt. over  say 20K . Low down it was fantastic.  it was reduced to air to ground duties as it was a very stable gun platform compared to the spit. It's roll rate was good due to slightly larger ailerons on the wing.
 wing load moved more to the inner struts not out on the tips like the spitfires.  the wing airframe was also lighter made out of wood with fabric not metal skin like the spitfire.
 I've read many accounts of hurricains out turnning and wining scissor fights with 109's  as well as taking huge punnishment from enemy fighters.  Even seen pics from my grandads squadron of a damaged hurri that came back with a 1 meter diamitor hole in the right wing.  (the pilot said it still flew like a dream)

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Motherland
I cant speak for British planes, as I dont fly them nor know anything about the real history of them. But I would like to know what specifically you are talking about.

Up a 110-c and be amazed at what it can do. Best is to just see for yourself.

[Motherland]

Originally posted by Bronk
Up a 110-c and be amazed at what it can do. Best is to just see for yourself.

I've flown the 110C before. Its a large, slow, lumbering peice of junk with a poor armament for the LW arenas. The only spot where it shines there is in turn radius.

In EW, I have only one experience, in an FSO in which JG11 was assigned 110C's. We were destroyed.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Karnak
Still ignoring what I am talking about.

Arguing with people who don't understand what makes a fighter perform the way it does is pointless.

I don't think you're realy trying to read and understand our posts, Karnak.

Furthermore, making the assumption that we do not know what makes' a fighter perform(and stating so bluntly) is taken as a flame-attempt.

I might add, you posted this:

In ever BoB scenrio and setup we ever do in AH, the Bf110 and Hurricane demolish the Spitfire and Bf109's K/D ratios.

Which you should know, does not indicate anything about how the roll or turn rate of any of the planes' you listed is modeled correctly or not.

You should know that there are too many variables(Pilot ability, numbers, tactics) that affect that particular number. K/D means' squat when discussing aircraft Flight model.

Furthermore, you started to discuss why the Hurri and 110 weren't slated for further developement, and the Spitfire and 109 were. Again, there are many factors' in that decision, other than A/C flight characteristics, that influence those choices(Engine availability, overall cost, tactical suitability, politics, etc.)

And as for the question as to whether or not the Hurri and 110 outturn the Spit and 109, at this point we should refer to some of WideWing's data, to validate that...rather than our 'seat of the pants' feeling, or fanboi perspectives'.

[B3YT]

here here

[Rich46yo]

I like flying the Hurri llc even more then I like flying the spit. Its just a nice handling aircraft and it can really spit out some hell.

[Karnak]

Here is what I am talking about.  Compare the Huricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I performancewise.  Unlike later Spits and Hurris they have exactly the same engine.

The Spitfire Mk Vb and Hurricane Mk IIC have similar engines, so they are not a bad comparison.

The Bf109E-4 and Bf110C-4b have similar engines too.

That is why they are the ones I am talking about.  A Huricane Mk anything at 17,000ft is going to be at a massive disadvantage against a P-51B or D or a Spitfire with a two stage supercharger such as a Mk VIII, IX, XIV or XVI because the Hurri only has a single stage engine, so pointing that out is irrelevant to my point.


My point is, that comparing the four aircraft in question when they were powered by identical or similar engines, as modeled in AH, the Spitfire and Bf109 do not come out matching the historical comments.  And in fact the comments often seem completely backwards.  Go fly a Hurricane Mk I and then a Spitfire Mk I, then try to sync your perceptions with the pilot comments about the Spitfire's responsiveness compared to the Hurricane's.  They will seem to have gotten the names of the fighters reversed.

So, why would the Spitfire be delvoped with better engines than the Hurricane if the Hurricane was so superior to the Spitfire, only losing a bit of speed compared to the Spitfire?  Why not put a Merlin 61 in a Hurricane?  Why relegate it to ground attack?


Now, I am not suggesting AH model Hurricanes with engines they never had, I am expressing my skeptisim that either the Hurri was that responsive or that the Spit was that unresponsive.

Look at which fighter is the monster of EW?  The Hurricane Mk IIC, which in reality was being channeled towards ground attack while the superior Spitfire Mk Vb was taking on the role of the RAF's premier fighter.


The Bf109E-v vs Bf110C-4b is a similar issue.

Furthermore, you started to discuss why the Hurri and 110 weren't slated for further developement, and the Spitfire and 109 were. Again, there are many factors' in that decision, other than A/C flight characteristics, that influence those choices(Engine availability, overall cost, tactical suitability, politics, etc.)

The Hurricane was cheaper than the Spitfire, used the same engine and was easier to build.

[SkyRock]

the HOicaine2C is why I dont fly the EW......any.  If I wanted to get HO'd by hurri's Id just stay in late war!

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Karnak
Motherland,

In ever BoB scenrio and setup we ever do in AH, the Bf110 and Hurricane demolish the Spitfire and Bf109's K/D ratios.

.

Whilst I might agree with your general point re how an apparrantly out classed and almost redundant 110 in RL becomes a very proficient tool in AH...........

I am sure you know the Hurricane was on par with the Spit during BoB .... and indeed suffers in scenarios because we pit it against the quite fast Ju88 in its anti bomber role.

as for AH BoB scenarios the 110 does not perform quite as dominently as you suggest above. (Although it does perform better than its RL predesessor)

[Urchin]

I personally think the Hurricane I as modelled in the game is better than the Spit I we have in the game.  The Spit I just handles sluggishly compared to the Hurricane I.  

Regarding turn radius - the best turn radius of the Bf110C4 was slightly smaller than that of the 109E4 IIRC.  I know I've seen charts that showed them as being nearly identical, with the 110 having a slight edge.  I'm not sure if this was true only for the best possible turning circle, or if it was across the board.

[Karnak]

The Hurri got more kills for a number of reasons in reality. the 70/30 split in numbers, the tasks assigned being significant contributors.  Also bombers in the BoB tended to fly at 180-200mph, not 280mph as in AH BoB settings.

As far as loss rates, I don't know if the Spit or Hurri had a higher loss rate.

[Stoney74]

David Southwood gave a speech to the Flight Test Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society in 2004.

His comments:

"One of the most striking characteristics for a pilot who is familiar with modern fighters is the relatively poor roll performance...A 1 G 360 degree full stick roll in a clipped wing Spitfire IX at 250 KIAS and 5000ft takes 3 seconds.  However, the same manoever in the Hurricane at 200 KIAS takes 6 seconds."

Wolfala and I did some testing in the TA using a Hurri I and Hurri IIC, using the exact same performance parameters and, after about 10 tests, showed an average of 4-4.5 seconds to perform a 360 degree roll in either of the two Hurricanes.  We did not test the Spit 16 to see if matched the 3 second speed quoted by Southwood.  I have no idea to the accuracy of Southwood's data other than to say that he states in the speech, they were his observations from his own personal test flights in those planes.  It could be annecdotal, but if accurate, it certainly hints at a discrepancy.

Perhaps this could illuminate Karnak's argument, at least with respect to the comparison between the Spit and Hurricane in the game.