Energy Maneuverability
 

Please Consider Energy Maneuverability

Before diving into the fight here I see an opportunity to introduce my axe to be ground into this fight, so as to leave less room for misunderstanding.

These Combat Flight Simulations are not new to me. The first Combat Flight Simulator I found was on the first Flight Simulator program offered by Microsoft, and it was a stick figure World War I hidden file in that program.

I went to Air Warrior, then Warbirds, then IL2, a brief look at Dawn of Flight, and now I have this Cliffs of Dover Combat Flight Simulator loaded onto an almost up to date PC.

I have been on Forums in the past, some of the regulars here may recognize my JG14_Josf username/handle.

My interest and concern has to do with accurate measures of relative performance and to that end my interest has to do with Energy Maneuverability.

Climb rates, top speeds, and sustained turn performance are distant secondary measures of Energy Maneuverability.

Please consider Energy Maneuverability.

I already checked this Forum, briefly, and I found this:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

The basic Energy Maneuverability question has already been asked and that question is basically this:

In the course of my interest in finding out accurate information so as to accurately measure Energy Maneuverability modeled into this Combat Flight Simulator I will be working the angles of attack that intend to reach the goal of answering that basic question above, and there are a few vital questions that are derived from that basic, or principle, question.

Such as:

1.
Are pilot g force limits equal for every on-line user of the game?

2.
What is the pilot g force limit for any on-line user of the game?

3.
Are any of the Fighter Planes modeled in the game with structural g force limits that are lower than pilot g force limits; therefore a pilot can break a plane before a pilot blacks out in this game?

Game = Combat Flight Simulator

I hope that my interest is well received here, and I further hope that all animosity can be set aside in a mutual interest in finding the facts, documenting the facts, and avoiding misunderstanding, confusion, misdirection, division, etc.

There are many reasons I can report here as to why these questions are vital as the Corner Velocity question exemplifies, since accurate information that accurately reports Corner Velocity is nearly the full measure of which plane is superior to the other plane in Aerial Combat.

I will try to recover my lent out copies of Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, and Boyd by Robert Coram, and many other previously uncovered reports of vital information that can support the viewpoint that Energy Maneuverability is worthy of our mutual interest.

Corner Velocity is reported on the charts posted in the thread linked above, and I hope that I am not bending the rules too much by re-posting them now, since there are other comments that I think are vital as to these charts that report Relative Performance including Corner Velocity (instantaneous turn performance) and Sustained Turn Performance.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../Bf109fan2.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...4/Spit1fan.jpg

Questions concerning those numbers:

1.
Are those numbers accurate representations of averages for production planes?

2.
Are those numbers accurate for 2 specific actual airplanes?

3.
Are those numbers based upon actual flight tests?

4.
Are those numbers based upon calculations and if so who did those calculations, which formulas were used, and which data was used in those calculations?

5.
Are the 109 Stall Lines (accelerated and sustained) based upon open or closed leading edge slats?

6.
What exactly is meant by Full Throttle, does it include any additional settings having to do with maximizing manifold pressure or air/fuel mixture such as might be considered to be Combat Power?

7.
Is there any information about game performance that is available (so far) to be able to plot out that same type of Chart which is an Energy Maneuverability type Chart.

Examples of Energy Maneuverability data can be found here:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

Scroll down to:

Turn Performance and Agility
Figure 3.63
Turn Performance Characteristics

I hope that this can be a good start to a mutually beneficial discussion concerning Energy Maneuverability as this type of data can be documented and understood from historical data to actual game data whereby the interest is knowing accurate relative performance characteristics.

To that end there are multiple methods by which game performance can be precisely (within obvious tolerance limits) documented, so as to leave out subjective opinion (as much as possible).

Welcome back Josf. I have missed those charts.

Thanks for the welcome back, Kurfürst, and it is encouraging to see that you continue to offer a well communicated viewpoint, and I hope that we can avoid repeating any irreconcilable contradictions that may have been generated in the past.

To which I will now attempt to communicate more information concerning the Energy Maneuverability angle of view generally and the corner velocity measure specifically.

To help broaden the scope of the data pool beyond those 2 charts that concern the 109E and the Spitfire, please consider helping in identifying the specific information being reported by utilizing the Navair Information and an additional example of the same type of EM Chart.

I can't (yet) cut and paste the Navair information other than text (no chart):

I can borrow another chart:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBo1.jpg

Source:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBoyd.htm

All that above may be GREEK to anyone sharing this interest in Accurately Measuring Relative Air Combat Performance.

RECAP:

Obviously, to me, there is at least one other person who understands the significance of Corner Speed.

Please know the difference between Sustained Turn Performance and Accelerated or Instantaneous Turn Performance so as not to confuse the two.

Consider how much confusion might occur if someone were to confuse Accelerated or Instantaneous (Corner Speed) with Sustained Turn Performance with an example illustration.

Fighter A is dropping from a higher speed and higher altitude into the circle produced by Fighter B as Fighter B is maintaining or sustaining a level flight turn at Maximum Performance for a Sustained Turn.

Fighter A drops in behind Fighter B from higher altitude and higher speed, and the question that is asked will offer the reader an opportunity to test your understanding of Energy Maneuverability or Air Combat in general, to see if you are confused or not confused about the differences between Sustained Turn Performance and Instantaneous Turn Performance.

This is vital stuff, and if you are confused you may not even be able to recognize how vital this stuff is in fact.

Question:

Which plane will be able to turn a smaller turn radius and a faster turn rate when Plane A is dropping down into the turn of Plane B where Plane A is at Corner Velocity when it begins to track Plane B and where Plane B is maintaining a Sustained Turn at Maximum Sustained Turn Performance?

The answer must include a g force tolerance number for each pilot and so an arbitrary number can be added to the question so 5 g can suffice as the constant that is demanded in order to answer the question.

Plane A (Can be a Spitfire against Spitfire, 109 against 109, Spitfire against 109, Mig against Mig, F86 against F86, Mig against F86, Spitfire vs Mig, 109 vs Mig, etc.)

Plane B (can be any plane on those charts too)

Plane A is at the 5 g (pilot limited) Corner Speed at the time it dives into a tracking shot onto Plane B.

Plane B is flying a luffberry circle at Maximum Sustained Level Turn Performance Flight Path (Level turn at full throttle just above the stall or at CLMax angle of attack).

Which plane (Plane A or Plane B) in any case will turn inside which other plane when the assumption is that both pilots cannot tolerate more than 5 g?

Solve the question for 5 g as the pilot g limit - please.

Note: EM Charts can be made for each plane in the game by following the methods described in the Naviar link.

Hi Josf,


It has been very many years, welcome back.

A piece of advice: Do not even bother...

This flight sim, at the current state, is miles away off target in terms of a.)transparency and b.)historic performance of flight models.

On the positive side, the climate of this forum and the friendliness of the fellow members towards each other makes everybody want to hang around and enjoy reading!



Enjoy ;)


~S~

Please, moderator, let me know if your displeasure is such that you prefer that I do not continue any further discussion on this topic or on this forum for that matter.

I prefer not to be involved in forums where the moderators contribute to Flame wars.

335th_GRAthos,

The concept of documenting the actual game performance concerning those plots that go on those charts so as to then accurately know where the current state of the flight model is and then to accurately know what is changed in the flight model is specifically demanded as my intended interest with this topic on Energy Maneuverability.

I failed to make that clear within the context of the first initial volley.

I may not be employing English very well.

If it can be known as to...

I can borrow again:

If that can be known now, then any changes can be known later.

I hope that I can address this:

I prefer to address that before addressing this:

The question asked, if you please, could be answered, and I'm not begging the question, I am merely asking you personally, please, and thanks for the welcome, please engage in the discussion on the topic by entertaining an answer to the question concerning Plane A (Sustained turn) and Plane B (Diving in at Corner Speed), and which plane turns a smaller radius at a faster rate, and there can be three levels of answers relevant to the game and to this topic.

Assuming a 5 g pilot limit.

1.
The answer is provided by the 109 and Spitfire EM Charts, which are not superimposed one on top of the other. (WWII vintage?)

2.
The answer is provided by the Mig and F86 Chart, which has one plane superimposed on the other plane. (possible flight test data plotted onto that chart by John Boyd and Chuck Yeager concerning a captured Mig).

3.
The answer is provided by game flight tests. (I don't even know yet if the game offers usable information recorded in replay files).

Again addressing this:

Having in-game data, if it is accurate (repeatable from one computer to the next and from one test pilot to the next and from one test flight to the next or by average of many test flights), there can be a mathematical determination of which planes, which pilots, are blacking out at which g loads.

Note: In IL2 it became obvious that some planes were modeled to generate higher g loads and therefore that program was thereby able to vary Instantaneous turn performance for those planes so modeled relative to the planes that were not modeled with pilots that were not capable of sustaining as much g force.

Someone might ask me, or ask themselves, how can it be possible for someone to know if the game models the same g load for each plane?

That is the same point, the same question, as this Topic intends to answer.

If someone were to have two computer side by side and one pilot is turning the same diving turn as the other pilot, both pilots are following the highest performance downward spiraling turn, and one pilot is no where near black out while the other pilot is obviously being limited by black out, and both planes are nose to tail in the diving turn, what do you think that proves?

If you care to engage in the discussion: please consider answering the question.

I know for a fact that the IL2 game became widely variable in which planes were modeled with higher or lower g loads, depending upon which "mod" was being modded by whoever figured out how to alter that variable.

I know for a fact that I had asked many times on those IL2 forums if the game modeled the same g load for each pilot and as far as my memory goes I think the official answer was that the pilot g load was 5 g for every pilot flying every plane. That was later proven to be untrue, but the cause of the variations are probably attributable to modifications done to the original program.

How important is it to have a 1 g advantage in modeling for your pilot when you fly your plane against an opponent where the opponent is flying with 1 g less tolerance in g load; where your opponent is fighting against black out, right in front of you, and you ask him on Teamspeak, and the opponent confirms on Teamspeak, "I am fighting black out", and you in your plane can merely pull back on the stick, no black out, pull lead, start shooting, score hits, and so, again, how important is it to know if your plane, and your pilot can tolerate the same g force, more g force, or less g force, and how important is that information compared to which plane can go 5 km/h faster on the deck, or which plane can maintain 1 g more in a luffberry circle or sustained turn at a constant altitude?

I'm asking, and I think I am asking nicely, and already the moderator is starting a flame war?

What is up with that?

Rather than entertain the topic, and rather than entertain the question, the responses so far are somewhat off topic, so an effort to return to focus appears to be possible if not wanted - yet.

There may be someone, somewhere, sharing an interest in Corner Speed and Energy Maneuverability as it relates to the relatively new game CloD.

Case in point:

I have been warned:

Thanks for the advice.

My hope, which has already been expressed in English, is to discuss the topic with people who share an interest in the topic.

This is not a far fetched hope, since I found someone else who may have expressed a similar interest, which has already be quoted several times.

Perhaps he gave up without a fight?

Hit and run?

How about a description of one of the many methods that can be used to accurately determine the vital measure of Corner Speed and again I can access the already linked Navair site.

How about The Wind up Turn?

There is more information offered on that site to explain the need to avoid "the effects of unsteady flow", and that may be well (or poorly) modeled in the game globally or it may be relatively well (or poorly) modeled from one plane to the next.

Knowing Corner Velocity may be of no interest to anyone else, I can't know without asking.

Josf, you are right with your point, transparency has to addressed first.

1C publicly stated that they are not prepared to provide us with the performance plots of the current flight models in a way similar to what we had available in IL2FB (see below).

http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/il2compare_bf109_spit.jpg

http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/il2compare_funplot.jpg

Probably (quote 1C) we will have them with the sequel (I became very modest with my demands after one year CoD experience).

So, until I have a possibility to understand the CoD flight models, it is of limited benefit to indulge into a discussion on the theory of dogfight.

Actualy, why don't you have a try yourself? Try to fly some planes in CoD (offline and online) and tell us how their performance feels like.

~S~

335th_GRAthos,

You sound as if you are as interested in Relative Performance as I am; however this type of Forum with this type of responses (off-topic to say the least) has me on guard, so I am going to trust that your intent is to share an interest and I am not going to jump to the conclusion that you are setting me up for something nefarious (some kind of flanking maneuver).

I will take this opportunity to work at understanding the differences between our viewpoints in this way:

Those IL2 charts offered on this Topic are not on this Topic since those charts have to do with Sustained Turn Performance (maintaining a fixed energy state) and therefore they do not have to do with Maneuvering in Combat (except for a luffberry circle type of defense or attack) and I already offered a question to be answered along those lines.

One exception to that above observation, and report, is the climbing data, which is a measure of Excess Power, which can then be extrapolated (roughly) to find the Accelerated Stall line, and the Maneuvering Envelope (as can level acceleration tests) if I understand things well enough.

I do not claim to understand things well enough, hence the desire on my part to engage in discussion with people sharing a similar interest.

Climb performance and level acceleration performance is at least as good as, and probably much better than, Sustained Turn Performance, when the idea is to compare one fighter to another to see which can outperform the other in very specific and unambiguous ways - not limited to the Luffberry Circle maneuver also known as the Sustained Turn.

In Naviar terminology the following English words apply:

Ps= 0

I can't show that Navair charts but the WWII era charts (If I am reading them right) and the Korea era chart (Boyd's) shows that Sustained (Ps=0) Turn Performance Curve.

Now, please, onto your very welcome words - in English:

Corner Velocity, to be more specific, is not a Theory. Corner Velocity in real life is a very precise air speed and g load which will then correspond to an exacting turn rate and turn radius. Each real plane and each simulated plane has a corner velocity.

Please consider the possibility that this is not mere theory.

I just loaded up the game after having a few weeks of problems failing to get the Patch to work on my old Windows XP system. I now have an upgraded system purchased specifically this game and I will be learning the Corner Speed of the 109 relative ot the Corner Speed of the opposition, that is a consequence of playing the game, as to documenting the actual Velocity, Turn Rate, Turn Radius, or G load: that may yet happen, if there is any interest in it. If there is no other interest in it other than my own, then I don't need to write down any numbers, I'll know which plane has the better corner velocity and I'll have a reasonable understanding of how much better the better plane can maximize turn performance.

I can borrow, again, from the Navair site and again, please, consider that this is not theory or "feel", since the time it takes to complete 360 degrees of turn is exactly that much, not more, and not less, and if one of the other variables can be known, then all four variables can be known with enough precision to get well past subjective opinion.

Naviar on Corner Velocity:

That is not theory, and if any two of the four variables are known then the other four can be calculated.

1.
Turn Rate
2.
Turn Radius
3.
Airspeed
4.
G load

To clarify the relevance to the intended focus of this discussion the g load factor is crucial since the g load factor may, or may not, be constant for every plane and therefore some planes (not advertized as such) may be favored over other planes as the CODE (not theory, and not "feel") may CODE a higher g load for one plane compared to another plane.

Not knowing that fact may cause someone to focus attention on Sustained Turn Performance as being better in one plane and not as good in another plane when in fact the maximum pilot g load variable may be 1 g higher in the plane with the poor sustained turn rate.

A plane with a low sustained turn rate and a better (lower) corner velocity is exemplified in the Mig versus F-86 Maneuvering Diagram supplied by Boyd.

If you have read Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat then you may remember something called Double Inferior and Double Superior and this (not theory) is the method by which a plane can be Single Inferior to another plane, such that, for example, the Mig can Sustain a higher level g load, due to higher power loading and lower wing loading while the F-86 has the lower Corner Velocity.

Why?

Now there may be much in the way of room for theory, but the data is what the data is, not subjective, and not subject to feel, and not subject to opinion.

Liars and cheats can divert from the actual data, shooting the messenger, causing flame wars, whatever, but the data is what it is until someone can improve on the accuracy of the data and then there is less error in the data.

Who wants error in the data?

Not me.

Back to your very welcome words:

What is so difficult about admitting that the game does, or does not, model the same g load for each pilot flying each plane?

Who cares, really, if the players can extrapolate the facts and answer the question ourselves, and then if the game suddenly changes, we know better because we already have the data that proves how the game was, and we have the data that proves how the "patch" changed the game?

I'm asking, I'm not dictating, and I hope that you can tell the difference. It is not a subtle difference.

