Quote:
Just some general observations.
Pilots were taught not to stall, so that must have led to an in-built reluctance to push at the flight envelope. Those that could push closer to the limit could turn faster.
Turn rate can mean several things. The fastest turn rate can be incredibly quick but the resulting loss of energy means trouble. Continuous turn rate without loss of energy is usually quite a bit higher but as energy is retained that helps further manouevres.
As an example (and from memory of something I did a long time ago) I could turn a Spit Vb 360 degrees in about 12 seconds but was then at stall speed. Turning 360 degrees at a maintained 250mph took about 20 seconds with a far wider turning circle.
If I were in a Spit maintaining 250mph in a turn I bet a 109 could turn inside, but if they missed the shot they have less energy. From memory again I think the best turn/energy ratio for a Spit was about 220mph with a turn of around 18 seconds. At the same speed a 109 took 21 seconds to do 360 degrees.
Finally, I seem to remember that the best way of turning in a 109 against a Spit is to do an elliptical turn i.e. to have a smooth curve to gain energy followed by a tight turn, kinda egg-shaped.
Or to put it more simply. All things being equal, if you're in a 109 don't turn with a Spit - there is nothing to stop a Spit pilot totally pushing the envelope as only our ego is hurt if we pull to hard and stall, we don't die.
Just ramblin'
Hood
|
Absolutely.
No one is advocating creating a frankenplane Bf-109 that outturns the Spitfire in a level sustained turn at low velocity. That would be silly.
The stability and control characteristics are just as important to the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft. Those characteristics are documented and quantifiable.
What is the point in having a gameshape that does not fly like the airplane it is suppose to represent?
07-10-2012, 12:58 PM
Threaded Mode