Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on October 28, 2008, 01:12:47 AM

Title: 110C>109E?
Post by: Anaxogoras on October 28, 2008, 01:12:47 AM
I was in the AvA tonight, and a Spitfire pilot was scared to engage my lower 110C.  When I asked why, he went on and on about how the 110C is a more dangerous adversary than a 109E, and also claimed that in the last BoB scenario the 109E had a K/D of ~1:1 vs 3:1 for the 110C.  Thoughts?  We know the 109E should be the more competent air-air fighter, but is it so in AH?
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Delirium on October 28, 2008, 02:29:23 AM
If flown like a strict BnZ aircraft, the 110C greatly out classes anything the RAF has for the BoB. The only reason the 110C did so well iin previous BoB scenario is that groups flying them flew like P40s in Rangoon; keep it fast and keep a few thousand feet beneath you in case you get jumped. I was in one of those groups in the last BoB and I'm in another this BoB...

If he was higher than you were, he had little to worry unless he set himself up to get HO'd.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: leitwolf on October 28, 2008, 03:02:36 AM
He's right that in previous BoB runs, the 110 had the best K/D of all planes and, ironically, the Spitfire I the worst. In multi-plane engagements with dedicated BnZ'ers in the 110s, they will win. In a 1:1 dogfight (and lots of time to wrestle it down to the deck), the Spitfire is so much better than a 110, there's no contest.
I find this fascinating, it makes you wonder what the tactics at the time were for the 110 that they found it to be hopelessly outclassed (or if AH has indeed some aspect of the 110 wrong, E retention in dive/zooms perhaps).
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Die Hard on October 28, 2008, 03:35:16 AM
I think people make the mistake of thinking the real pilots flew like we do in the game ... they didn't. And the 110 wasn't a complete failure. It did quite well against the Hurricane and several 110 pilots made ace on the type during the Battle of Britain. Early in the battle the 110 was also faster than the Spitfire I.

A well flown 109E is better than the 110C, but in scenarios I suspect the 110 is favoured by more experienced pilots due to the much better range and more ammo.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Delirium on October 28, 2008, 04:49:44 AM
I think the reason the Spits have a K/D ratio worse than the Hurricane in BoB scenarios is because of the bullet dispersion. The guns are staggered across the wing in the Spit and not close together like in the Hurricane.

Another factor is that there hasn't been ANY altitude restrictions making the Hurri and 110 a little more stable up there than the Spitfire.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Karnak on October 28, 2008, 09:59:56 AM
We also have a rare, up engined Bf110C-4 compared to the one used in the BoB.  A Spitfire Mk II would be a better oponent for it.

Hurricane is overmodeled.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Anaxogoras on October 28, 2008, 10:11:09 AM
We also have a rare, up engined Bf110C-4 compared to the one used in the BoB.  A Spitfire Mk II would be a better oponent for it.

Hurricane is overmodeled.

I think the correct designation is 110C-4/B if you want to point out the upgraded engines.  That's another good example of HTC giving us an aircraft that is better for the arena than scenarios.

Btw, historically, one of the 110's problems was that it was easy to spot!  In our game, size doesn't really matter :D because of the neon icons that announce your presence.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: B3YT on October 28, 2008, 03:34:04 PM
hurricane is not over modelled. It was a great turner , had a good rate of roll (many ex-hurri pilots sated that the spit was mushy at speed compared to it) and a very very stable gun platform.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Masherbrum on October 28, 2008, 04:42:18 PM
Spit 1 is a great plane.   However, most 110 sticks in this game HO the first chance they get.   The only name that comes to mind that most often DOESN'T, would be 4510.   He can turn it with ease.   

More often than not, "lopsided plane choices" influence the "outcome of the scenarios".    Most take the "safety net" route and this is true. 

I'm 11-0 in HO'ing 110G's whilst in a Spit 1, in the MA's.   They all fired first and were sent to the tower in one pass.   Just because you have cannon, does not mean you have "accuracy".

I'd personally choose the Emil over the 110C.   Not only is the Emil a better turner, it is a more stable platform.   The Emil and 109F4 for that matter are my favorite 109's to fly.   They require more than just "fire the tater", they require "lag pursuit" tactics, of which I immerse myself in.   I'm often not "playing with my food", but I'm merely "savoring the fight".    Most cannot effectively utilize "lag pursuit", but it is one of my strengths.   Not to mention, I've floored folks in a furball, letting them know "where a certain Con is going break".   You see, with the Emil you cannot simply "fire off rounds from 600+", the plane forces you to get "up close".   If you're firing from 500 and on out, yer wasting ammo.   