As to "feel":

I have (in my youth) accumulated 40 hours logged airtime flying Hang Gliders. I know the feel of a wing cutting through the fluid that is known as air. This Clod simulator, to me, feels very good, there are better sounds (or my new system has a better sound card), and the general stickiness, then "buffet", then the break of acceleration on the lift vector is very encouraging, much fun, I can fly around for hours doing nothing more than feeling out the fight model - so far. That is not on-topic.

+1 :)

I'll take Josef's apprearance as a sign of good luck!

As I had guessed.

WinXP will unfortunately not take you very far I am afraid. Most likely you will need to upgrade to Win7 and at least a 4core CPU and a good graphics card (2Gb VRAM or more).

As you gain experience, you will begin to realise the constraints...

I also wonder why 1c does not provide us with data, I asked and got the reply I posted earlier.

Enjoy flying!

I do not know what that means.

As to the advice of moving up to Windows 7, again off-topic, the advice is sound enough since that was the way I went to actually get the game to work.

As to the other advice, or challenge, to actually fly Combat Maneuvering I can reply to anyone including TUSA/TX-Gunslinger whose handle sounds familiar in my long term memory concerning those efforts to discuss the topic on the IL2 Forums if not earlier.

So far in Clod our Squad, which is now a combination of JG14 and IV. JG53, has our first organized mission scheduled on the ATAG server for tonight, Sunday, and we plan on Simulating a small scale, escorted, bomb raid on an airfield or radar station - type mission.

This is off-topic too.

In preparation for that mission I have spent time with the Squad and time alone off-line, becoming more familiar with the game. Our teamwork is returning to some semblance of effectiveness in Combat Air Patrol, Hit and Run, Drag and Bag, Mutual Support, Line Abreast Formations, etc. On my own I have repeated a Target Practice Off-Line Drill (Training) with Single Player Quick Missions involving a mid altitude frontal attack on a formation of light twin engine bombers. Bombers that look almost like a twin engine Bonanza, King Air or whatnot.

The gunnery is more difficult than IL2, so far, as expected, and during this Drill I can shoot at multiple air targets from many angles since the King Air type twin bombers have meek gunners and top down or bottom up attacks tend to avoid the tracking capacity of the A.I. gunners, as expected.

During the continuous zooms and dives during the repetitive Gunnery Drill it is becoming clear that the Flight Model, and Pilot physics model (or whatever is the term for modeling black out and alterations in control of the plane) are not the same as in IL2, and to me, so far, the feel of control, loss of control, buffet, stall, slowness of response to control inputs under load, etc., are better that IL2, including the Stall, as exemplified by the methods used to recover from a Stall, or the methods used to avoid a stall: there appears, so far, to be more feedback (sound or response time = I do not have Force Feedback but if there is a good Force Feedback stick then I think this game may drive me to get one) on the edges of the flight envelope, which allows the pilot to remain in the flight envelope while utilizing those "signs" that inform the pilot of impending departure (buffet for example).

That brings me to the point at which the topic may return into view as the Gunnery Drills I have been running may include an ending Windup Turn Test as described in the Navair Web site. In other words I have begun to quantify Corner Speed for the 109.

So far, with the 109, I have Corner Speed (Pilot g limited not plane g limited) at about 350 km/h indicated. If I fly at 400 km/h for the Windup Turn Test the plane, so far, buffets and eventually sticks into a more or less coordinated diving turn, where the airspeed indicator is showing a needle that is dancing around, and my ability to smooth the turn out is as yet not refined enough to nail down an Instantaneous Maximum Performance Turn well, but the initial test confirm that 400 km/h is definitely above the pilot g limited Corner Speed since it is possible to grey out the pilot.

So far I have not blacked out the pilot as was possible in IL2, where the screen goes black (or grey if the software was exploited in some versions I've heard) and the pilot is no longer able to control the controls of the plane for some time that could "feel" like an eternity.

I've tried to target 300 km/h as Corner Speed in at least one Windup Turn Test so far and so far that appears to be under Corner Speed since the effort to reach black out was an effort that found buffet, severe buffet, and then stall before grey out was even possible.

Returning to Naviar, to return solidly on the topic, the following is a restatement of the definition of Corner Speed and a restatement of the Windup Turn (for anyone who may be interested in the topic):

In the game, in place of "record the g level" is a condition of simulation whereby the user of the software will either find black out or the user of the simulation with find the stall.

If the user of the simulation finds black out, then the user of the simulation has found out where the game software determines Corner Speed for that plane, but only if the user of the software (any user) can't reach black out at a slower speed.

If one user of the game software (without cheating some way) can fly slower and reach Black Out at a slower speed, then that user will be turning a smaller radius at a faster rate than the user of the game software who cannot pilot the plane at a slower Corner Speed.

If one user is hamfisting the controls, or has very poor hardware, or for whatever reason (other than comparing a cheater with an honest player) is stalling at the same speed than another user flying at black out (or in grey out, which should be before severe buffet), then it is the Player that is not "feeling" well, not the software playing favorites, assuming that both pilots are flying the same plane configured the same way, with the same amount of fuel, total weight, flap setting, etc.

This is where the rubber meets the road, and the Forum users are no longer fighting with English words, and the game software users are fighting with simulated airplanes in simulated air combat: back to the topic.

The region of buffet, or that place in the real (or well simulated) flight envelope where Maximum Turn Performance, Maximum Lift, CL Max, highest turn rate, lowest turn radius, lowest Corner Speed, and highest g limit (pilot not plane limited) is FLOWN, and to go past the initial instances of buffet, to fly beyond the beginning of buffet, to hamfist the controls past the most efficient angle of attack, and to enter well into the buffeting zone of wing angle of attack, is to reduce turn rate, increase turn radius, lower g load, and slow down below Corner Speed IN FACT.

So...practice may make worse, or more experience may help in finding the TRUE Corner Speed as the developer has modeled into the present form of the Software.

That may be what this means:

I don't know what that means, I guess that I am supposed to guess what that means, so that is my guess - in English.

That is off-topic.

On topic is that the 109 Corner Speed, so far as I can tell, is about 350 km/h indicated and relevant to about 2,000 meters altitude in a shallow diving Windup Turn Test Off-Line where this pilot was well into the buffet zone during that test, so that One test so far may be well off the precisely identified software coded Corner Speed.

If someone can fly the 109 in a Windup Turn Test at 300 km/h and reach black out, then they may be doing the test with a lighter fuel load, which is entirely possible, since I have so far done all my testing starting with full fuel.

More weight will move the Accelerated Stall line to the right on a Maneuvering Diagram (accelerated stall line), assuming that I understand Energy Maneuverability well enough.

Note: If a plane was loaded very heavy the Maneuvering Diagram (accelerated stall line) moves so far to the right that the 1 g stall is past Top Speed Level Flight and the plane can never take off on Earth, it can roll down a runway going all around the planet and never reach the Corner Speed or even the Take-off speed, since it is so heavy that the wings stall before 1 g. How would that look on an EM Chart?

Since more weight will move the Accelerated Stall line to the right on a Maneuvering Diagram, which is merely a record of how changes in weight cause the plane to stall at a higher speed (less weight) or lower speed (more weight) the heavier plane (same plane with more weight loaded) will have a higher corner speed, which means it will turn a larger Maximum Performance Turn Radius, and the heavier plane will turn a slower Maximum Performance Turn Rate, and the heavier plane (same plane loaded with more weight) will reach the SAME pilot g load unless the game software changes the pilot g load tolerance as the plane is loaded with more or less weight and that returns to the warning concerning Game Developer Transparency and how to get around the lack of information made available.

Windup Turn Tests document Corner Speed. Some users/players/gamers/flight sim pilots/combat flight sim pilots, whatever, may be better (not cheating) at reaching the Software CODED Corner Speed compared to another player - all things being equal (not cheating or not using a different fuel load, different testing altitude, different plane, etc.) - all things being equal except the Game CODED software as it was CODED by the developer and not re-CODED by the player who may mod the code to get a better Corner Speed (any exploit not yet know by anyone other than the person doing the exploiting).

Some players can be trusted as players who would never cheat, other players can be trusted as players who will always cheat if they are afforded any opportunity to cheat.

That is off-topic.

This is on-topic:

My initial, rough, tests peg the 109 Corner Speed (heavy with fuel) in between 300 and 400 km/h, at about 350 km/h.

Note: Changes in weight may not change Corner Speed significantly within the normal ranges of Combat Weight for any given plane while changes in weight may be more significant concerning changes in Sustained Turn Performance which may be a function (theory on my part) of that all too familiar squaring factor of drag as airspeed increases.

Sustained Turn Performance is flown at a much lower airspeed compared to Maximum Turn Performance and therefore the Total Drag is exponentially higher (square with velocity) at the higher Corner Speed relative to the lower Sustained Turn Performance (lufberry circle) Speed - if I have this understood.

JG14_Josf offers an initial estimate of 109 Corner Speed to be 350 km/h.

Flying slower than 350 km/h is increasing the difficulty of reaching black out before stall.

Flying faster than 350 km/h is increasing the ease at which the pilot can generate enough g force to black out the pilot instead of stalling.

Maximum Turn Performance is the condition of flight where the higher g force is generated at the lowest possible airspeed, and then the turn radius is the smallest possible turn radius, the turn rate is the highest possible turn rate, air speed is slowest while g force is highest (pilot not plane g limit).

That is on topic.

Jose I have wondered what became of you...should liven the place up:grin:

It is good to hear from those who share the interest in World War II Air Combat (if I am not reading too much into the welcome responses).

I saw Gunslinger (text only) on the ATAG server last night.

These are off topic (but welcome) words.

Stuff that is not welcome are, of course, the words that can be accurately measured as being unwelcome, sparks intending to light flames, diversions, whatever, they are actually against the rules and yet they still happen? <-----more off-topic stuff, but possibly a good separate (diverted) topic.

Back to the topic:

During our combined squad night on the ATAG server, last night, we flew an initial Ground Attack Mission, we hit a Radar Station and we returned to base.

Then we played around some at the German Ships near the French coast, and we tested out our teamwork on a steady supply of Spitfires entering the area one or two at a time.

I drug around a few Spitfires, two of my wingmen collided with each other at one point, but for the most part teamwork won that prolonged battle.

As far as Level sustained turning or climbing (from the deck) turns: the Spitfire had our heavily loaded (with fuel) 109s handily beaten. The Spitfires could get on our sixes from being in front of us with relative ease, so for my part, having a Spitfire in front of me, where the Spitfire knows I am going to shoot, and then that Spitfire is suddenly behind me, as it can turn so good, I then go relatively straight, and call in my wingmen, who then are soon shooting at the Spitfire going straight and level behind me.

Sustained turn performance, so far as I can tell, is a Spitfire advantage, measurably, obviously, and without any controversy whatsoever. I think this Clod game offers the Replay or Track Recording Option, so such things can be well documented.

Everyone in our squad, during those fights on the deck, reinforced the accurate understanding: Spitfires turn better than 109s in those types of turns which are not Corner Speed turns.

Those are turns that are turned at speeds that are under Corner Speed, and that means, specifically, and without controversy, turns made where there can be no blacking out of the pilots, because the planes cannot generate enough lift to generate enough g force, to the limit of the pilot g tolerance, at least not in the 109s, at least not with the 109 pilot g limit, not at speeds under about 350 km/h, such as was the case in our experience on the deck last night.

We were busy during turning fighting stall, we had no trouble with any blacking out, not in those fights where the hard deck, the lower hemisphere of our flight envelope, is ground or water.

No diving to gain speed without having to first climb once the fight degrades down onto the deck.

The Energy Fight is cut in half, and the ground or water level cuts it in half, leaving no diving for speed at that point, in that type of TEAM fight.

Lots of "I've got a drag."

"Where are you."

"At the point going inland, heading for the airfield."

"Got it, turn right and I'll cut the turn."

"So will the Spitfire, how close is the Spitfire? I'm not turning to look."

"Not too close, but fade left first, then right, I'm cutting the turn now."

"I see tracers."

"Don't worry, he is begging for you to turn hard, fade left, then right and you have him served up on a platter for me, thanks."

We joke, because it is funny, to hear how things can then be turned around by some people into the 109 being over-modeled, because the Spitfires pilots who are all alone, no teamwork, able to out turn us almost 2 to 1 (but we are full of fuel), and because we know how to drag, and because our top speeds are at least equal, if not better (I don't know, I can't look behind when dragging to see if the Spitfire is gaining in straight and level flight, and if I turn, he can cut the turn and close with angles/geometry, not higher top speed, which is, in fact, more Specific Excess Power at that point), but, but, but, somehow, according to some people, the Spitfire is better than the 109?

How? Not in turning Sustained Turns - where energy loss is not a factor.

We laugh at the claims of Superior Game Performance Coded into the Game, favoring the 109, because, we suppose, our opponents refuse to use their advantages to advantage when fighting against efficient teamwork, and so they blame their deficiencies on the game code?

That same night, and before the fight hits the hard deck, a Spitfire was saddled up on Hertt (my historically primary wingman), and in this case the Spitfire is again at advantage in ability to out turn the heavy fueled 109 flown by the capable 109 pilot.

Hertt cannot simply turn inside the Spitfire turn. That is what the Spitfire can do, if we are saddled up in our 109s on Spitfires: the Spitfire can turn inside and escape, we cannot, we see this, we know this, this is not now, in this game, subject to arbitrary argument, or contention, this is an obvious fact.

Hertt forces an overshoot.

I note, and I communicate the fact, with congratulation.

"Good work Hertt, that was a classic overshoot."

Are the 109s able to slow down faster than the Spitfires to force an overshoot despite anything that the Spitfire pilot can do unless the Spitfire pilot expects an overshoot maneuver and begins to slow down before the 109 pilot, or did Hertt merely cut the throttle while the Spitfire pilot kept his throttle at full power?

That was done while Hertt had room to dive for more speed after the overshoot? It was close the ground, but I don't remember exactly, and I did not record a Replay file, I don't know how to, yet, record files, or even for certain if the game allows it.

New game, same tactics and maneuvers, same need to figure out what works and what does not work.

Lower sustained turn performance does not automatically equate to lower corner velocity as demonstrated by the Maneuvering Diagram supplied by the Korean War example.

If, on the other hand, the Maneuvering Diagram supplied by the World War II era Spitfire and 109 example, shows an obvious advantage for the Spitfire over the 109 in both Sustained Turn Performance and Corner Speed, if I can read those Maneuvering Diagrams accurately, and if those Maneuvering Diagrams are accurate, not merely "calculated", and not involving Spitfire pilots who do not know how to turn a 109 with leading edge slats, or any other such possible reason for inadequacies in the production of the Maneuvering Diagram, if on the other hand, Sustained Turn Performance is a Spitfire advantage AND a lower Corner Speed is a Spitfire advantage, then that remains to be known, by me, in this game.

How about 2 numbers taken from the World War II era Maneuvering Diagrams, to compare a 109 5 g turn with a Spitfire 5 g turn, where we can assume that both pilots would be blacking out if 5 g is exceeded in flight?

Bf 109: 250 MPH (True)
Spitfire: 223 MPH (True)

Assuming much, including the assumption that I can read the chart, the obvious advantage is a lower 5 g Corner Speed for the Spitfire.

Note: The World War II era Maneuvering Diagrams shows some very interesting differences when compared to modern Maneuvering Diagrams not the least interesting being the numbers on the left side are not the same Turn Rate (degrees per second) used in modern Maneuvering Diagrams such as the Korean War example or the examples provided by the Navair documents. The World War II era Maneuvering Diagram lists Time to Turn a 360 degree turn in seconds on the right side of the Maneuvering Diagram.

5 g Corner Speed
Bf 109 = 14 seconds (approximate due to diagram imprecision)
Spitfire = 13 seconds

Sustained turn (assuming that the curve shown on the chart as Angle of Straight Climb is convertible, by some measure, with the sustained turn time on that Diagram)
Bf 109 = 25 seconds
Spitfire = 18.5 seconds

During the time between our Squad Mission Event and my early arrival on the ATAG server I worked on my ability to fly the heavy loaded (fuel) 109 in turns over the channel.

The 109 in this game favors a left hand turn, which may be a modelling feature intending to model Prop Wash/ P factor/ Propeller Torque Effect.

I noticed a need to push heavily on the left rudder to center the ball and keep the aileron control centered in left level and left climbing turns above the stall and at the beginning of the buffeting area of the flight envelope. I also noticed that using top rudder on right hand turns, or no rudder, appeared to keep the ball centered, and I could avoid having to move the stick left in a right hand level or climbing turn.

