Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos
I think I have to put it in bold:
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game
..............................
It becomes obvious that the Spit and Hurri pilots are getting so much annoyed having their sensitive parts kicked by the Bf109 ............
Gents just get used to it:
#1. The flight model is not there where it should be.
#2. The Bf109s owned the air at that period...........Yes! You won the battle of Britan! Because the Bf109s had to fly besides the bombers. In CoD they do not have to, and you feel the impact.
|
I didn't want to get into exchanges here - its breaking my own rules - but I would like to say...
Properly modelled engine performance (if it is properly modelled) doesn't necessarily translate into aircraft performance, there are other factors involved. Are the MkI/Ia aedrodynamics modelled very differently from the MkII? Is the Merlin MKIII modelling very different from the MkXII? Whichever, they are being looked at.
So, yes, the FMs aren't where they should be.
And yes we're fed up getting our parts kicked with a/c that are slower than they should be. Whether the 109s 'owned the sky' because of tactics or performance is dependent on those tactics and the actual a/c models. In level flight the +12lbs boosted Spitfire was faster than the 109E at medium and low altitudes according to
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
But 109 Tactics (not tied to bombers) generally seem to have prevented very effective RAF defence in the initial engagements as admitted by many of the veterans. But there are many BoB combat reports that said if the 109 simply dived and ran away the Spitfire (presumably 100 octane and boosted) could eventually catch it. And on co-E terms, apart from the Negative G problem, the Spitfire could outfight the 109. We would like those chances. The 109 did not 'own the sky' in all circumstances.