I'll probably be branded "a showoff" for the last few sentences, but so be it.    Those who know me and have actually take the time to do so, know I am not.   
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Spikes on October 28, 2008, 05:36:13 PM
I'd choose the 109F over any 109/110, simply because of the single line of fire and slow fire rate, amazing turn rate, etc. I couldn't get the feel for the 110C when I took it up a few times. It seemed to take forever to get kills with the cannons, and that was all I was hitting them with too.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Delirium on October 28, 2008, 05:40:39 PM
I'd personally choose the Emil over the 110C.   Not only is the Emil a better turner, it is a more stable platform.   

I disagree... while the Emil may be a little friendlier at low speed, the 110C is by far deadlier, if flown properly.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Karnak on October 28, 2008, 05:44:24 PM
hurricane is not over modelled. It was a great turner , had a good rate of roll (many ex-hurri pilots sated that the spit was mushy at speed compared to it) and a very very stable gun platform.
According to what I have read the Hurri rolls 50% too fast in AH.

It should turn well and be a good gun platform though.  Also, either the Hurri is too duable or the Spit too fragile.  They weren't that far apart whereas in AH a Spit just falls apart under light fire.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Steve on October 28, 2008, 06:49:45 PM

I'd personally choose the Emil over the 110C.   Not only is the Emil a better turner, it is a more stable platform.   The Emil and 109F4 for that matter are my favorite 109's to fly.   They require more than just "fire the tater", they require "lag pursuit" tactics, of which I immerse myself in.   I'm often not "playing with my food", but I'm merely "savoring the fight".    Most cannot effectively utilize "lag pursuit", but it is one of my strengths.   Not to mention, I've floored folks in a furball, letting them know "where a certain Con is going break".   You see, with the Emil you cannot simply "fire off rounds from 600+", the plane forces you to get "up close".   If you're firing from 500 and on out, yer wasting ammo.   

I'll probably be branded "a showoff" for the last few sentences, but so be it.    Those who know me and have actually take the time to do so, know I am not.   


Showoff!

 :D
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Charge on October 28, 2008, 06:55:01 PM
"Also, either the Hurri is too duable or the Spit too fragile."

Well it depends what you shoot it with. Against "ball" ammo Hurri is worse because the skinning of the rear section does not resist of deflect bullets making it easier for such ammo reach armour plate without tumbling. However against HE it is better because the canvas skinning does not hold pressure making it hard to cause HE damage against its structures.

-C+
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: SgtPappy on October 28, 2008, 07:00:02 PM
According to what I have read the Hurri rolls 50% too fast in AH.

It should turn well and be a good gun platform though.  Also, either the Hurri is too duable or the Spit too fragile.  They weren't that far apart whereas in AH a Spit just falls apart under light fire.

In addition, all AFDU trials state that the Spitfire I's turn rate is by far better than the Hurricane's, whose turn rate is almost the same as the Emil's. In our game, I'm choosing the Hurricane I over the Spitfire Ia any day.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: splitatom on October 28, 2008, 07:21:28 PM
i would take a 109f anytime over the 110 but i hate the 109 e so i chose to fly with the 110
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: BnZs on October 28, 2008, 08:02:38 PM
One problem I've read about in relation to the 110 is very heavy elevator forces at combat air speeds.

This is not much of a problem for most any plane in AHII without diving.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on October 29, 2008, 03:38:55 PM
In addition, all AFDU trials state that the Spitfire I's turn rate is by far better than the Hurricane's, whose turn rate is almost the same as the Emil's. In our game, I'm choosing the Hurricane I over the Spitfire Ia any day.

I have the words of a Hurricane & Spit vet that the Hurricane was much lighter on the roll plane while heavier on the elevators. That applies to low to medium speeds. He actually said that the Hurry was very easy because the ailerons and elevators were well the same "weight" on the stick, - i.e. equally heavy.
As for the turn rates, AFAIK the Hurry would outturn the Spit except at high speeds perhaps. Some pilots referred to it as "turning into it's own tail".
Yet, you have aces as R.S.Tuck referring to the Hurry as a heavy workhorse vs a Grand National racer in comparison with the Spitfire.
Now the Emil AFAIK lacks quite some turning (sustained turn) compared to both the Spit and the Hurry.
The 110 baffles me in the scenarios, - I regard it as far more dangerous in a "mix" than a gaggle of 109's. And that is absolutely the contrary to RL, where scattered 110's fell nicely to RAF guns...
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: SgtPappy on October 29, 2008, 07:21:21 PM
I doubt any 110 pilots had multiple lives or used flaps.