I also noticed that severe stall could be avoided with a quick closing of the Power Lever (throttle in a 109 does more than just cut the air/fuel mixture) and quick reversal of the stick and rudder, and a need to reverse stick and rudder again to avoid the spin momentum (?), as the spin would slow down in one direction and then (if not caught) the spin would turn the other direction.

Corner Speed turns again confirmed a 350 km/h indicated airspeed at the grey out and accelerated stall convergence condition or that data point on a Maneuvering Diagram - again heavy with fuel.

I see a need, now, to begin quantifying relative unloaded dive and unloaded zoom performance between our 109s and those pesky Spitfires that have, on occasion, showed up, so far, on the ATAG server while our Squad is patrolling the high and mid altitudes where we can again begin practicing our teamwork in various Mission Profiles.

Which plane can unload from level flight and dive like a powered dart at a greater rate of acceleration?

Which plane can then zoom climb to a higher altitude after an efficient turn at the bottom of the dive, near corner speed, to then begin an unloaded zoom climb to maximize altitude gain, when the fights may go vertical, such as was described very well in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw?

So far the obvious advantage in slow, turning and burning, or Angles Fighting, favors the Spitfire.

What about Energy Fighting in the Vertical?

Which plane is the better plane?

Is the Spitfire Double Superior or Single Superior?

The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, that is uncontroversial.

The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, and anyone who can demonstrate otherwise can, in fact, prove me, and those other users of the game in my squad wrong - PLEASE.

The 109 is Single Inferior, for sure, without controversy, in this game, as the 109 is less able to Sustain higher g, higher turn rate, smaller turn radius, when energy loss IS a factor.

What about Corner Speed?

What about Energy Fighting Performance Advantages such as unloaded acceleration and deceleration in vertical maneuvering?

To be continued

Josf, you shld take the Hurri as a ref.

The Spit in CoD is just a a sweet for capricious children (the "hula Hoop queen").

Fight are much more interesting that way (HurriVsBf). You'll even see that the 109 turn a tad too well in fact ;)

Interesting read though. Please goes on !

Hello Josf, welcome on forums.

Very interesting post. I agree the teamwork is essential and many Allied pilots are flying rather unorganised (not on comms etc.) and low slow. On the other hand, it seems you only started to fly this particular sim and as you see, with basic drag and bag tactics, using 109 superior speed, climb and firepower, you can suceed quite easily. This is not really the case with e.g Spitfire, deploying equal skill and experience even. ;)

If you really want to prove your point, I suggest you take Hertt and try surviving against a pair of decent 109 pilots in Hurricanes or Spitfires. I agree with all theoretical information you posted in the lengthy post of yours, but in my opinion, you happen to be commenting on the FM situation in the sim (and tactics) based on a few online fights on a 109.

The reason you would not be as succesfull in a Spitfire is simple - the game really portraits a massive (and not historical) performance gap. It is much better in recent patch, but the RAF is still no match for good 109 pilots.

Robo,

Thanks for participating in this Topic. If you could please consider rephrasing your viewpoint I would appreciate the effort since my confusion concerning your viewpoint is unsolvable without your help.

In the memory I have so far, concerning the limited experience I have with the game, the 109 pilots I know were nearly shot down several times by 1 Spitfire fighting against 4 of us working as a team.

Had we had Spitfires and the 1 enemy was flying a 109, on the deck, Hertt would probably have taken that one 109 down in the first few minutes if not sooner, and we would be crying the blues, as usual, because Hertt is so greedy that way.

When there were 2 Spitfires at once, against 4 of us, the incidences of us nearly being shot down increased and this can be attributed to those unorganized pilots using their advantages used by them to their advantage during those fights. They could turn and burn like no tomorrow, and we could not turn and burn nearly as well.

What advantages?

Sustained Turn Performance Advantages.

My point is that I now know, beyond any doubt, that the Spitfire in this game has a Sustained Turn Performance Advantage, at the very least, over the 109, when the 109 is nearly full of fuel.

I don't know how that cannot be clear to anyone, since I repeat that often, in my lengthy offerings on this forum.

Which plane, in the game, has a lower corner velocity?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of acceleration in level flight from stall to the point at which acceleration is anemic?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a faster rate of unloaded (minimum drag) acceleration in vertical maneuvering (going down, or trading altitude for speed, which is a net loss of energy due to drag and the fact that the thrust to drag ratio on WWII planes is less that 1 to 1)?

Probably the Spitfire.

Which plane, in the game, has a slower rate of unloaded (minimum drag) deceleration in vertical maneuvering (going up, or trading speed for altitude, again a net loss of energy for the same less than 1 to 1 thrust to drag ratio)?

Probably the Spitfire.

The Spitfire is so far the better Angles Fighter when energy loss is not a consideration, but it is not yet accurately measured by me, or anyone in the squad I fly with, as to which plane is superior in this game when the fight goes vertical – as far as I know so far.

My guess is that the Spitfire will turn out to be Double Superior. I want to be wrong.

We already know that the Spitfire is Single Superior in Angles Fighting as far as any fights that are on the deck, without the capacity to trade altitude for speed.

You quote my words concerning the often repeated laughter shared among the people in my squad, and perhaps you do not understand my words as much as I do not understand your words.

We have a lot of fun in these World War II Air Combat Simulations. I met Hertt in the 1980s, flying Air Warrior On-Line, and so this is not new fun for us, this is well known fun for us; we share an interest in World War II Fighter Combat Simulation.

How about specifics concerning my lack of understanding concerning what you offer here in this thread on Energy Maneuverability?

Allow me to cut that thought off with an experience I have where I can answer what I think your viewpoint is in those words, but I may be confused.

In the first place the teamwork effort is not easy, at all, it is very difficult, and it often goes very wrong.

In the second place I do not know anything about which plane has a Superior Climb rate, at any altitude, nor do I know about any advantage in firepower, since, so far, I've seen many hits, very many hits, and almost impossible to survive numbers of hits, going into these Spitfires, and they keep fighting us despite all that damage, sometimes. These things can, I assume, be recorded on track files so as to leave no room for controversy, confusion, opinion, subjectivity, or anything other than an obvious fact demonstrated precisely and unambiguously.

In the third place we have been involved in many on-line Wars where the planes are being blamed for lack of success earned by our opponents as if the game hands us our well earned victories and the challenge has been, more than once, for us to trade planes, and then see who is handed the win by the game CODE, and we win again.

What does that prove time and again?

So...if I have your viewpoint understood, which may or may not be the case, then the challenge you offer is the same old challenge, let me, or anyone in my squad, or any combination of anyone in our squad, fight you, or any Spitfire user of the game (virtual pilot), or any combination of any Spitfire flying team, and switch planes, to see who is being handed the victories handed to whomever by the game CODE, as the game CODE favors one plane with Sustained Turn Performance Advantages, that being the Spitfire, and the game CODE favors the other plane with whatever the other plane has as an advantage that I am not yet aware of in FACT.

If things move along in this game as they have in other games I see us testing our relative performance advantages against the opposition eventually. I can share your conclusions concerning climb, firepower, and speed advantages at that point, in those cases, and meanwhile I can assume that you know what you reporting to me in FACT.

Is the Spitfire maximum climb angle the same as the 109?

How much is the Spitfire maximum climb rate less than the 109 and are the fuel loads the same, and are the pilots using the maximum climb rate engine settings, control surface positions, the best climb angle for maximum climb rate, correctly to get the maximum climb rate out of the Spitfires or the 109s?

I don't know, and so I'm asking.

I could respond with a sound bite, to keep the discussion down to a minimum number of symbols of text, but that is not my interest here, I am here to share what I know with anyone similarly interested, and I do so in the effort to gain some valuable information from other people who know things I do not know, not yet, or things I may never know without seeking, and then gaining help from other people.

Not actually being at a table to see you winking at me, I am confused as to what the winking means. If you care to join a form of discussion in the virtual world of Simulated Air Combat then you can show me how much better the 109 is compared to the Spitfire, we can meet in fact, on a server, plane to plane, in the game, once I fly the Spitfire a few times, or even for the first time, and that can prove something, and that sounds like a lot of fun to me. You can wink at me with superior 109 firepower, and there won't be any more confusion on my end, as to what you mean to say, exactly.


That sounds like someone assuming something about Hertt and I, and what Hertt and I could possibly do as a team when we are being challenged to fly Hurricanes or Spitfires against 109s, even when the 109 pilots may have been flying as a team for some 30 years in various on-line World War II simulations such as Air Warrior, Warbirds, IL2, and now this game, so I ask again, since I don't really know, as I may be confused when I read your welcome contribution to this Topic: are you assuming something about Hertt and I and if so what exactly are you assuming?

What type of fight do you think will be the type of fight that will educate Hertt and I concerning the inferiority CODED into the Spitfire or Hurricanes as the Spitfire and Hurricane is going to be flown by Hertt and I against a 109 Rotte, or wing pair, in this game?

What type of fight?

If it is a fight started with a cold merge at the same altitude and same speed then what do you think Hertt and I are going to do, tactically, when we are handed planes that have been CODED with a remarkable Sustained Turn advantage over the 109, which is the case with the Spitfire?

Will we work to bracket the opposition as we enter the merge?

Will we concentrate on a 2 on 1 tactic first, or will we lose the initiative immediately and will we find ourselves each in a 1 on 1 battle after the first 90 degree turn?

Will we find advantage in vertical maneuvering or will we have to concentrate on horizontal angles fighting tactics?

Can we both lead turn at the merge from our bracketed positions?

Will we be defensive as the fight may last longer and will we be in positions to employ team tactics such as the split, half split, sandwich, and thatch weave to effect?

Will we be desperate and in need of forcing overshoots?

I saw Hertt manage that in a 109 already and if there is a Sustained Turn Performance advantage, instead of a Sustained Turn Performance disadvantage with the plane Hertt is flying (he has a better turn fighting Spitfire instead of a worse turn fighting 109) then it stands to reason that it will be easier, not harder, to force an overshoot, turn the tables, and then be on the offensive instead of being on the defensive in a desperate situation.

If by this challenge that you appear to be offering us, Hertt and I, we find out which plane has the lower corner speed, and we find out which plane has the faster rate of unloaded acceleration, and which plane has the least unloaded deceleration in vertical maneuvering, then we will find that out, and I don't think we will be spending any time in such a fight finding out which plane has the higher Top Speed in level flight, nor which plane will reach the higher altitude in the shortest time at a maximum performance climb angle that may actually need to change slightly if the climb rate is to remain at the maximum rate through various altitudes and conditions assuming the game is coded with the need to adjust for changes in altitudes and air density air fuel mixture, supercharge gear changes, and whatever.

If we take up the challenge, and that is why we loaded the game onto our computers, in fact, then we will learn a thing or two, and what we learn will not be subject to verbal arguments on a forum, the proof will be demonstrated, in fact, and recordable, if possible, on track files.

I once took the time to record Training Track Files with Hertt and I demonstrating how, for example, the half split works, and this training track file was taken from a typical on-line session, on a typical fun mission we were on awhile ago, in the game IL2.

I have recorded Training Track Files alone, also, demonstrating how the Barrel Roll Attack works, for example, and for another example I have demonstrated how Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique works in one of the version of IL2 when one plane, the 109, was not double inferior to the other plane, at that time, which was the P-51, in that game.

The Sustained Turn Technique as described by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat is not what the name may appear to suggest, meaning that it is not a Angles Fighting Tactic, at all, and it is not a Luffberry Circle type of maneuver where the pilot is maximizing a Sustained Turn in Level Flight where Energy Loss is not a consideration.

The Sustained Turn Technique is possible with a Single Inferior Energy Fighter when there is a marginal advantage in unloaded acceleration and there isn't a terribly inferior (higher) corner speed.

Track Files work a whole lot better at describing The Sustained Turn Technique (or the barrel roll attack) compared to the use of diagrams or words in English.

Back to your welcome words on this Topic (words that could be reworded to help me understand what you intend to communicate without my misunderstanding):

Now you are challenging my capacity to interpret historical data?

On this forum there is a document that I found, just a few days ago, a document that I had previously not found, and a few things are reported in this document. I can link the document if you care to read it, assuming that you have not yet read it, which is an assumption on my part based upon your words above.

In that document the British pilots flying the captured 109 state that the 109 did not tend to spin in a stall, and that was, according to them, a historical advantage for the 109.

Have you flown the 109 in this game?

Does the 109 in this game tend to spin when stalled?

In that document the British pilots flying the captured 109 (what fuel were they using?) found that the 109 climb ANGLE was much superior to their Spitfires and Hurricanes and in mock combat the 109 could easily gain altitude above the Spitfires and Hurricanes because of the steeper climb angle, so the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots would wait for the 109 pilot, a British pilot, to dive down and back into the fight.

I think that that document makes it clear, or documents a FACT, that the Maneuverability Diagrams for the Spitfire and 109, also found on this Forum, are CALCULATED plots on a diagram, and they are based upon a captured 109 flown by British pilots, and those British pilots complained of aileron snatching resulting from leading edge slat deployment.

This is interesting historical information.

Did you know that a 109 leading edge slat deployment problem was understood by the German pilots when those leading edge slats were not properly maintained?

Is it a fact that poorly maintained aircraft do not perform well?

What about the fuel used in the planes captured by the British when the British documented the performance of the German planes in the vital effort to accurately determine relative performance variables that existed at those times between those specific planes tested?

Does a high performance engine run correctly on the fuel that the engine is designed and tuned to run on or can any fuel be used when the right fuel is not available?

The Germans used synthetic fuel made from coal on their aircraft and there are documents I may still be able to find where these fuels were tested for relative octane rating and other variables to quantify the relative performance of the synthetic fuels used by the Germans during World War II.

If you have better, more accurate, useful, and factual information concerning relative historical performance between any version of Spitfire and any version of 109, then you have, in my opinion, a Standard by which that information is already set, and that Standard is documented on that Energy Maneuverability Chart, where, apparently, the plots on the chart are based upon a captured German plane flying climb tests, with a plane that is possibly not maintained correctly, and possibly not using the fuel it was designed to use, and then the chart is calculated based on those climb tests at the climb angles used by the British pilots, and that is a Standard of Excellence in the effort to know which plane is historically better, and why, and exactly why, so if you can do better than that Standard of Excellence, then please do, please provide better, more precise, more relevant information that measures relative historical performance.

To me those 109 and Spitfire Maneuverability Charts are the best sources of relative combat performance available to my knowledge, so far, despite the obvious lack of confirmations concerning the specific methods used to plot that vital data on those charts.

That is history, and that is not the game.

The game is what it is, as were the planes handed to the pilots in history, they ran what they brought into the fight, and that is what we do too.

We have been challenged, more than once, to fit our uber feet into the unter shoes and more often than not the grass has TURNED out to be greener on the other side of the pond.

This time things may be different. I don't know yet.

I do know, as a matter of demonstrable fact, that the Spitfires are decidedly superior in Sustained Turn Performance when the 109 is loaded with fuel.

I also know for a fact that the 109 is modeled with a vicious tendency to spin when departing the flight envelope.

Most of my confusion concerning your welcome response in this topic concerns these last words:

You rate my performance before I even have a chance to perform anything. How is that possible?

You make a claim of massiveness without nailing down anything that can be measured as being massive or less than massive.

You make a reference to the past without nailing down anything specific concerning the past.

But I am left with what appears to be a challenge, and it is a challenge that I am prepared to meet in case the rubber actually does meet the road.

Unless my life is ended in a car accident, or some other unfortunate (for me) event, the future will include my decision to load up a Spitfire and see what can be done in one, soon enough, and therefore the relevant question here, it seems to me at least, is who and what will my opponent bring to the fight?

The fight could, possibly, be recorded on a track file, and then there is no longer any room for misunderstanding or confusion?

I can learn a whole lot when reviewing what I can or cannot do in a fight against a superior opponent when generously given the opportunity to learn these valuable lessons.

Tuesday is on our Squad schedule for a return to the CLoD Word War II Air Combat Simulator game, and I think we will be trying out the ATAG server again. High command (Wotan) has yet to issue orders.

Tonight, it seems, we fight again.

Knowing what I know now about the advantage of Sustained Turn Performance in the Spitfires, I can say to Wotan, if he orders us on close bomber Escort, that "I want Spitfires for my wing." since I could then use that advantage in turning and burning around those bombers.

I hope that those English words, that giant wall of text, can manage to remove the room for too much reading between the lines.

Hello Josf, sorry to confuse you. I really enjoy fighter aircraft tactics debates and being a keen virtual pilot I appreciate your effort in this thread. I don't know you at all and there is no subtext in my reply and you should read is as plain it was written. My point in general is, that perhaps more time in the sim is needed for anyone to embrace the FM characteristics in detail and both sides should be flown extensively before making any conclusions. All above with all due respect to your flying skill and theoretical knowledge.

With more experience with this sim you will find that one Spitfire is no match for four 109s on comms.

Not necessarily, if the 109 decides to fly straight there is nothing you can do.

It can also be attributed to your inability to use the 109 to its full potential yet.

Pretty much as expected. Mind you that in the sim it is indeed possible to outturn a Spitfire if 109 pilot happens to be of higher skill and Spitfire pilot of rather low.

Yes indeed.


Certainly.

109 (very much depending on pilot's CEM skill)

109 for sure

Nope, the 109 wins hands down in this discipline.

You are wrong indeed. You will find that the 109 is far superior in the vertical level.

Of course, as expected.

I did not comment on the laughter in your squad at all, I also make funny comments while flying with my pals.

I am answering your questions and / or your assumptions and I am also suggesting flying the 109 and the RAF fighters in the sim much more before assuming anything more complex. You could easily make wrong assumptions as you actually happened to make.

It is not supposed to be easy. But if you do it for long enough it's not a rocket science either.

109 has got better climbrate as you will soon find out. Shooting is also a skill to be mastered in this game. Give it more time. Spitfire is very though (DM issues) but you can destroy it with one good pass.

Fair enough, but I suppose that was not the case yet in this particular sim. Yet you make lots of assumptions e.g. about the Spitfire without actually flying it. I hope you see my point now.

I don't know what 'game CODE' is, I only believe that your assumptions would be much different if you've tried both sides. I don't offer any challenges, perhaps you misunderstood my post. If you keep flying this sim for a bit longer, we will certainly meet at some point, hopefully on TS. I really enjoy debates like this.

I do know.

See above, keep flying for longer, the answers are rather obvious.

I am similary interested.

There was no winking at all. All I was saying is that the performance gap in the sim is big enough for the 109 to win any co-e encounter with RAF fighter. Even exceptional Spitfire pilot would struggle against decent flown 109. Exceptional 109 pilot has no problem at all with RAF. Exceptional 109 pilot still wins against exceptional Spitfire pilot.

Yes, I am very much assuming, that despite your overal skill and experience from other sims, you would get your bottom kicked in the above situation, assuming that the 109 pilots are above average.

Just join ATAG on red side and fight against some good and organised blue pilots. You will find soon enough who they are.

Knowing the qualities of a 109 in the game, you will be boomed and zoomed until you get hit eventually and they you will limp home or die.

Just try it. ;)

You will be in a massive disadvantage in vertical fight soon. And that is what 109s will do. Fairly right so.

I have flown all fighter aircraft in this sim extensively (100s of hours). Otherwise I would not dare to comment on the topic. I actually wonder how do you manage to do that after one night on ATAG.

We can discuss the 109 characteristics later if you wish - that I find very interesting.

I am rating the possible (and obvious) outcome based on my experience with this sim. I also took your inexperience with this sim in account.

I am sorry I did not provide any exact figures, I tried to reply in general. The performance gap is being discussed in too many topics on this forums, I suggest you read klems testing for the start.

Robo,

I did not get very far into your welcome reply before I saw a need to be more clear rather than being less clear. The engagement to which the above quote is referencing is obviously not known by you or you would not have responded in that way, since your response has nothing to do with the words I wrote in reference to the engagement I experienced.

Why you may be concentrating on a specific level flight speed advantage is your axe to grind, for whatever reason you may want to do so, and as to how that axe grinding relates to this topic on Energy Maneuverability, and the specific engagement, or my specific comments, are your exclusive understanding at this point. I have no clue as to how your comment fits into this general discussion or my specific comments.

Had we had Spitfires, not 109s, in the specific engagement in reference, the 109 would have been shot down much sooner, probably by Hertt, and the point is that in such an engagement, 4 on 1, the Spitfire's advantages are significant advantages, as it can turn and burn remarkably better, and the remarks are specific, and the betterness is not specific to top speed, or hit and run tactics, had a different engagement been specified such as us flying along and having a single attacker attack once, one hit, and then leave the scene in a level straight line run.

Furthermore, assuming that the single attack by the single 109 upon our group of 4 thereby defensive fighters defending against the single attack by the single fighter, had we seen the attack, rather than being bounced, and having Spitfires, rather than 109s, we can more handily avoid the single attack, by the single 109, and then the single 109 is gone forever, or the single 109 turns, burns, and returns, with more or less energy burnt and that is actually the subject topic, being the topic of Energy Maneuverability.

How much energy is lost, relatively speaking, when plane A does the same thing that plane B does, and therefore which plane can stay and fight, or Angles Fighting (to borrow from Shaw), and which plane can't - i.e. Double Inferior.

Going back:

So...we are inexperienced and we are shown to be of such poorness for our being almost shot down with 4 of us against 1 Spitfire. Do I understand what you are telling me?

Going back further:

I have enough experience to conclude, without any room for any doubt (other than a possible improvement with light fuel loads), that the Spitfire in the game is Superior in Sustained Turn Performance which can be plotted out on an Energy Maneuverability Stall line at Ps=0, whereby the Spitfire will handily out maneuver a 109 on that Ps=0, level, or horizontal, sustained, turn.

If you can please either confirm or contend with that conclusion and please consider avoiding such an acknowledgement any further as my ability to read between the lines continues as your words appear to be changing the focus of attention from those facts to my level of experience instead. I do not appreciate that if that is your attention, and you can help me here by acknowledging the conclusion or contending with it if you think that the conclusion is in error.

Thanks in advance.

Backing up to the start (before I felt the need to interrupt the flow of information that is welcome from you):

I can confuse myself well enough, so I don't need any help, so thanks. I am working at avoiding the reading between the lines, and to that end it would help greatly if you were to acknowledge the conclusion offered which is the obvious and accurately measurable conclusion that the Spitfire is at least Single Superior with the superior Sustained Turn Performance advantage that is coded into the game.

Moving back to the flow of information after the quote that broke my concentration, and now I will respond to each offering as I read each, as I no longer see any reason to read the whole thing first - before responding.

The point here, if my efforts are not understood, is to understand all the variables, well enough, and then conclude the facts as they are knowable, such as:

The Spitfire is at least Single Superior with a decidedly superior Sustained Turn Performance Advantage.

That is the one obvious fact I can confidently conclude so far, and the other variables, such as my present lack of skill is understood too, so I don't need any help in that department, that fact of my lack of skill is as plain as the nose on my face, but thanks, and you really don't need to remind me of that fact, like my nose, it is there all the time, a big nose.

I think I can take the "pretty much as expected" comment to be a confirmation in the conclusion made concerning the Single (at least) Superior Performance of the Spitfire over the 109 in Sustained Turn Performance, which is not yet conclusive of, or to be assumed to be, a lower (therefor better) Corner Speed performance advantage coded into the Spitfire over the 109? Can I take that as an acknowledgment or is that reading too much in between lines?

A Corner Speed advantage held by either plane is a significant advantage and I do not know which plane, not yet, has that advantage.

As to how poorly a Spitfire virtual pilot has to be in order to be out turned by a 109 or how good the 109 pilot has to be, well that is good news, because that is another thing found in the document reproduced on this Forum where the British were engaging in mock combat with a captured 109, where the actual British Spitfire Combat Pilots were failing to get close enough to the edge of their flight envelopes, where their Spitfires were subject to nasty spins, according to the document, and the 109 pilot, who was British, turned inside the British pilots turns, and he could do so without any tendency, according to the report, for the 109 to spin, even when departing the flight envelope.

I don't know if you read that document. It is very interesting.

I will now take that as a confirmation on the question of which plane is coded with the superior Sustained Turn Performance, that being the Spitfire.

There is where I have to trust your judgment, at this point, because I have found that the 109 is very tight in turning at corner speed, so I have yet to see if the Spitfire is even better, which would be remarkable indeed.

Note: Which plane loses altitude faster (dumps energy) during that turn at Corner Speed if the turn is such as described in Navair as a Windup Turn (extended beyond the finding of the data plot)? <----an Energy Maneuverability question and decidedly ON TOPIC.

CEM, if I am not mistaken, means Engine Management, but there is more to it, and that is what I am here to find out, and it is very encouraging to find someone willing to discuss this stuff in any detail.

That is the subject of Level Flight Acceleration and that is a vital part in finding out which plane has a Specific Excess Power advantage and that is the stuff of the Double Superior area, the Vertical Maneuvering as opposed to the Horizontal Maneuvering, or the Energy Fighting as opposed to the Angles Fighting area since a loaded (wings are loaded to maintain level flight) acceleration advantage is understood to be an unloaded (minimum drag such as a dive) acceleration advantage and therefore an unloaded zoom climb (minimum drag again) deceleration advantage, which means that the 109 should then be very good at performing a Sustained Turn Technique against an eager Spitfire pilot, even if the Spitfire has a lower corner speed (advantage in corner speed).

Level Flight Acceleration tests are well described on the Naviar site, and I can cut and paste if needed. There are methods used to plot out that data and then use that data to build Energy Maneuverability information, such as Specific Excess Power information.

Level flight acceleration is the stuff of Total Thrust minus Total Drag as described by John Boyd and is formula which goes something like this:

Ps = V(T/W-D/W)

Level Flight Acceleration Performance Advantage is a Specific Excess Power advantage which means a higher total POWER to accelerate after Total Drag is subtracted during the flight conditions where acceleration is knowable.

If the plane is accelerating then Total Thrust is more than Total Drag - of course. How much more? Which plane has more Specific Excess Power? How much more Specific Excess Power does the 109 have over the Spitfire in Level Flight as one plane will accelerate faster than the other at which speeds from stall to Top Speed in Level Flight?

It stands to reason that the faster Top Speed indicates a faster rate of acceleration along the way from stall to Top Speed.

This information, this conclusion that the 109 is faster in acceleration in level flight, is the information that determines the Energy Fighting Performance Advantages, or Single Superiority of the 109, if the information is accurate, and I see no reason to doubt it, then the score card is:

Sustained Turn Performance/Angles Fighting/Horizontal Maneuvering/Single Superior Advantage goes to: Spitfire

Level Acceleration/unloaded dive acceleration/unloaded zoom climb deceleration/Energy Fighting/Vertical Maneuvering/Single Superior Advantage goes to: 109

Spitfire is by those conclusions not Double Superior.

109 is by those conclusions not Double Superior.

That has to do with my estimates of probability, which are estimates, so the wrongness or rightness of my estimates are understood to be unknown variables.

It is encouraging to here of these conditions of Single Superiority, not that I have any argument about which plane should or should not be double superior historically, but because I know how the IL2 game started with a very simplistic Flight Model and this news is encouraging because the CLoD Flight Model may actually be an improvement in the ability to model Single Superiority of one plane, one plane being an Angles Fighter, and another plane modeled as an Energy Fighter, rather than the way the IL2 game was limited, where one plane was either/or Double Inferior or Double Superior originally, and then someone started messing with the program to attempt to fudge the Flight Model in such a way as to model Single Superiority, but I think that they ended up changing the threshold of black out on one plane relative to another plane and that is how the game developed, as far as I know so far.

Changing the individual pilots g force tolerance from 5 g to 6 g, for example, does not change the plots on the Accelerated Stall line Coded into the game, in other words the plane is the same plane, but the change in the individual pilots g force tolerance does move the pilots capacity to move up and right on that accelerated stall line, and up means (if you look at that Accelerated Stall Line on an Energy Maneuverability Chart) a higher turn rate, more degrees per second, but not necessarily a better turn radius, moving to the right is higher speed before blacking out - interesting stuff.

Note how the Korean War EM chart does not duplicate (as in calculated) the same shape of the Accelerated Stall Line, so it is possible, but remains to be documented, or otherwise concluded, that this new game CLoD, is of such a highly refined Flight Model, that individual Accelerated Stall Lines, of a character that is individual to the individual plane, and not a size and shape that "fits all", may be the case.

Imagine that!

Individual characteristics for each plane such that one plane may be Single Superior to another plane rather than every plane being either/or Double Inferior or Double Superior, and is that even possible on a Personal Computer, without having to adjust individual pilot g load tolerances?

I don't know, but this latest news in encouraging.

Great! I have chores to do right now and I plan on returning to this discussion when time permits, no time for editing.

Josf,

I believe I already managed to answer most of your questions. I am absolutely sure that simply by flying this sim (or playing this game, depending on your point of view) for a bit longer you would figure out yourself. Yes the Spitfire is better at TnB, yes the 109 is faster and climbs better. Yes I believe you guys are inexperienced in this particular sim if you had a single Spitfire giving you 4 as plenty grief as you describe. No, you should not turn against the Spitfires but yes you can outturn many not-so-good Spitfire pilots and all Hurricane pilots. Yes I am familiar with that report and yes I agree with what you said about it. Yes the actual mfp @ rpm settings are crucial for 109s optimal performance (as coded in the game) so if you tell me what yours settings were in a climb or TnB attempts versus Spitfires, I could comment. Otherwise, I have nothing else to add, I wish you good luck exploring this awesome sim and hopefully see you soon in the virtual skies.

Compared to flying 46, you don't have much worry in a 109 in this sim. I've been mainly flying blue as of late, and the only time the spitfire gave me the real adrenaline rush and fear was when we had the super fast IIa. I enjoyed that quite a bit.

As Robo has said (which I agree with as a 109 driver) there isn't a red plane I'm worried about while flying. I can fly like a complete idiot and quite honestly not worry about being shot. Play it a bit more and I think you'll come to the same conclusion.

Anyone,

Is that an ambiguous references to fears or worries concerning what can or cannot happen when using this game? No one but 109 pilots are having fun with this Word War II Combat Flight Simulator? Spitfires are targets and 109s are invincible, so long as the average idiot knows enough not to fly a Spitfire and knows enough to fly a 109?

What is the point?

I don't get it.

Why not concentrate on this Topic while in this Topic or start a thread titled something appropriate to the general concept of 109s being super planes and Spitfires are mere targets?

If that is the point then why is that point finding its way into this topic?

The point of this Topic is to discuss Energy Maneuverability that is specific to the Cliffs of Dover Program.

So far I have concluded on my own and have managed to confirm from another user of the software the fact that the Spitfire is at least Single Superior in Angles Fighting as measurable with Sustained Turn Performance and that part of the flight envelope can be plotted on a standard EM Chart where Turn Rate is measured on the vertical axis and Air Speed is measured on the horizontal axis, and that Sustained Stall Line is a condition of flight where Specific Excess Power is ZERO.

I cannot confirm the degree at which the Spitfire Corner Speed outperforms the 109 corner speed nor can I confirm that the Spitfire Corner Speed is slower and therefore better than the 109s, but contributions to this thread confirm that fact.

I cannot confirm the fact that blackout occurs at a specific g load for a 109 pilot.

I cannot confirm the fact that blackout occurs at a specific g load for a Spitfire pilot.

I cannot confirm the fact that the g load limit for the Spitfire pilot is, or is not, the same as the g load limit for the 109 pilot.

Those are things relevant to this topic.

I can see that tactics and maneuvers can be relevant to this topic.

My hope is to report specific engagements of future uses of the software, the game, the simulator of World War II Air Combat, where those missions we fly may be applicable to Energy Maneuverability, which won't be Hit and Run tactics where our flight is always higher and faster than the opposition so there will be cases where the opposition is higher and faster attacking our fighter planes and that is not a worry for us: it is the name of the game when missions include missions other than Free Hunting missions where the object is to maintain superior position (camping, cherry picking, whatever) and employ superior position and then escape before superior position is lost i.e. Hit and Run Tactics.

Case in point:

Mission for today, Tuesday, on the ATAG server, involving 4 109 Fighters from IV.JG53 on Free Hunt Patrol as ordered by the Staffel Leader Wotan.

I had much trouble in applying the Hot Fix with WinZip, failing to get the game started, having to uncheck some property in the zipped file according to WinZip, eventually joining the action, and we ran an official scored mission.