And it's always hard to take pilot words into account. As been proven many times over, there are highly controversial accounts everywhere. Though that is not to say accounts are crap. They're simply not worth Gospel.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Bruv119 on November 02, 2008, 03:09:13 AM
We also have a rare, up engined Bf110C-4 compared to the one used in the BoB.  A Spitfire Mk II would be a better oponent for it.

Hurricane is overmodeled.

That would explain a few things.   Yes I would say the 110c is more dangerous than the 109E.   I don't think the 109 is lacking just the 110 I would question some things about it.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on November 02, 2008, 12:50:53 PM
One problem I've read about in relation to the 110 is very heavy elevator forces at combat air speeds.

This is not much of a problem for most any plane in AHII without diving.

That could explain some things. Because the wingloading (for turning) isn't that bad at all, yet I have never seen accounts about 110's turning on the dime, which they can do in AH.
But this is hard for HTC to get hands on. 110 test reports? Never seen any.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Die Hard on November 02, 2008, 09:28:32 PM
The 110E/F is said to have been fully acrobatic, more manoeuvrable than the 109F, but not as fast. It was much liked by its crews.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: save on November 20, 2008, 08:43:24 AM
IRL 110c model used in BOB where easily outmaneuvered in the vertical or simply outturned by hurricanes and spit1's

I suspect energy retention are way off in this bird.

In "another online sim" 110c behave more more like a fast birds that should avoid any turnfighting since it lose energy faster than granny going upstairs. If you, however, come within 110s gun-arc your day will probably be ruinied.

Remember 60% of all kills where made by an aircraft which target did not see.
Icons ...
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Delirium on November 20, 2008, 09:40:05 AM
The 110C we have now can't outrun SpitIs in level flight, and it can't out turn neither the Spit nor the Hurricane. It has a climb rate slightly better than the HurriI but worse than the SpitI.

I've flown 110s the last couple of BoB scenarios. You basically fly it like a Fw190; shoot and scoot. If something gets within 600 of your 6 o'clock, put your nose down. The weight of the 110 and the lack of neg G carberators on the RAF birds allow you to get away.

It isn't a super-bird, it just takes a little SA and common sense.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: bongaroo on November 20, 2008, 09:48:09 AM
Spit 1 is a great plane.   However, most 110 sticks in this game HO the first chance they get.   The only name that comes to mind that most often DOESN'T, would be 4510.   He can turn it with ease.   

More often than not, "lopsided plane choices" influence the "outcome of the scenarios".    Most take the "safety net" route and this is true. 

I'm 11-0 in HO'ing 110G's whilst in a Spit 1, in the MA's.   They all fired first and were sent to the tower in one pass.   Just because you have cannon, does not mean you have "accuracy".

I'd personally choose the Emil over the 110C.   Not only is the Emil a better turner, it is a more stable platform.   The Emil and 109F4 for that matter are my favorite 109's to fly.   They require more than just "fire the tater", they require "lag pursuit" tactics, of which I immerse myself in.   I'm often not "playing with my food", but I'm merely "savoring the fight".    Most cannot effectively utilize "lag pursuit", but it is one of my strengths.   Not to mention, I've floored folks in a furball, letting them know "where a certain Con is going break".   You see, with the Emil you cannot simply "fire off rounds from 600+", the plane forces you to get "up close".   If you're firing from 500 and on out, yer wasting ammo.   

I'll probably be branded "a showoff" for the last few sentences, but so be it.    Those who know me and have actually take the time to do so, know I am not.   


Showoff!  Bet if I'm in a 110c and your in a spit1 and I get to shoot first I'd win the HO though.  :D  I know, 11-0 or whatever your photographic memory says.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Anaxogoras on November 20, 2008, 10:02:47 AM
The 110C we have now can't outrun SpitIs in level flight, and it can't out turn neither the Spit nor the Hurricane. It has a climb rate slightly better than the HurriI but worse than the SpitI.

I've flown 110s the last couple of BoB scenarios. You basically fly it like a Fw190; shoot and scoot. If something gets within 600 of your 6 o'clock, put your nose down. The weight of the 110 and the lack of neg G carberators on the RAF birds allow you to get away.

It isn't a super-bird, it just takes a little SA and common sense.