The server included, at the time I joined, 9 Red, and 8 Blue people. The server is set to generate A.I. which is a big help with low numbers, giving us something to do, as our flight vectored to intercept inbound enemy bombers.

Hertt and Saipain Shot down 2 each. I shot down 1. Wotan had connection difficulties and decided not to risk an attack.

Those bombers are fast and we ended up in an ill advised pure pursuit after an initial head-on attack. I had planned on an under and up attack, but the fast bombers are fast so we had trouble maintaining pursuit, let alone angled attacks or repeat head-on attacks.

The defensive gunners appeared to be ineffective, which was unusual compared to earlier flights against bombers on or off line.

I unloaded my entire cannon supply and much of my machine gun ammo, first into the center, then into the right engine, then the left engine as the bomber dove slightly, and then when the bomber left engine caught fire it banked left and spiraled down vertically into the ground.

Had there been a Spitfire Escort hovering in advance of the bombers, higher, then that Escort Flight could have capitalized on our narrow attention span, diving in with surplus energy, or smash, and the hunters could have become the hunted, despite any feeling we may have had concerning our invincibility.

At that time the Spitfires could have employed their Angles Fighting Advantages, their possibly better Corner Speed (lower airspeed at maximum g) and we could have been bounced, shot down because we did not see the attack in time, or we could have seen them in time and we could have tried to defend against attacks by higher and faster fighter planes, and then we could have been unable to shoot down 5 confirmed enemy bombers during our second official mission with the new software.

Worry? This is not the Topic titled Things to Worry About.

This Topic is the Energy Maneuverability Topic.

Do you know the Spitfire Corner Speed or the 109 Corner Speed?

If you do then please consider contributing to this topic.

Josf - Did you happen to read what I said? You're asking questions over the simplest of statements. I've flown this sim for over 2000 hours. One can imagine that my experience, along with individuals like Robo, have led me to that very simple observation that I posted before your last remark.

That's why both I and Robo suggest you fly the sim a bit more and why we both suggested you'll come to the same conclusion. Again, I'm not worried about the why, the technicalities, the specs of why x is better than y. I just simply have the experience.

Edit: And the reason people, (including 109 pilots) are chiming in on this thread is because you are trying to say the spitfire is the obvious winner in almost all aspects of flight (in comparison of the 2). Which may be the case from your limited experience and observations thus far with Cliffs. But the reality is the 109 holds all the cards. Perhaps if you make your observations / tests after 1000 hours of online combat, you would see the same thing. Basically what I was saying in the 1st place.

Hopefully you'll understand what I'm saying this time. I don't know how I could make it any more simple.

Actually Josf is quit familiar to many on this board as he posted similar posts over at the Zoo for many years.

Anyone,

The Topic title is Energy Maneuverability.

If no one has an interest in accurately measuring Energy Maneuverability then please consider leaving this Topic alone as if this Topic were Underwater Basket Weaving, since you have no interest in this topic.

Please.

There is no point I can see in continuing the ambiguous, subjective, opinionated, and baseless arguments concerning which plane makes which players happy or fearful.

The Spitfire is, in fact, until proven in some way otherwise, Single Superior in that it is coded in the game with a superior Sustained Turn Performance Flight Envelope against any fighter modeled in the game, including the 109.

The Spitfire, so modeled, is therefore ideally suited for angles tactics which include a wide variety of applications not limited to turn fighting on the deck where diving is no longer an option.

Supposing that there are, perhaps, readers who read these threads and they are not necessarily going to write in these Topics, for any reason, not limited to the reasons that may include avoiding "getting their hands dirty" as so often is the case when personal attacks are allowed and/or encouraged, but supposing that there are any readers on this forum who have an interest in Energy Maneuverability I will soldier on in the effort to discuss that topic, despite the diversions and despite the personal attacks.

Restating the original question:

Before targeting that question with narrow focus of precise interest it was my decision to divert attention to a similar precise measure of Combat Aircraft Performance known as Sustained Turn Performance, the idea behind the diversion was to ensure that one interesting performance characteristic was not confused with the other interesting performance characteristic.

Sustained Turn Performance is interesting as it relates to the capacity to win Air Combat whereby one pilot is turning to shoot another pilot and one pilot can turn a tighter turn radius, higher g, faster turn rate, and do so at a slower air speed where energy loss is not a consideration or when Specific Excess Power is ZERO.

That advantage is decidedly coded into this sim as a Spitfire advantage over any other plane - as far as I know so far.

Confusing Sustained Turn Performance with Corner Speed can be done by someone who has experience in simulating Fighter Combat, and so my effort is to avoid such confusion.

Is the Spitfire coded in this game with both a Sustained Turn Advantage and a Corner Speed Advantage over the 109?

How about some perspective?

If the answer is yes, then how would the game be judged if the answer was no, whereby the 109 was coded with a Corner Speed Advantage?

Who would know?

Who has any inclination to precisely measure which plane has a Corner Speed Advantage?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

Perhaps that person read some of the personal attacks that fill these pages and he or she decided that the answer cannot be found here on this forum.

I don't know, but I may be more persistent.

109 = @350 km/h (fully loaded combat weight) Corner Speed

How about a relative understanding of the importance of Corner Speed in Fighter Combat for those who share an interest in such things, and decidedly NOT for those who prefer to spend their time attacking each other personally?

Suppose, for example, I am flying my routine pre-mission flights over the Channel, and the unexpected dot appears in my forward view, and it turns out to be a head-on merge at 6k meters with a worthy opponent flying an enemy fighter plane.

If I know that the 109 has a Corner Speed advantage can I use that knowledge to my advantage?

Yes, no, maybe?

If the Spitfire pilot is patrolling at 6k meters then the Spitfire pilot is probably not a gamer who has found a new toy, spawning in and running to the nearest fight, dying, repeating, as if quake was once worth playing but it became outdated and now this CLoD thing will do for a quick fix.

If the Spitfire pilot has a handle on Energy Maneuverability, and Fighter Combat in general, up at 6k meters, merging with me in my 109, will the bloke also have a keen awareness of which plane is coded with the lower Corner Speed, and how could I tell if there are any tell tale clues concerning such an understanding?

Assuming that the merge was not an early recognition made by the Spitfire pilot as to the fact that a 109 was passing, and assuming that both pilots pass on the same straight and level parallel direction opposite each other, without a Lead Turn, and without a Head-On exchange of firepower, what can be expected to be the next move by the opponent when it is a 109 against a Spitfire?

If one pilot is shot down then a mistake has to be made at some point.

What if both pilots pull up into a straight vertical zoom climb?

Are they going to test how well they can turn from level to vertical?

Are they going to test to see which plane decelerates slower in an unloaded zoom climb?

Are they going to test to see who met who at a higher speed at the merge?

Is the Spitfire pilot going to dive and run away for mortal fear of a 109 nearby?

I don't know yet. I know what I do, and the first thing I do after such a merge is a slight level turn to gauge how fast the opponent will reverse, and this is part of what is turned in Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique.

If I turn and I am not yet at corner speed then I nose low to turn at corner speed.

How far from turning around, as I turn around, has the opponent progressed as the opponent turns around?

Did the opponent climb?

If the opponent is very quickly on my tail and shooting, then I made a mistake, obviously.

Is that even possible?

If the Spitfire was higher before I saw it, and I had been climbing and turning around at the altitude where I saw the Spitfire, then it could appear as if we two were at equal energy states when we both passed each other and when I turn around I have to drop the nose to get faster so as to gain enough speed to maximize my turn rate at Corner Speed while the higher Energy State Spitfire may be turning just above Corner Speed initially and during his turn, at 90 degrees for example, that Spitfire is at Corner Speed and his turn is remarkably tight in turn radius, his attack is then his nose aimed at my wingtip as the Spitfire approaches 90 degrees off my left, and I'm not yet at Corner Speed. The Spitfire may be at Corner Speed having to dive after the turn to then be in a position to Saddle up at equal speed, and at a much better position.

If I see that Spitfire gaining too fast I nose low and extend. If the Spitfire was much faster at the merge then the Spitfire may not have burned all the extra energy the Spitfire had over me at that time when I try to run from the fight. In other words my mistake was to fly over the channel slow and ONLY at 6k meters when a Spitfire pilot is cherry picking at higher altitudes and faster speeds.

What if, and this has happened repeatedly in my experience, in other Combat Simulators, both pilots zoom after the merge, to see which plane has the advantage in energy over the other, which is the case in Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique since the object of that Energy Maneuver, or tactic, is to encourage the opponent to bleed off too much Energy in the turn after the merge, while YOU minimize your energy loss, and so the idea is to encourage that zoom after a second merge, and if the maneuver works then the opponent has burned off too much energy and the opponent will stall first.

I've had those kinds of fights and it is a blast. Those kinds of fights almost never happen on Dog Fight Servers where quake players are spawning into the game for a quick fix, rushing to the nearest fight, anchoring the fight at that spot, fighting until dying, and counting the number of kills before death as a measure of success.

Those kinds of quake fights may be the rule, but there are exceptions, and energy fights do happen on Dog Fight Servers and the opposition knows what their plane can do relative to the other since those type of players are looking for the same type of fights, I call them energy fights, you can understand what I am trying to communicate or you can fail. You can have an interest or you can find what interests you elsewhere.

Those types of players, looking for energy fights, fly around high, they cherry pick, they hit and run, they camp at known spawn points, and if they choose a Spitfire that is what they bring to the fight, and if they prefer to choose the plane with the higher top speed, because they will run from a fight, then that is what they choose.

If they choose a plane with a slower Top Speed then more care is needed, but not much more care, when cherry picking, and choosing, where to fight, when to fight, and how to fight.

The Quake players, meanwhile, may have this to say, or that to say, about this or that, and who cares?

There are Topics for such things.

This is not that Topic.

Top Speed is one performance variable.

This is not the Top Speed performance topic.

Sustained Turn Performance is very important otherwise there would be no interest in knowing which plane can Sustain a tighter turn radius when energy loss is not a consideration (Ps = 0).

Corner Speed is a very important performance advantage even if the quake players have no clue about it.

Unloaded acceleration/deceleration is a very important performance variable even if the quake players have no clue about it.

These performance variables are on Topic.

1.
Sustained Turn Performance = Advantage Spitfire
2.
Corner Speed = Advantage Spitfire (not confirmed by me)
3.
Unloaded acceleration/deceleration (dive and zoom vertical fighting)

109 = 350 km/h Corner Speed
Spitfire = ? Corner Speed

The Sustained Turn Performance advantage held by the Spitfire is significant, in the order of a 25% advantage if the 109 turns 360 degrees in 25 seconds and the Spitfire turns 360 degrees in 18.5 seconds.

How much better is the Spitfire Corner Speed?

If the 109 has an unloaded (dive and zoom) Acceleration/Deceleration advantage, then how much is that advantage?

How can those advantages be measured?

Those advantages can't be measured by someone who only cherry picks on the quake players unless I have missed something.

Hi

Welcome

Please ignore the trolling members, they are well known, and most posts have been removed already.

Try to keep upbeat as some of the usual suspects have already tried to "upset" the thread with thier usual agenda, keep on topic and have fun.

Try to get as much stick time as you can with CoD, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ?


As already stated in CoD structural G and its penalties are not modelled, only blackouts and elevator authorities are limiting factors.
:grin:

Anyone,

Aside from the fact that the above contribution to this Topic does not have anything to do with the topic, there is the matter of misrepresentation to deal with as mud is slinging in this form of obvious, measurable, deception.

If I made a claim that the Spitfire was "double superior" then it could be proven with a quote such as:

So...logically, and reasonably, why would I be asking a question if instead I had made an "unsubstantiated" claim as my forum enemy (why he is targeting me for misrepresentation I can't know, exactly) endeavors to attack my character publicly?

That may be as close as I am able to become that which my forum enemy claims me to be in his mind as he publishes these personal attacks upon my character.

Note how a guess on my part is not a claim on my part, and again why would I continue to be asking these questions if instead I were making claims as my forum enemy claims (unsubstantiated).

Did I miss something written by me on this forum, something that could be misinterpreted to be what my forum enemy claims is credited to me as a character flaw?

ON Topic so far:

Spitfire is coded in the game to be Single Superior at least.

Spitfire, at least, has an accurately measurable Sustained Turn Performance Advantage in the order of about 25% better Sustained Turn Performance compared to the 109 in Cliffs of Dover.

How does that fact turn into personal attacks upon me as forum members target me for misrepresentations such as this:

The tactic used here is a flanking maneuver, a diversionary tactic, it is a variation on deception, it is also called a Man of Straw, as somewhere, someone, has made these unsubstantiated claims, but who has done so, where is this person, where are these claims?

I can guess things, and I can even offer up my guesses of things, and even while I guess things, I can state, without room for misinterpretation, that I do not know if the Spitfire is Double Superior, as I ask for the information that could support, or substantiate, any claim from anyone, anywhere, who may claim that the Spitfire is, or is not, Double Superior.

Where is this Man of Straw who has made these unsubstantiated claims?

Look left, and there is vapor.

Look right, more vapor.

Smoke and mirrors?

The Spitfire may yet turn out to have a Corner Speed advantage, which would be another significant Performance Advantage for any fighter plane that may fight any other fighter plane where the significant Performance Advantage might approach the significant measure of a 25% Advantage.

If the Spitfire does have a corner speed advantage, then how much is that advantage?

The 109, as far as my testing goes so far, when loaded with fuel, near the 4 kilometers altitude range, turns at the margin of stall and black out at about 350 km/h.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

Personal attacks, exemplified by my forum enemy, who resorts to deceit as a means of accomplishing some goal of some kind, discredit, whatever, are not welcome, and they are in fact against the rules.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

That question is on topic.

How can anyone claim that any plane is Double Superior or not if Corner Speed isn't even known?

I can't, so I don't make such claims, instead I ask questions, and if someone had something to offer, on topic, then reasonably, the on topic question could be answered accurately.

Josf,

You'll find the answers to all those questions here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com

Fresh air!

Thanks and I do appreciate the honest welcome from those who honestly welcome my participation on this forum.

Topic question:

That was very obvious as the first versions of the IL2 game were very well documented in specific performance areas such as dive acceleration, the first versions of the game were modeled with each plane diving the same acceleration rate, no difference at all.

Players had to work with what was in the flight model, and it was a fun game, very good for eye candy for sure.

Somehow the code was changed and there were differences in dive speeds, so it was as if a whole new simulation occurred in actual fighter combat (simulated) and the fights then went vertical instead of either/or hit and run or angles fighting.

Then the game started to change the g force tolerance limits on specific pilots, as far as I can tell that is what happened, and then when the players were able to adjust those Code lines one plane was one way one day and the same plane could be opposite the next day.

I had to get out of that mess awhile ago. The people who changed the code knew exactly what they were changing so they knew what to do in combat while those who didn't yet understand the changes were significantly powerless in combat, and about the time the targets figured things out the flight model changes again.

Weird?

Hardly.

Thanks for dropping in.


It seems as if any effort to actually quantify, as in precisely quantify, the actual significant performance variables, such as Corner Speed, is unwelcome for some reason.

Why?

If it is a given that Sustained Turn Performance favors one plane, why is that deemed to be insignificant by someone?

Is that nonsense or are there honest reasons for people who resort to personal attacks to keep accurate information bottled up?

If they resort to deceit, can you expect to get an honest answer?

Flying in pairs can be nothing more than a decision to cooperate with someone else in an effort to simulate very effective tactics and in some cases, such as on-line wars, where there is a mutual desire to simulate World War II combat, not just quake type flying, the instances of 2 versus 1 are fewer, and the instances of 2 versus 2, 3 versus 3, etc., are more numerous.

Setting that aside, and not diving into the Energy Maneuverability aspect of team fighting, I do want to communicate something that I think you are trying to communicate with your welcome words in this Topic.

When a plane is Double Inferior, inferior in both angles and energy fighting, it may yet be modeled with a Top Speed advantage. That was the case with many versions of IL2 and the 190s.

Shaw published an opinion concerning what can be done with a plane that is Double Inferior and it went something along the lines of leave the thing in the hanger, or be restricted to only hit and run tactics or team tactics.

Does that sound familiar?

I think that there is a general desire for a Double Superior plane even when the only advantage afforded the opposition is a top speed advantage.

I have hopes that this game is not that way.

A good wing team flying Stukas can win every battle against a single Spitfire IX pilot, so long as they know enough to attack before the Spitfire wheels are up.

Wrong.

Airframes bend in RL and when stressed they bend in IL2COD. I hope you don't think 46's wings flying off is how it happens in real life? Perhaps you could tell us what sim has structural G's modeled right? I'd like to play it.

And the penalty for that damage in CoD is ?

I've never personally seen a WW2 aircraft pushed past its flight envelope to cause a structural failure, so I have no idea what happens.

Find a sim that has any parameter modelled right and I will fly it.

I did just that for you.

Do you have any more questions? Let me ask you a few, too, because I am now very confused about what you actually want to achieve.

Do you need this information (answers for your questions) for yourself as a start for flying this sim (e.g. particular optimal engine settings for particular phases of the flight)? If this is the case I am more than happy to answer most of your questions or I am happy to guide you to specific threads on this forums regarding that particular topic.

Do you need this information to find out where the general advantages / disadvantages of particular fighter types portrayed in this sim lay? I believe I answered most of these questions and pointed you in the right direction already (e.g. informing you that the 109 is indeed modelled as dominant in the vertical level, compared to the RAF fighters). I also strongly suggested trying for yourself (spending time actually playing this game). I also strongly suggested flying all types available in order to achieve complete and objective perception of the relative performance as modelled in this particular sim.

Do you need this information to discuss the theoretical side of Air combat and observe how these universal rules are applying within this particular sim? I believe I am sure I did my best to explain to you just that side of this discussion. I did that from the position of a person that spent hundreds of hours playing this particular simulator. Bliss did the very same thing for you and I believe you do now have a very good idea of how the overall situation in this sim is percieved by its users.

Is your intention sharing the outcomes of your first online encounters in this particular sim (e.g. shooting of AI bombers on the ATAG server)? If this is the case, I heartily congratulate to your success and I wish you even more.

It's all very sad.

Perhaps you could actually go fly the game you are a moderator for and find out for yourself what happens when an airframe is bent. The game has it modeled closer to any WWII sim ever made.

Still waiting on your answer to what game has structural G-limits modeled correctly. It sure seemed a heck of a lot like you were talking about 46 (which is normal for you). It's pretty bad you think that's right though lol.

Just a hint: There's been many instances, especially with modern jets of structural G stress way past their limits and the airframe damage that occurs.

Can anyone tell me why my post keeps getting deleted?

i wasn't trolling. my answer gave consideration that g meter wasn't available to use in the CLOD poo software and also put blackouts as a side issue by making it moot/inactive in the test I described. so, the focus would be on the elevator limitation and because it is at sea level, the energy from gravity is moot/rulled out in the test I described, as well. I also considered in my answer that in rl, the only data you have available to make a determination of energy fighter verses angles fighter is the information you have from inside your cockpit (i.e, your gauges) and your observation of your opponent. the op's quest to find the exact performance numbers is moot. in 1v1 situation, you only need to know if you are the angles or the energy fighter. that can change, simply based on opponent loadout, altitude differential...etc. maybe op has way to measure fuel load of his opponent at the merge??? use the force??? su26 shooting blue laser, x tie fighter style? maybe in clod poo software you can do this? good luck luke.

Osprey - we have a thread going on our forums about this. We're going to get something going to have him removed. I've never seen such poor excuse for moderation in my life. We will be in contact with the site leaders of 1C. I know many others that feel the same way.

KG26_Alpha is a fine moderator - he simply deleted troll posts that have nothing to do with the thread topic.

So what if you don't like - who are you again?

Wotan

I can see why you and Josf get along so well. You're both on the same "level".

My replies have nothing to do with Josf.

They are pointed at the self-righteous "mister experience" 'tards like yourself.

I have been on this forum since 2007 and until today had less then 25 posts. I only participate in these "discussions" when folks like you show up.

As a moderator Alpha has done his job - even deleting a couple of my own off-topic posts.

He should by all rights delete the last 2 I made. If and when that happens I certainly won't shed a tear - or bother crying over on my squad forum and provoking the town folk into grabbing the torches and pitch forks to go after an "evil moderator".

Wotan

Well wings do actually come off in severe Over G cases . :) In 46 the aircraft do actual deform (FM wise) for over G, Wing shedding occurs for gross overstress.

Here is a Partnavia pulling the wings off IRL straight out symmetrical over G

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPbh...eature=related

and a C130

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBcC8zqNjKk

Apologies for thread drift

It's clear you don't read this forum much. As pointed out by many others here, Alpha has his own agenda and is very biased. Every single time he is proven wrong he deletes posts to try to save face. What he doesn't understand is it only makes him look worse. He's done this countless times and countless individuals have called him out on it.


Some people who actually post here see it all the time. Some people expect their opinions, especially if correct, to not be deleted while others opinions fall to the bias of Alpha. It's understandable, as Alpha has proven yet again how little he knows about a sim he is talking about. The bias probably comes from the lack of knowledge on the subject. Either way, moderators should not be biased to anyone. He even PM'd me completely making up something that I said for his own agenda.

If that's someone fit for a moderator, then I'm clearly living on the wrong planet.

It's nice to see this Ivank as Cliffs does the same thing in severe cases. I tried dive bombing in a Ju88 without the air brake a few times. Once was quite a bit higher (6500m) and pulled out way to hard to watch one of my wings fly clean off. But it's also neat to see just how the bent the airframe is when you do a nice G stress but not the insanity level. It makes the plane fly like a lame duck. (dog track / can't trim it / major loss of airspeed).

This is awesome news Bliss! Thanks for the info!
My understanding was same as Alpha's, CoD does not model "memory effect" for exceeding the structural limit.
If 1c managed to put it in after the patches, this is a magnificent good news which has been omitted until now! :)

~S~

PS. Thanks for the videos IvanK, never seeing before!

I read this forum every day - that is at least enough to have formed a low opinion you. I have seen Alpha's "moderating" as well. Its no more or less "biased" then any other.

The posts deleted in this thread should have been since they did not deal directly on the topic. However, I don't care anything about "who is the worst moderator" on these forums. I only replied in this thread to those of you who claim superior "experience" over others as a means to discredit someone you don't agree with.

The fact that you are now pointing out the "moderate" as an issue is just another example of the above.

Wotan

Hi Josf, good to see you on these forums.

There are A LOT of folks on this site that don't/can't comprehend the concept of an "angles vs energy" fight. I've tried to make the argument many many times and it just falls on deaf ears.

In case there continues to be misunderstanding, despite repeating the same questions over and over again, here is a repeat of the same questions over again.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34290

That is the Original Post

So as to reinforce the understanding that I am not unique, or alone, in the interest in Corner Velocity as one of the important measures of Energy Maneuverability here is the quote from the Original Poster:

Here is a source of information concerning how the information can be gathered:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

Here are what appear to be calculated Energy Maneuverability Charts done in World War II for the Spitfire and the 109:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2.../Bf109fan2.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...4/Spit1fan.jpg

Here is the thread and the document that may be referring to those charts:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=33720&page=6

Here is the direct download from that thread describing what appears to be the production of those charts AND much in the way of how the British compared their Spitfires to the captured 109 they tested and reported on in that downloadable document:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtmfqxlon7...ing%20test.pdf

Here is a quote from that document concerning what may be those Spitfire and 109 Energy Maneuverability Charts:

That appears to be speaking about the tables shown in the picture above, and now moving back to reality in the game.

There are 4 variables involved in Corner Speed and according to Robert Shaw and according to Math if you don't like Robert Shaw any 2 variables known can be used to calculate the other 2 variables.

Those variables are:

1.
Air Speed (true)
2.
g Force
3.
Turn Rate (degrees per second)
4.
Turn Radius

Mock combat was performed by British combat pilots when they captured enemy planes and there is documentation on those test.

Mock combat was performed by German combat pilots when they captured enemy planes and there is very little documentation on those tests.

We simulate combat, which is Mock combat in these games.

Example of Mock Combat taken from the British document found on this site, downloadable because a forum member makes that document available - thanks.

Now turning to a major point of contention concerning the differences between accurate information and "good enough" information such as might be the information gathered carelessly and not subjected to any attempts to improve the information such as reinforcing data, whereby more than one qualified person is propped himself up as know it all of everything.

I don't know everything. I think that the 109 Corner Speed is at around 350 km/h indicated and so that will have to do until there are any other offerings from anyone else who may be able to find a more accurate number.

I can record the track file and find the time it takes to travel around one full circle.

Math can then be applied in the determination of Degrees per second since I will then have the time and the known number of 360 degrees traveled in that time.

Here, for any know it all people out there, not counterfeit know it all people, is a question on this topic that could help find a more accurate Corner Speed.

Is it possible to get any other of the 4 variables required to have at least 2 of the variables known precisely, so as to then know all 4 variables precisely to thereby know at least one example of one pilot flying at Corner Velocity in the game?

1.
Turn rate (easy to calculate based upon one 360 turn done in a specific amount of time.
2.
Air Speed (the gauge on the airplane is indicated and it does shake around a bit)
3.
g Force (If the game code is modelling a known pilot g force limit, such as 5 g, then this variable can be known for each plane being tested if the code is known, so if anyone knows if the code in the game has a known g force for any pilots simulated in any planes then please consider speaking up)
4.
Turn radius (if there were search lights placed on the ground at known distances or pylons or if a track file can be viewed to some measure of scale relative to an aircraft wingspan, then this could be a possible standard of measure for turn radius possibility otherwise the other variables have to be figure out more precisely)

If the turn rate is known then the length of the flight or circumference of the turn measure, if found out, can thereby be used to calculate air speed (true) and turn radius, and then g can be found out too.

If you look at a Dog House Plot you can see that they are mathematically calculated as representations of physical reality. A dot on the graph is a specific air speed, turn rate, g, and turn radius, no question, it is a physical fact, and all that is need to get on the chart is two of the four variables known somehow.

Then, without the math, or the charts, there is the reality that the game code offers, and if Corner Speeds can be known then the g Loads CODED for each pilot can be known too.

Are Spitfire pilots coded with higher g loads?

Are 109 pilots coded with higher g loads?

Would anyone like to know?

Is such information worthy of resort to personal attacks if such information were to be sought after by someone?

I will try again. Not as expert, nor a rl pilot, but common sense applies by looking at the doghouse graph.

If
you fly straight
at top speed
at sea level
with full tank of gas

conclusion 1:
your are in the flight envelope

if you then
roll your plane 90 degrees left or right
and pull back on the stick
without exceeding the structural load limit

conclusion 2
you will experience ever increasing g force
you are still in the flight envelope

if you continue to
pull back on the stick
in an ever increasing fashion

conclusion 3
you will eventually hit the stall limit line via high speed stall.
You are no longer in the flight envelope at that moment.
you must pause the game at that moment in time, because
you have just found the peak of the doghouse
where load limit (g) line and stall limit line intersect at the maximum instantaneous turn rate of the plane you are flying under the current flying conditions.

For practical purposes,

The actual value of the turn rate is irrelevant.
The actual value of the turn radius is irrelevant.
The actual value of the g limit at that moment is irrelevant.
Blackouts can be made irrelevant, if they are turned off for testing purposes.
The IAS at that moment in your turn is relevant for the given flight conditions. As a player, that is the value you are after. You must sustain that speed for best cornering. Unless you are trying to “game” the game, so to speak. In that case, it is legitimate to call your motivations behind this thread into question, imho. If this information is incorrect, please, anybody, point it out. I would really like to know how it is off topic or incorrect or flaming or wth.

This post, similar to what I made earlier today and was deleted. It is not my fault CloD failed (off topic).

It seems you might not have read any of Josf's posts. Pay close attention to the one's stating a summary of the spitfire being a better plane in this sim. Then pay even closer attention to all the people giving reasons why it's not. All I did was add to Josf's WRONG opinions. If that's off topic than Josf shouldn't have gave his opinions in the 1st place. He should try to stick with facts.

And saying that experience doesn't matter only shows me how daft you really are. Your logic is very flawed. It's no wonder you think the way you do.

Nobody was questioning the actual facts presented. Unless Alpha deleted those as well? The people, such as myself, chimed in when those facts turned to opinions and very wrong ones at that.

Well, I've flown in online wars both with and against Wotan and Josf many many times and I can tell you they're both excellent pilots and also just generally good guys.

Your entry into this thread (unless an earlier post has been removed) was IMHO haughty and smacking of pride, and you do them a disservice with that attitude.

Well that's your opinion. I didn't come off with an attitude until Josf dissected 2 very simple sentences reiterating what robo had said into a 5 paragraph conglomeration of trash and rambling on about quake players and how people in his high and mighty attitude should play a video game. But hey I guess that's ok for him to do it. You guys have flown together.

This was haughty and a disservice? Wow

Agree to disagree, then. That's how it came off to me.

Well I would honestly have to say you would probably be the only person that would find that insulting. I'm seriously at a complete loss of words. Wow.

Returning back to the topic, despite further diversions and misunderstandings, with one measure of defense against those who pretend to speak for me while they (not coincidentally) fail to actually quote what I write on this forum.

I do not need a ventriloquist who is fond of creating a Man of Straw, and then the ventriloquist speaks for the Man of Straw, and then the ventriloquist claims that his Man of Straw is me. I can write things in English. If someone wants to speak for me then consider using quotes, and in that way your ventriloquist act will be irrelevant and the Straw Man you create can return back to the closet or wherever you hatched him.

Here is a very good description of how to plot the Accelerated Stall line using Modern Methods which were pioneered by John Boyd:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

Here is the quote:

No real pilot and no pilot in the game can fly above their g tolerance limit so for practical purposes the usable Corner Speed is the g tolerance limit of the pilot piloting the plane in or out of Mock Combat.

Returning to a Modern example of an EM chart it may help to view the specific shape of competitive Accelerated Stall Lines which define the flight envelope of competitive planes tested by competent pilots such as John Boyd and Chuck Yeager when they set out to understand the true measures of relative performance between two planes that they were able to fly and test.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/JohnBo1.jpg

Notice how the two Accelerated Stall lines are not the same as would be expected if the Accelerated Stall lines were made the same because they were based ONLY on calculations. Those lines would be THE SAME shape if they were calculated instead of tested and plotted based upon test results.
They are probably different because they are based on flight tests, not calculations.

Notice the places on the chart that correspond to the 5 g Accelerated Stall, the 6 g Accelerated Stall, for each plane, and know that a test plot at 9 g, if it is not calculated, is a test plot done by a pilot with a high degree of conditioning for g force tolerance such as a Chuck Yeager or a John Boyd, a Johnny Johnson, or a Pips Priller.

I don't want anyone to turn off g loads, if that is what someone thinks, but it would be nice to find out, one way or the other, if the Spitfire pilot g load limit CODED into the game is the same as the 109 pilot g load CODED into the game.

Thanks I missed that timely welcome, and it is appreciated greatly.

What do you think, if you have any measure of it, as to the following rough (but to be improved if possible) estimates of relative game performance:

Sustained Turn Percentage advantage: Spitfire 25%
Corner Speed Advantage: (109 at 350 kph indicated)
Level Flight Acceleration:

Is it worth filling in the blanks so as to know if those variables are altered in the future or to know if one plane is superior to another and how much one plane is superior to another without so much ambiguity?

Level Flight Acceleration is nearly equal to a Specific Excess Power advantage but not necessarily as may be shown on EM Charts where the Accelerated Stall lines are not plotting out the same curves from one plane to the next, such as the very interesting case of the F-86 and the Mig 15.

For that reason I see a need to quantify (as well as possible):

Unloaded (minimum induced drag) dive and zoom acceleration/deceleration.

Also, knowing the nature of acceleration for aircraft in level flight it is important to understand how a peak rate of acceleration occurs when induced drag caused by higher angles of attack at slower speeds is decreasing and before parasite (form) drag is increasing (square with velocity) and at the peak Level Acceleration Rate the Rate of Acceleration diminishes due to the rapidly gaining induced drag. The slow speed rate of acceleration is zero, somewhere in the middle the rate of acceleration peaks at the highest Specific Excess Power speed (Corner Speed?), and then the rate of acceleration drops back to zero at top speed in level flight. One plane may peak while another plane is still accelerating.

So...and again, that Corner Speed thing is more important than it may appear on the surface, and methods by which level flight acceleration tests are flown are also available in the Navair documents.