100% correct.  The only advantage of the 110C in the BoB is the gun package, but that's enough.  Generally, give a pilot with good SA a firepower advantage and they'll mop the floor with it.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: RAM on November 21, 2008, 03:47:24 AM
IRL 110c model used in BOB where easily outmaneuvered in the vertical or simply outturned by hurricanes and spit1's

outmanouvered doesn't mean outturned. The 110C (all 110s for that matter) had serious troubles if forced into a slow, close, knifefight. It had a huge roll inertia and a rollrate which was only average at medium to high speeds, but quite slow at low speeds. Once commited to a circle, the 110c turned suprisingly well. However, if commited to a turning fight and even with that surprising low speeed turning the problem was twofold:

1-simply said, the plane was unable to change direction of turning as fast as the british fighters did (at least at medium and slow speeds, at high speeds the Spit I was seriously impaired). At medium to high speeds roll was better, but at slow speeds it was VERY slow. And one engined fighters capitalized this serious weak point.

2-the plane was very underpowered for it's size and weight, so any speed lost was hard to regain unless diving. Sustained turnrate was terrible in the 110, even while initial turnrate was quite good for all speeds. Any energy lost, was lost for good, the plane couldn't build it back very fast and was doomed (unless pitted with a hurri, which was an even worse E-builder)

Performance-wise the 110 was much better than the hurricane: noticeably faster at all altitudes, slight acceleration and climbrate advantage, and a better dive/Zoom.

The Spit outperformed the 110 in almost every area, however the germans fought the 110 at high speeds doing slashing attacks when on the offensive, and resorting to diving/hispeed maneouvering when in the defensive. 0G impaired carburators and the famous cementing of ailerons on early spitfires was all the 110 needed to escape from a bouncing enemy.

And so it was the standard evasion tactic for LW planes (emil and 110's alike) in BoB: Dive with neg Gs, build up speed, roll away and escape: the spit can't follow the roll-out and the hurricane will be lost in the dive and is slower once in level flight. And both planes will lose a hefty of space initially because they will have to roll upside down before diving.


I think the 110C was a successful fighter for it's era and that it earned a tarnished reputation because of extremely bad decisions taken by the OKL during the BoB. As long as they flew in free hunts and unattached to close escort duties, the 110 did quite well. But once it was "chained" to the bombers to give them close escort, and so leaving them low and slow, they were smashed because the plane was not intended to fight that way. And could not.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Noir on November 21, 2008, 06:42:51 AM
the 110C4 got a such good k/d ratio in BOB just because we ROCK  :aok :lol
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on November 23, 2008, 09:58:13 AM
Got to do some calculations, but I find it hard to belive that the 110 would outclimb the HurryI. In RL that is.
I recall seeing that the wingloading is lower than on a Mossie, however the Mossie has a lot more power than the BoB 110. How does Mossie turn against the later model?
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Die Hard on November 23, 2008, 11:39:53 AM
In game the Mossie and 110G are very close in turn and climb, with a slight edge going to the 110G. Mossie is faster though.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: RAM on November 24, 2008, 01:55:25 AM
Got to do some calculations, but I find it hard to belive that the 110 would outclimb the HurryI. In RL that is.
I recall seeing that the wingloading is lower than on a Mossie, however the Mossie has a lot more power than the BoB 110. How does Mossie turn against the later model?

Angus I may be completely off the mark here, but IIRC the real Hurricane Mk.I by the time of the BoB had a two speed propeller that wasn't very efficient, and at Dunkerke I think they were still flying with the two blade fixed pitch one, while the 110 shared the same rpm control as in the 109s which was both more pilot friendly and more efficient.

Relative powerloadings, then, may not be everything in this comparison.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: humble on November 24, 2008, 08:28:30 AM
In a large scale early war "scrum" the 110 is going to be a dominant bird for some very simple reasons...

1) E retention
2) Fire power

Add in the fact that the opposition only had .303 rounds and survivability is also a big issue. Now in a 1 on 1 match up the spitty is dead if the 110 has the high ground. If the spit has the high ground he has control but has to deal with limited hitting power of his load out. If he tries for a true tracking shot he's risking a high probability of an overshoot. If he stays with fast passes he's risking a golden bb or FQ shot.

As for the 109E vs the 110 its a very close call. It really comes down to the 109's ability to actually finish the 110. The 110 will win on 1st shot while the 109 might not...so any reversal by the 110 closes out the 109...

Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on November 24, 2008, 04:12:44 PM
Angus I may be completely off the mark here, but IIRC the real Hurricane Mk.I by the time of the BoB had a two speed propeller that wasn't very efficient, and at Dunkerke I think they were still flying with the two blade fixed pitch one, while the 110 shared the same rpm control as in the 109s which was both more pilot friendly and more efficient.

Relative powerloadings, then, may not be everything in this comparison.