As to deaf ears concerning the obvious and measurable differences between Angles and Energy Fights, who knows why, and I am persistent not because of those few, I am persistent because I know that the subject matter is interesting to some people, and one is enough.

Once again, you should practice what you preach. You ask for people to quote you directly when talking about things you've said then go right ahead and talk about other people and their arguments without doing the same. That's called being hypocrite. I can give you a definition if you like.

Well, given that we're currently on a beta patch, I think it would be best to wait for the final "release" version, to see if 1C fixes the broken flight models. With so much in flux it'd be a waste of effort if any testing will be thrown out in 3 months.

As for the specific numbers you mention: I'd be hard pressed to pin down an exact number for the Spitfire's sustained turn rate advantage (but I agree that it exists in some small amount).

Corner speed seems about right to me, but I would check with someone like LittleD who flies the 109 religiously. I myself have not been in-game very much lately, since the news that CLOD would likely not be fixed came down.

I agree that these things should be quantified but as I mentioned above I think it's best to wait until the final patch comes out ;)

In my experience, the problem is that people see a phrase like "Angles tactics are viable if your opponent is the Energy Fighter" and they think that that equates to flying circles on the deck, and allowing your opponent to have the initial advantage in every encounter.

Clearly this is not true, but from trying to explain it so many times I think that perhaps some people are wilfully ignorant.

if I were to guess, and without knowing anything about this test, I think the lower red and blue curves are without g suit, the higher curves with g suit. if you notice, the convex points (most outward g value) for both the non-g suit curves (assuming that is correct assumption) is around 5.5. g curve. This value seems reasonable.

early ww2 planes, I do not believe were equipped with accelerometers to measure the g. Maybe the p47, iirc. So, this windup test, I don't think it is realistic to use that for your determination, if you wish to remain a faithful, non-quake pilot.;) If you start using g-meter, wonder woman view, or digging into the code, that might make you quake player by default.:grin:

Nothing to do with G Suits in this chart. The red and Blue convex lines merely represent the sustained G that each aircraft can pull without energy loss i.e. Ps=0. The Red line represents the Mig15 sustained turn boundary, The Blue line the F86F (doesnt say hard or slatted wing) sustained turn boundary. The left hand margin is the Lift limit, the top the structural limit, the RHS the Vmax limit.

This chart is pretty historical as it was one of Boyds first comparative EM charts. It is my belief that this chart was in fact based totally on calculation. Its origin is I believe from a presentation Vu graph used by Boyd in one of his early presentations. The original graph was taken from Boyds archival papers. I recall its covered in the book "Boyd the fighter pilot that changed history" by Coram.

Totally with you on that.

You have no idea what he deleted.

ah well thanks for clarification. it seems coincidence though. wiki says gloc occurs around 5 g for average human. so to get to those outer performance curves, you would need a g suit.

so, i wonder if the lower curves maybe are just normal operating curves and the outer ones, performance curves under combat condition, or something like that?

The lower curves are simply Ps=o lines that represent the Sustained G (at the altitude the chart is calculated for) that each aircraft can sustain with out losing altitude or TAS.

Correction to the Book title its

"Boyd The fighter pilot who changed the art of war " essential reading if you are into this stuff. The book covers in great detail how these early EM charts were calculated... the story about how they got the computing assets and time is a classic.

http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-P.../dp/0316796883

Boyd was the father of the OODA loop.

Please consider the possibility that the Corner Speed point at the top of the graph is the maximum turn performance for those planes as they were flown during testing by Chuck Yeager and John Boyd as they had available to them a captured Mig and F-86s. John Boyd was working on finding out why the F-86 was defeating the Migs.

Note the much smaller turn rate for the F-86 and the much faster turn rate despite the Mig 15 pushed to a higher g on that graph.

The other curves are Sustained Turn Performance curves or Specific Excess Power at 0, or Ps=0 whereby the plane is not gaining or losing any energy while it is on that line at those speeds, those g loads, and that line is a turn at those speeds, full power, where the pilot is flying a plane in a turn not gaining or losing altitude and the far right point is Top Speed and as soon as the pilot starts turning in a level turn a new plot is added to the line and the pilot could stay at that plot with a very wide turn not gaining and not losing altitude, and the pilot can tighten the turn and make a new plot, not gaining altitude, not losing altitude, not accelerating, not decelerating, flying at that bank angle, full throttle, coordinated turn, full power, and if the bank angle is moved even steeper, and steeper, maintaining level flight, the end result is a stall and that is the far left point on that lower curve which is The Sustained Turn Performance Envelope, and notice, please, how the Mig is much better at Sustained Turns compared to the F-86 except if both planes are turning a Sustained Turn at speeds above .7 Mach at which time the F-86 can out turn the Mig if the Mig pilot tried to follow at that airspeed (but the Mig can just cut the turn).

The obvious interesting observation that may be inspired by the differences in the Accelerated Stall line, if you are now following the meaning of those line on that chart, is the question as to why the Mig Accelerated Stall Performance Deteriorates rapidly with speed compared to the F-86.

If you have the Corner Speed g load LINE confused as a g suit line and you have the Sustained Turn Performance LINE confused with a non g suit line, then you may also have the Accelerated Stall LINE confused too.

I don't know, but I appreciate the effort to learn from those Charts because they are made for a very specific reason relative to Energy Maneuverability which is the modern method of quantifying the specific advantages one plane has over another plane UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

Interesting to that end is the concept of wing deformation under g load and such things could be factors contributing to changes in the theoretical or calculated accelerated stall line as the actual plane can or cannot actually fly on that theoretical ideal Accelerated Stall Line.

The Fw190, in particular, as reported by more than one source, was known to have a wing that deformed under g, and the twist would twist out of it, causing the plane to become less stable, to the point where the pilot had to relax stick pressure or the g load would increase because the wing deformed and therefore lift forces were increasing as the washout was untwisted from the wing.

If you want I can site sources. I have one source on the shelf in the form of a book by Eric Brown who was a World War II test pilot (British).

got it now! thanks.

This is a very good point. Many things have changed (ever so slightly) in the recent beta patches, e.g. blackout modelling or Bf 109 slats behaviour. I am certain that there will be more changes in the final release.

Josf mentions 25% advantage, but he did not mention how exactly he measured that. I also believe it exists (and rightly so) but I have to add that it very much depends on the pilot's skill (also quite rightly so).

Corner speed seems about right to me, but I would check with someone like LittleD who flies the 109 religiously. I myself have not been in-game very much lately, since the news that CLOD would likely not be fixed came down.

I agree but I find even easier and more basic side of this sim difficult to measure. If you look at the FM tests (by IvanK, klem, Snapper, Felipe etc etc) there was always major issue with methodics - it is impossible to re-calculate the results for normal day, IAS vs TAS conversion is extremely difficult, the gauges are off.

As for Energy Maneuverability quantification - it should be measured if Josf prefers it that way but in that case I suggest he simply does it. I am not sure where is he going with the lengthy posts of his, asking trivial questions from one side.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with Josf's initial posts. I believe (and I am aware of the theory of aireal combat) that these are rough guidlines anyway, some basic boundaries and principles. In real combat encounter there is too many variables to be considered and it is impossible to quantify all of them. Biggest variable is the pilot's skill. As for angles fighter vs. energy fighter, I enjoy being the energy fighter flying the RAF planes. That would certainly not fit into Josf's theories.

Also, I offered many answers and I made several suggestions but Josf ignored them completely. I don't know why.

Very well, we had this very conversation just couple of weeks ago, doghouse of Spitfire Mk.I and Bf 109E. The last bit in the brackets is what forum user Crumpp failed to understand. He is now unfortunately banned from the forums so he can not add anything to that discussion.

It was established though that the speed at which the 109 gains upper hand in sustained turn parameter is 400kph (equivalent of those 0.7mach in the Sabre vs. MiG graph).

Would you would mind going back to my posts and answer my questions taht would be greatly appreciated. I went long distance (literally lol) reading your posts and replying in detail.

I think this test could be re-created in game. Four pylon type objects set up in box pattern, equi-distant, as lying on the edge of the imaginary turning circle. Fly the circle, note the time of completion from 0 to 360 degrees and IAS. Deviation from the flight path is fail. Loss of alitude is fail. As per above, follow each successful completion with another test. Shorten the distance between the pylons by some incremental amount. Repeat until the test can no longer be completed without loss of altitude or deviation from the flight path. I don't even think you need g meter. But I guess it would be helpful while conducting the test to make sure you are flying constant g.The test I described before, I think that would give you the instantaneous value. So, if you think 109 v spit diagrams are similar to mig v sabre? Then I agree with you. You need to do both type of test, sustained and instantaneous turn rate, to get full picture. I think. Probably would need to use device link and make tracks of each test to ensure flight path is followed, altitude is maintained, full power settings, ...etc. If your at sea level, need for tas conversion may not be necessary. I guess it boils down to how accurate you want to be in this.

Even better http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/158365-1

But I believe this topic is well over the heads of your average person that's plays this GAME and doesn't care. But there is a magazine for everyone I guess.

You are the one who has reading comprehension issues - Josf goes into specifics to define the situations in which an Angels fighters can and will have an advantage. He never said "under any circumstance" the Spitfire is better then a Bf 109 in Clod.

As to experience - you used that as means to disqualify someone else's opinion. As has been pointed out the FMs in this game change with every patch. They are not consistent enough to for you, or anyone, to claim "expert" status. Since the last beta patch I doudt you have more time flying the current version of the game then Josf.

There is nothing special or unique about your "experience" that makes you an "expert".

And to others as well.

Sure I do - I actually read those posts before they were deleted. Your troll was one of the most obvious off-topic replies and deserved deletion.

Wotan

I don't know Bliss too well but I've met him enough times online to say that he is indeed an expert in a 109, he certainly is one of the best and most experienced 109 pilots out there, and therefore I very much value his opinion. That counts for any patch. There is obviously more great 109 pilots I respect.

I have never met Josf online but reading his opinions and thoughts in this thread it is obvious that he has got very little experience with this particular sim. It is actually clear that he is very new and has no knowledge at all about the FM nouances.

I would say that in order to evaluate the EM of this sim you must know the theory (I have no doubt about Josf's theoretical knoweledge) AND you must also know the actual simulator you want to apply this theory within. It is clear that Josf lacks the latter. I am sure that with more time spent and effort given in actual aireal combat in CloD, he will provide interesting insights and this thread will become very interesting.

Woot!

You really can't take anyone serious that talks about angel fighters when they are talking to atheist.

http://angelfighters.comule.com/img/...elFighter2.gif

hehe just messing with you Wotang.

$100 bet he has braces and made this post between first and second period between classes.

I've only had the misfortune to come across you twice "he who names himself after a god". A few years back I approached on friendly terms and you were immediately unpleasant then too, same thing really, IIRC it was mostly condescending and self righteous. Have you got anything useful to offer the community at all?

Do not mock the Gods.

You were trolling and IIRC your posts were deleted by an evil moderator then as well.

I am providing a very useful service to this community right now in this thread - or did you miss that? :P

Wotan mit uns!

Oh please Wotan. You're too much. :-P You crack me up.

Let me see...
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts to date: 18

Rarely has somebody created so much excitement with so little!

And for what!? Because he can type whole pages of energy fighting in a single post!?

C'mon guys!

And (as I said to the post that a moderator removed) this is not Josf's wrongdoing. He has the right to write his opinions biased, inexperienced or not.

You must have the maturity to judge and ignore or give him the opportunity to elaborate and try more.

Instead, this thread became an adrenalin show!

I wrote my comment in the first page and now I seat back, relaxed and enjoy ;)

Bread and Games!

http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net...2912501807.jpg


Ave!




~S~

Before I try to respond to that welcome reply in this Forum I want to acknowledge the fact that I do not know for sure that the Korea Era EM by Boyd was based upon flight tests done by Boyd and or Yeager, my copy of BOYD was loaned out years ago and I think that that is where the idea that that chart was plotted on tests, NOT CALCULATED, came from.

I do not know it all, for sure, and as often as I can I maintain my links back to the specific information that I use to build up something that may be a poor excuse for knowledge. I know, for sure, that I make many errors, and there is no cause for me to deny such an obvious, and accurately measurable, FACT.

Why are the Accelerated Stall Lines on the Korea Era EM Chart decidedly favoring the F-86 over the Mig 15, and why is the Mig 15 decidedly superior in a much larger Positive Specific Excess Power Envelope?

Classic Single Superior Match-up?

Breaking down the welcome ON-TOPIC response:

That pylon type test with no loss of altitude is a Sustained Turn Performance Test and that is very easy to test in the game in normal use of the game. We have not done it yet, as a squad, for reasons that include the reasons of "it is in Beta" and subject to change, and there are rumors of a Russian version, which is fine with me so long as I get to fly 109s and 190s, Double Inferior or not, does not matter to me, I fly what I bring to the fight, unless I get tired of seeing too many very odd things happening where planes can fight in front of me while I am approaching at top speed, and then the guy fighting in a turn fight in front of me is now level with me, after turning and burning, diving and returning to my altitude, and then that same plane zooms up, turns around, starts shooting, while my plane is stalling and incapable of maneuvering from Top Speed in Level Flight on this odd plane that can turn and burn all day and still have enough energy to zoom high enough over me to then perform a pitch over, or who knows, maybe a turn at Corner Speed, and turn the tables at will.

Normal use of the game includes, often, the stuff we test as a Squad, when we start getting a little more serious about our Missions against worthy opposition. We each take turns flying Mock combat, just like all the Air Forces have done in history when they capture enemy planes, and we test, among many tests, the Sustained Turn Advantage Test. If Hertt can't turn inside me when I'm in a Spitfire, and I can't turn inside Hertt, Wotan, Saipan, Toten, Task, Badger, Cuzn, Jager, or whomever is matched up, and everyone concludes, unanimously, without any one of us managing to turn inside the other, then that is not only conclusive in an absolute sense it is, over time, a measured quantity of relative performance, since we all learn, more or less, how quickly the Spitfire will turn inside the 109.

Sustained Turn Performance with the Pylons, as you have described, could begin to quantify a Standard measure of physical distance relative to the ground, you are thinking in terms of making a Ruler, and this Ruler will then have graduations on it, like meters, so that one meter, on that ground is always that meter, not longer, not shorter, it is one meter in length, and the pylons are a known distance across the diameter, which is twice the radius, and the circumference is then a simple math calculation using pie (not apple).

That is the stuff that is ON TOPIC.

Your description of that test sounds like the Loaded Deceleration Test that can be found on the Navair site, and that site describes why that test is done instead of the Windup Turn.

This:

That sounds like a Loaded Deceleration Test which is a test performed by Modern Pilots working to quantify Energy Maneuverability. The Windup Test is done to plot the Accelerated Stall line.

The Windup Turn is another test we have done as a squad, but not often, and I think, if we are going to get more serious about CLoD, or whatever the next best World War II Combat Flight Sim will be, since IL2 has run it's course, then this Windup Turn Tests may become more valuable to us as a Squad.

Instead of doing a Windup Turn alone, the idea is to get two of us on-line at the same time and we fly nose to tail and the one in front does a Windup Turn and the one behind follows and we both see who can stay at black out in the tighter turn as the plane in front leads the plane behind. Then reverse planes. Then reverse pilots.

What can be learned?

A calibrated (as in making a Ruler with Pylons and a Standard Measure of Length) Corner Velocity won't be learned but a Relative Corner Velocity will no longer be a mystery.

In an informal test on-line with IL2, for example, I remember clearly a case of me following Task in a 109 or 190, I can't remember, and I was in a P-39 at the time, we were both at maximum turn performance and I asked Task on TS if he was at Black Out, which he was, and I was easily able to pull back on the stick, no Black Out, pull lead in that very tight, very fast, maximum performance turn, where Task was at Black Out, and I could happily shoot parts off the plane Task was flying as Task was at his useable Corner Velocity and as I was far from it. I know my air speed was higher because I was closing the distant between Task and my plane before I started pulling lead. If you understand Energy Maneuverability then you understand, based upon that test data, that the P-39 PILOT could tolerate a higher g load than the PILOT modeled into the plane that is flying at a lower speed, at Black Out, and the turn radius is larger for the Blacking Out Pilot, there are few possible explanations, the most obvious one is a lower g tolerance for that pilot.

If I am going faster in a tighter turn there is little left to conclude if the slower plane has a pilot fighting black out, while the faster plane is no where near black out, other than a very low tolerance for g force modeled into the one plane compared to the other plane.