AFAIK the CS refitting was more or less completed for both types early in the battle.
I have accounts of Hurricanes outclimbing Spitfires OTW to combat alt, but it may be due to formation strictness (silly) and the Hurry climbing at a lower speed than optimal to the spitty. Don't know....
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Mike Williams on November 24, 2008, 04:17:54 PM
Ram & Angus:  Hawker tested Hurricane I L.1606 equipped with a Rotol constant speed propeller starting in January 1939.  Mason notes that Squadrons received Rotol CSP equipped Hurricanes in January 1940.  I’ve been researching this subject and it appears that most if not all of the units in 11 Group were converting to Rotol equipped Hurricanes by May 1940. That’s the hypothesis that I’m currently testing anyway.   For example see: 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, April 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-13april40.jpg) & 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, May 1940 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-15may40.jpg)

(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/151-orb-15may40-rotol.jpg)

Units in France were receiving new replacement Hurricanes equipped with Rotol constant speed propellers in May 1940 during the Battle of France. Mason as well as Hough & Richards note manufacturers’ parties flew from England to France to convert the aircraft with Rotol CSPs.   Pilots’ accounts mention this as well, see: Paul Richey, 1 Sqdn., 15 May 1940  (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/richey-rotol.jpg) and  Ian Gleed, 87 Sqdn., 19 May 1940  (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/87-gleed-19may40-rotol.jpg).   Gleed’s account is interesting because it can be seen that fixed pitched, 2 pitch variable and constant speed were all being used in France.  Mason also notes that as of 4 July 1940 only 36 Hurricanes with wooden props were remaining on strength.

Hurricane Mk I Performance (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html)
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: humble on November 24, 2008, 04:31:20 PM
I'm a bit curious....

looking at gonzo's performance chart the mk I appears very much in sync with the numbers for the "2 pitch metal airscrew" chart. with a peak that appears to be right on 17.5/320 with no wep shown. The actual HTC chart shows a top speed with wep of 325 at roughly 16k and a speed at 17.5 slighty over 320 by my guess.

what flavor of Mk I do we actually have??
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Brooke on November 24, 2008, 09:24:56 PM
In the Battle of Britain scenario, I think that the 110C is a better plane than the 109E.  It has more time aloft, has much longer-lasting ammo load, is more sturdy, is faster above 18k, has more lethal guns, puts out a more-continuous stream of lead (less chance of enemy flying through your stream), has no convergence issues, and has 2 engines (in case you lose one, you still might be able to limp home).

I think the only disadvantages are that it's a bit slower from about 10k to 18k altitude than the 109E and it doesn't stallturn as well as the 109E.

Even so, the 109E isn't a bad plane against the Spit I and Hurri I (although a lot of people might be surprised that the Hurri I is as fast as the 109E above 23k alt).

(The 109F is vastly better than the 109E -- the above comparison doesn't apply to the 109F as well.)
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: OOZ662 on November 24, 2008, 11:27:47 PM
what flavor of Mk I do we actually have??

Knowing how HTC used to model their aircraft/ammo waaaay back in the day, it's likely a mix of two variants.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Delirium on November 25, 2008, 12:31:29 AM
In the Battle of Britain scenario, I think that the 110C is a better plane than the 109E. 

It can be, provided you don't chain the 110s to defense via close escort. In a close escort situation, the 109E has a lot more options.

Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on November 26, 2008, 05:09:54 PM
109 out accelerates the 110 very easily, as well as outclimbs/muscles. It can thereby afford a better mix.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Brooke on November 26, 2008, 05:41:31 PM
According to DoK's performance charts, the 109E-4 and the 110C-4b are very close in acceleration and the same in climb rate above 17k alt.   Given that they are close in acceleration while level, I would guess that the 110C accelerates faster than the 109E when the two are unloaded (i.e., 0-g push over into a dive) since the 110C would have a much larger induced drag.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on November 27, 2008, 03:22:08 PM
Acceleration in level flight holds a tie with ROC AFAIK. Anyway, is there so litle info around about 110 performance/trials???
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Die Hard on November 27, 2008, 04:42:03 PM
Acceleration in level flight holds a tie with ROC AFAIK.

Wing loading affects rate of climb, but not so much acceleration. That's why the Spitfire would out climb a 109 on the same power even if the Spit was slightly heavier. The 109 would typically be faster and accelerate better.
Title: Re: 110C>109E?
Post by: Angus on November 28, 2008, 09:09:59 AM
If you graph it, the initial acceleration of the better climber (given equal power) will be better.
(A.o.A. issue which means less induced drag)
However, the faster aircraft at max. will still have some ROC while the slower one doesn't. Obviously.