That example was not a formal test involving 2 planes starting out in level flight and the lead plane performing a Windup Turn (or Loaded Deceleration as your test idea appears to be describing) where the following pilot matches the lead pilots maneuver, so there is some room to doubt the conclusion based upon how much the game "builds" up g tolerance in time, the variables in the informal test did not quantify how much Task was turning before I turned in for the impromptu Test on him. In time, with formal tests, it will be UNAMBIGUOUS as to which plane and which pilot is better and why; however there would not necessarily be a Standard Measure for better-ness, not without track files, and some method of quantifying precisely the actual g loads, turn rates, turn radius, and air speeds.

If you know Turn Radius and Turn Rate, you can get Air Speed (true), and g load.

No doubts, no wiggle room, black and white FACTS.

If it is a Windup Turn Test with one plane in front of the other plane then it will be obvious to the following plane whereby either pilot is not flying a consistent flight path and this is the point. The Maximum Performance Turn isn't the lesser Performance Turn, so the TARGET of the TEST is to find which Pilot and which Plane turns tighter, and the limiting factor in a Windup Turn will be higher g load (fighting the games black out feature) at the lower speed - that is the point.

The result is a relative measure of Corner Velocity.

Who can demonstrate the absolute tightest turn, recorded on a track file, and witnessed by someone attempting to out perform the best attempt to date.

If it turns out that one plane on one computer always is flown by that one pilot better than anyone else then the obvious question to be answered by those who are not quite up to speed is WHY?

What is done better to perform that Maximum Performance Turn?

You may find, if you try your Loaded Deceleration Test, or a Windup Turn, as I have, often, that it is not easy to be the best that you can be, and so that is the point, yes or no?

Not at all if you use the available EM Charts. The Spitfire is all over the 109 in both Sustained and Corner Speed Performance according to the World War II Era EM Charts, which are based upon Spitfire flight data, according to the British reports, and then calculated for the 109.

Those Charts may not be very accurate. The 109 was running on British gasoline, not the German Synthetic stuff, as far as I know. The 109 was complained about concerning aileron snatching which may have been an indication of mechanical defects, or lack of proper maintenance on those leading edge slats. The 109 was out climbing the Spitfires and Hurricanes due to a steeper climb angle. All of those variables are indications of less than precise measures of Maximum Performance or Energy Maneuverability to which the State of the ART has become when people work to record the relevant facts that determine which plane is superior to the other plane UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

I think that the 190 versus the Spitfire is more similar to the F-86 versus Mig-15, for many reasons. The 109, as far as I know, is more like the Spitfire, more of an Angles Fighter, and I can offer one measure of that opinion I have as someone else wrote about that opinion and so you don't have to take my word for it, which I would advise against anyway, what good is my word?

No good. Look at how untrustworthy may Sraw Man has already become.

But, here are words, on that specific On Topic subject:

Source:

http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaff.../dp/1853104132

If you look at the Korea Era EM chart you can see where the Mig 15 is much better at Ps > 0 flying, or that area under that Sustained Turn Performance curve, but the Mig-15 is decidedly inferior at the Accelerated Stall line and the Migs Inferiority becomes much worse as g loads increase.

When Captain Eric Brown describes "sinking", perhaps, what is meant is that the 190 can be hamfisted well past CLMax, past the beginning of the Buffet zone, well into the Buffet zone, and instead of turning it "sinks" because, as described later in that book, the 190 becomes more unstable under load. I've read from another source that the wing twist on the 190 untwists to cause that instability under load.

Look here:
http://acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

If the Quake pilots don't like a Single Superior 109, what do you think they will be willing to do, as in deception, when they have to face a 190A-3 in a Spitfire V, or face an F-86 in a Mig-15, if the game codes the actual relative performance differences?

My Straw Man will become very ugly?

I'm the same guy, by the way, even as my Straw Man becomes a very ugly person, as the Quake Pilots construct that Man of Straw.

I have been told that my dry sense of humor and sarcasm gets missed quite often. Maybe Bliss and Robo have more experience and could pass some of that along to me for use in future posts.

Regards,

The One Eyed God...

Wow, Josf back! Lets see; we also have Kurfy and Taggert. Now we just need Luftluuver back from the dead and the chart wars can really commence! Bring it on!

Don't forget M_Gunz.

Simply said, a faster plane fighting at higher speed will loose less E than a slower plane fighting him at the same speed. So keep your Speed high and turn fast. Soomething that some here never agreed to understand (by conformism). Great to hear your voice on that theme here !


Illustration:
1.Kelly J. was never ashamed of the 104 small wing.... He was asked to build a high manoevrable supersonic plane !
2. this where the canards Eu planes are missing the 5th gen contest (the Raf being the less affected in fact): too draggy at high speed to really move like a fish!

EDIT: there is some archive movies on Youtube with Yeager and Boyd flying the 15. I think I posted somewhere (Warclouds ?) a link to a doc

Thanks,

There may be much more to that illustration than I can comprehend but a similar illustration is provided with the development of the Fw190. The first working prototype was built with a smaller wing and after testing there was a decision made to make the wing longer or to conform more to the concept of lower wing-loading or higher power-loading which are parts of that Ps equation where T/W (Total Thrust or Power Available) is measured against, or subtracted by D/W (Total Drag or Power Required).

Less wing is less drag.

Look at the Spitfire wing, compare it to a TA-152 wing, and what could be an obvious conclusion made relative to Energy Maneuverability?

Source for Fw190 Wing Development:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=2509994

Yes indeed, Boyd was a great fighter pilot in real life, in fact no one did ever beat the 40 seconds Boyd in the Hun rat fight at Nellis. That is why and how he managed to quantify the principles of the dogfight in the first place. If you want to do the same (in the CloD environment), you would need to be spectacular fighter pilot in the CloD environment. You are not a spectacular fighter pilot in the CloD environment just yet. Mastering the fighter type in question is a key to measure the parameters correctly.

No simulator known to me portrayed the 109s and 190s as double inferior. This must consider other sim than CloD as there is no 190 in CloD, hence it is off topic.


This sounds like you met a fighter pilot superior to you (if he flew the same type) or a fighter pilot flying a superior type to yours. There is always a bigger fish in the pond.

I agree again but by doing that kind of flying you will become a test pilot rather than fighter pilot.

Again, complete different flight sim to CloD, I would like to inform you that all planes have got the G-limit modelled identically. In other words, the G tolerance in that sim is modelled exactly the same in that particular other sim. That is a FACT.

What is a quake pilot? What is your tactics in a Spitfire Mk.Vb against a Fw 190A-3?

fixed.

A thread with Josf, Crumpp and Gaston would surpass the 100 octane thread post count in no time at all.

Gaston ? like in the comics ?

I don't see a "Gaston" posting frenetically like our usual Fanboys

I wouldn't mention Fanboys with your post count.;)

frenetically = fanatically?

Robo,

What does "asking trivial questions from one side" mean?

What does "Josf's theories" mean?

I do not read posts from people who prop themselves up as the authority over my thoughts, so what could possibly inspire me to read any more of your replies? Since you know my thoughts so well, you tell me what inspires me to respond to your post now.

Please.

Track files record the events so as to leave anyone's, including mine, and including your, subjective opinion, less relevant. I've deleted that game since that event.

Earlier, in our part of this discussion where I published the TOPIC you had the umiitigated gall to prop yourself up as the authority of what is or is not ON TOPIC, and now you school me on what I can or cannot become?

Do you really think, while you pretend to be the authority over my thoughts, theories, etc., that your contributions inspire anything other than disinterest in me?

If that is true then there is, in fact, a method by which that truth can be communicated unambiguously.

Do you think I should hold by breath while waiting for that proof to materialize?

Alone or flying with one or more wingmen, close escort, detached escort, scout escort, free hunt, intercept, combat air patrol, or are you speaking about maneuvers, and if so then: from a superior energy state, equal energy state, or inferior energy state, nose to nose, from any other angle than nose to nose, from an altitude advantage with more speed, from an altitude advantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with less speed, from an altitude disadvantage with more speed, or any combination of the above? You can ask such a question but the answers may not be what you are looking for, so I see a need to remove more of the obvious, measurable, ambiguity.

I, in no way, appreciate other people claiming to know what I think when their claims are so far off the mark, in my opinion, me, the person who has to live with my thoughts, so far off the mark, so far as I can see, there is no way, as to accept such nonsense, let alone ask for more.

As to the actual on topic stuff, me being the Topic starter, I definitely have an interest in it, so your contributions were worth reading, up to a point, such as this point:

Any more of that from you and expect me to moderate all the contributions you offer in this Topic.

You are indeed correct Grathos. EVERYONE has a right to voice their opinions. But EVERYONE also has a right to reply back with their own opinions especially when the initial opinions are, to put it very nicely, wrong.

The maturity is a 2 way street. It comes when people who's opinions are proved wrong, to also acknowledge it. No such thing has happened here. Absolutely no humility or acceptance of being in the wrong or having a misguided opinion has come out. That's when you know you're dealing with a mature individual. Instead we have an individual that is in complete denial with everything said to him that offers a different opinion of his own. That's why that individual's own tactics have even gone to talking in the 3rd person about a Straw Man. He will not address his wrongs, simply because he is in denial, possibly his pride as well? And honestly has a belief that everything he's said is correct. Which, as virtually anyone knows that has flown this sim for any amount of time, is not. Granted, there are indeed some interesting FACTS posted. But I, along with others, never responded to the facts, just the OPs misguided/incorrect opinions.

I was reading this thred also , and I can't belive what I saw here :)

Josf try one fight with Robo or Bliss 1 vs 1 on 109 and you will see what are they talkin about.

I can give you a track ( recordig ) fightin 4 spits alone and they didnt have a chance to catch me. Solid pilots russian guys most of them.

I saw a lot better pilots then myself in CloD, so it isn't a pilot thing.

109 is better plane in this sim if you are using it right!

Ho my, just like the old days.
bring it on
now where is my pipe and slippers?
Sweety bring me a drink would you
tar.

vranac,

Suppose I had and interest in hearing more ambiguous claims of nothing specific, if we are to go way off the topic of Energy Maneuverability, then I could carefully listen to these ambiguities, and I'd ask myself questions like "Why am I wasting my time with these people who speak in ambiguities?"

Now you offer more of the same?

What exactly do you think these people are telling you that you think I aught to know?

Are they telling me what is the percent advantage in Corner Speed one plane has coded into it over another plane?

How about me reporting the best effort I have so far in accurately identifying the 109 Corner Speed, and then someone, some expert, some person who does actually know it all, sets me straight on the actual in game Corner Speed of the 109, which is not 350 km/h, rather it is 336 km/h, when fuel load is at 25% and recorded at 4,000 meters, and this person says something along the lines of "Hey, I can show you, let's log onto the Server before your regular squad night tomorrow, and I can have you follow me in a Windup Turn and if you can match my Corner Speed then we both can record the event and we both can know that both our planes, from both our computers, fly the same 109 Corner Speed, and we can even send each other our own track files, and you can see, and I can see, and anyone else can see, that our pilots are at the same amount of grey out, and will that be an on Topic type of event or would you prefer to deal with dishonest people who may or may not show up, may or may not have some secret program cheat going, may or may not have any clue as to what this Topic is about, and may or may not be looking for argument for the sake of argument?

Then, suppose, we both trade off, me and this mythical person, where mythical person A, we can call him A if we want, is on-line in a Spitfire while I fly on-line with a 109, and now we test relative Corner Speeds with the same follow the leader Windup Turn Test, same track files, same exchange of track files, and then we can document which plane has the better Corner Speed coded in the game and we can do so unambiguously.

Now, this is a discussion, and I have no shortage of competent sim pilots to work with, I don't need more "experts" wasting my time with their own axes to grind. If this game lasts past Beta and our squad remains interested in it then my interests in quantifying Energy Maneuverability will inspire specific things done by me, with people in my squad, and I can thank you for the advice, but I can also ask you "What is the point?"

What do you think, without ambiguity, these people, who already prop themselves up as authorities over what I think in my own mind, will teach me EVER?

So far they have taught me to stop wasting my time dealing with them.

So now, please, tell me what, exactly, these other people are going to teach me, according to your understanding of what exactly I want to know, as if I have not yet stated exactly what I want to know more than once.

Such as:

More than that, there is the matter of actually plotting the Accelerated Stall line, if possible, and then there are neat things to know like the relative advantages and disadvantages of unloaded (dive and zoom) rates of acceleration and deceleration, along the lines of an absolute value for each plane, say: The Maximum Peak Rate of Acceleration, and a known time from the level flight stall to 100 km/h above Corner Speed, and then a "which plane zooms higher from the same altitude and same starting speed?" type knowable and quantitative advantage, documented in meters one plane tops out above another plane, or number of plane lengths one plane can zoom higher than the other, recorded on a track files, or some other unambiguous measure that does not change with a word in English from "lots" to "some" and then to "mucho" dude - cause' I said so.

When our Squad gets busy with these things: we figure it out, but thanks, and please consider just cluing me in yourself, if you think there is something I want to know, other than the things I'm asking to know - precisely.

Level Acceleration Rate for the 109 at the peak rate of level Acceleration and the Airspeed at that peak, and compare that to the same known performance measure for the Spitfire?

Do you think I want to know what I ask to know or do you think that I want to know what you think I want to know?

I'm asking, because I don't assume to know what you are thinking. Do you think it is strange that I don't assume to know what you are thinking?

I am asking, rather than assuming that I know the answer concerning what you do or do not think.

Well Josf,
1. If you want to test the planes then just do it with your team, find a method to do it, measure the results and publish here. Then we have something to talk about.

2. If you find that you/your team can't deal with the Spitfires when flying the 109s in this sim, try if you can deal with the 109s while you are flying the 109s as well (or Spit vs Spit). Then you know that if it's the plane or the pilot.

3. If you really think that you have a point, try to pack it to just few lines and to a well defined, specific argument or question. I simply can't find what should we exactly talk about from your longish posts.

4. Your every post contains many, many questions, often more or less rhetorical. And if someone at least partially tries to answer your questions, you reply with even more questions which are even more rhetorical if possible. In the end no one is interested to give answers because this is going nowhere.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/i...1.70/wap2.html

I think this about sums it up

I already checked this Forum, briefly, and I found this:
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

Hello Josf, I ment asking the trivial questions in your initial posts. Some other user called them rhetorical. It means the answer was already known anyone familiar with this particular sim, when that question has been asked by you.

By "one sided" I ment they were coming from a person trying one particular plane.

I am sorry I got you confused, I hope it is clear now.

Your thoughts, assumptions, hypotheses as presented in your initial posts. If you decided to come in here to present your theories based on no experience with this particular sim, you can expected some of it to be wrong and therefore confronted by other forum users. I hope you do not mind, it is actually the point of starting a thread imho, e.g. having other people posting in a thread, leading a discussion.

I do not know your thoughts, I only know the ones you verbally presented in this thread and most of them were wrong, so I told you so. I spent considerable amount of time doing that. I understand you do not appreciate tha I disagree with you. I was not the only person telling you that. Perhaps that would be a good indication for you to reconsider your own thoughts.

I am sorry you see it this way. It was my intention to participate in this thread because I find this topic very interesting. Unfortunately I found that the OP is not an authority on aerial combat in Cliffs of Dover yet.

I was hoping for the oposite after I replied that you were wrong, unfortunatelly. I was hoping for an interesting debate on topic. I would not otherwise spend time typing my replies.

(about Mk.Vb vs A-3) Say you are in a Spitfire, nose to nose merge co-alt, same speed, no wingmans.

You would need a reason to moderate my contributions other than the fact I disagree with you.

Would you moderate (I suppose that means remove) the contributions of other forum users that also disagree with you? That is quite a few people in here already and as you see and all of them are telling you cca. what I was telling you.

Just a quick note: "nose to nose" typically doesn't mean the same thing as "head on".

It's quite possible for two aircraft to be pointing in totally different directions, but also be in a particular turn geometry called "nose to nose".

Without looking at the numbers at all, in the above scenario I'd imagine your spit pilot would want to zoom (to encourage the 190 to zoom as well, which slows him down) and then go aggressively for angles in the vertical.

I know, but thank you anyway.

Yes that could work for a little while. :D

Just clarifying for others who might not know.

Indeed. People now have an instant dislike to you, and that saves them a lot of time........:rolleyes: