Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Sandstone

I can't really agree with this. The Bf-109 was a typical late 1930s design in whch significant compromises were made that ultimately affected its performance as a weapon for the Luftwaffe. Its principle weaknesses were:...

Not bad for an average or obsolete aircraft that shot down so many enemies do not you think?

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here.

The Bf 109's full metal structure (wing and control surfaces as well), hydraulic retractable landing gear, leading edge slats, freely adjustable flap was a revolutionary aircraft design in the late 30's. Combined with a perfect agility and small dimensions made the 109 one of the best war machines. And the war developments held there.
The late war "Erla" canopy provided a perfect view backwards (of course not in the IL-2 game) with perfect armor. The "Rüstsatze" supplements designed to increase range and weapons. Did not have enough weapons? The Mk108 is nothing? I'm sure, 3 MK 108 can handle any Bomber. Against fighters, the single Mk108 is more than enough (one of the survived RHAF Ace said once: "it was not a fair weapon. The enemy planes falling apart if you hit once).


ps. Who are you? New guy here, or one of the banned friends?

[Sandstone]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Not bad for an average or obsolete aircraft that shot down so many enemies do not you think?

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here.

It was by no means a bad aircraft, but it was far from perfect and by the war's end the Allies were fielding superior aircraft and German aircraft procurement and production was in a poor state as a result of bad decision making. This isn't a controversial opinion.

I actually rather like the Bf-109. It had an interesting history, looked cool and the various versions showed invention and originality in the development of the basic airframe. I would also level many similar criticisms at the Spitfire (narrow track U/C, overly-complex wing construction, poor armament on the early versions etc).

It's an odd thing about some flight simmers that they feel they have to pick sides in WWII and defend the reputation of aircraft from 70 years ago. For myself, I'm just interested in history and in aviation.

PS - nice welcome!

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

This analysis only shows that you hate as much of the 109, as some people here.

Well, considering that the one who started this thread shows a real hatred of the Spitfire and loads his posts with expressions like "Spitliarforum", "It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well." - as if objective flight reports written 70 years ago reflect his personal prejudices - and generally acts as though it was lucky the Spitfire actually flew at all, it's a little rich to be objecting to those who defend the aircraft as "109 haters".

As it happens I don't agree with some of Sandstone's comments; for example, the 109 was better designed for mass production than the Spitfire - witness the problems involved in getting the Spitfire into production at all. The 109 had a much better modular construction, its engine was far easier to remove and access for servicing etc etc...

Fact is that both were fine fighters, given that both were designed and built only 30 odd years after the Wright flyer; each had their weaknesses, but there are a lot of grateful pilots who owe their lives to both the 109 and Spitfire and both deserve to be right up there with the best aircraft of their generation.

[Osprey]

Totally agree. It's a shame that we appear that way but all that is happening is we have to correct the extreme viewpoint of a single fanatic. His argument is flawed fundamentally though, since he makes so many claims of superiority by both machine and pilot - yet his side still lost. A heavy cross to bear indeed, I can see how he cannot reconcile, poor chap.

[Sandstone]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

As it happens I don't agree with some of Sandstone's comments; for example, the 109 was better designed for mass production than the Spitfire - witness the problems involved in getting the Spitfire into production at all. The 109 had a much better modular construction, its engine was far easier to remove and access for servicing etc etc...

Hello, Typhoon. I actually agree with you. The Spitfire was also not a particularly good design for mass production (or low-hours pilots). As you say, it was probably even less so than the Bf-109. The beautiful elliptical wing is a case in point. It conferred at best a small performance gain, but was a sod to manufacture. Not worth it in a war where mass production is required. It's noticeable that none of the second generation Allied fighter aircraft used such a wing. Where the British did score with the Spitfire was that they organised its manufacture quite efficiently. So they mobilised the female population, organised the factories, rationalised the development of the aircraft and involved industrialists in the process (so as to provide the best aircraft that could be produced rather than the best aircraft that could be designed) etc. They also worked on bringing forward designs that addressed the shortfalls of the Spitfire and managed to get them into service.

In contrast, the German aviation industry was asked to generate a bewildering variety of prototypes, suffered from very poor management and was faced with a manpower and skills crisis as industry personnel were drafted out to the services. The result was an industry that moved from a high-tech one built around a skilled workforce and modest production to one that was reliant on slave labour to achieve a level of mass production. In such an industry it is no surprise that the record of new types successfully introduced was unimpressive.

I posted here because I saw someone claim that the Bf-109 was the aircraft equivalent of the T-34 tank. But as far as I can see, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Interestingly, the Germans did try to develop a cheap fighter aircraft that could be mass produced by unskilled labour using non-strategic materials and so might be a better analogue of the T-34. This was the Heinkel-162 jet fighter. It was cheap, used a wooden airframe, could be built by unskilled and slave labour and was supposed to be easy to fly and operate. The unit cost was ~ 75,000 RM, compared to ~ 144,000 RM for a Ta-152 or ~ 150,000 RM for an Me-262. Of course, it was a disaster because the industry was attempting something far beyond its abilities.

It's interesting to compare this with the approaches to production adopted by the Allies. The Russians mass produced simple but effective designs like the IL-2 and La-5 series or the T-34 tank. For all its faults, Russian production was very rational in recognising what could be achieved. Similarly, in the West, industrialists were heavily involved in the selection of designs, with Ford's astonishing Willow Run plant representing the ultimate 1940s expression of harnessing industry to aircraft production.

It is sobering to consider the different lives experienced by a worker at Willow Run building B-24s and a malnourished slave worker in an underground factory in Germany building Bf-109s.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Well, considering that the one who started this thread shows a real hatred of the Spitfire and loads his posts with expressions like "Spitliarforum", "It remained a constant theme of envy in their later reports as well." - as if objective flight reports written 70 years ago reflect his personal prejudices - and generally acts as though it was lucky the Spitfire actually flew at all, it's a little rich to be objecting to those who defend the aircraft as "109 haters".

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him. He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes, and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap. (small, little switch on the top of dashboard, i doubt, the pilots can using it under hihg G - but in the game, this is the favorite evasive maneuvers by the reds, if the 109 stuck on their 6). He was only interested to find something to make it difficult the German tactics. Of course, in the name of historical authenticity...

So, you may argue with Kurfurst motivation, but the fact is that the red side has same patriots, who fight for only their side. Don't get me wrong. I really have no trouble with it, it would be hypocrisy to say that it does not exist. It's fine, everyone personal motive may be different from the other. But I don't think this would be fair attack a topic, just because one of these "patriot" started...

[Al Schlageter]

Barbi doesn't lie. That is a good one. hahahahahahahahahaha

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him.

I don't know him, and I have no reason to have any kind of prejudice. All I see is that he's pushing a bit too hard for too long. Same goes for some other people around here, but since you mentioned him...

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.

I don't think anyone has got any problem with the data he provides. It actually is very useful and I enjoy reading it. I understand he is a 109 enthusiast and somehow tends to interpret this historical data and charts in rather biased way. I am also enthusiast but I like the WWII planes equally. I have to admit I therefore realised he was wrong many times because although his knowledge of German side is extensive, he somehow lacks in the RAF information and his opinions are often one-sided. There is no problem with that, because the same problem is on the RAF side. The truth is apparently somewhere in the middle. There is always problem with objectivity where there is passion involved. Without this passion though, there would be less drive for knowledge. I would say the problem he's got is from his past reputation and personal conflicts he's had. I don't judge anyone, I have never had a problem with him but I also have to take what he says with pinch of salt. I don't have that kind of feeling with anyone representing the red side here their claims and theories are not nearly as biased and ridiculous and my personal view is that they are more reasonable somehow.

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes

Well in fact, he was right about the sensitivity of the trim and data was provided (we had this conversation about if the RAE data was actually useful and the test of a captured machine legit and relevant - I found this very interesting). The trim in the sim can be used in a way that has nothing to do with the its real life usage. I am using it in the 109 to turn into Spitfires and I know that's stupid. The thread actually started after a conversation we had on the TS (Osprey and me and several other squadmembers) about what is wrong with the game. Same goes with the Spitfire flaps...

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap. (small, little switch on the top of dashboard, i doubt, the pilots can using it under hihg G - but in the game, this is the favorite evasive maneuvers by the reds, if the 109 stuck on their 6). He was only interested to find something to make it difficult the German tactics. Of course, in the name of historical authenticity...

...which you mention here - you know it was me who raised this issue on the il2bugtracker (and Osprey voted for that) as I find is equally as ridiculous as the trim exploit. The thread was for discussion only, there is no bug raised by Osprey on the bugtracker and he actually stated this was the case on all planes in the sim. He mentioned the 109 specifically because of the unique Hoehenflosse design and believe it or not, it was for the authenticity sake. I also exploited the flap behaviour of the Spitfire when I got bounced by a 109 pilot who would be turning into my break turn at 500km/h dive using the trim. We both know that this is nonsense and it should be addressed. Mind you this was on Repka 4 df server for fun. I am not doing either on normal servers. But I know it exists and it bothers me a lot. The motivation is indeed to get more of 'Battle of Britain' into what is now 'Airquake'.

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

So, you may argue with Kurfurst motivation, but the fact is that the red side has same patriots, who fight for only their side. Don't get me wrong. I really have no trouble with it, it would be hypocrisy to say that it does not exist. It's fine, everyone personal motive may be different from the other. But I don't think this would be fair attack a topic, just because one of these "patriot" started...

I agree, both sides are guilty and some people are pushing too hard and it is obvious that they listen to their tune only.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

As -for example- Osprey start a topic against german elevator trimm (which is designed for use during high G, easy and confortable access, placed near the chair), but he has no thought for a moment to do the same with the RAF planes, and even with the Spit/Hurri Flap.

Tom, Robo is correct, that is exactly what happened. I started a discussion topic to find out more which it did, exposing an exploit in game. It wasn't "against German elevator trim" at all, I requested information from German fliers about it's use in game and in real life as comparison.
After all of that I haven't seen a bug raised though I suggested it should happen from the outcome of the thread and asked if you wouldn't mind raising it. I respect your opinion on the 109, you seem to seek historical truth, is there a reason why this bug hasn't been raised?

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared, because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does. You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to. I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game. I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

PS. I have never suggested that he forges documents but he does select those which favour his argument and dismiss those which don't. He also creates his own documentation with the same style.

[Kurfürst]

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared,

And..? If we would need the 'approval' of our trio of braindead rafanatics, nobody would ever be able to raise any bugs about the Spitfire or any other RAF type.

Just be frank about it. All you want is to cover up the Spitfire roll rate bug. It rolls 3 times as fast than it should, there's plenty of documentation about the real world figures and how it does not match up. It does not require anybody's opinion, because its a FACT. RAE has tested it in 1940, found that it rolled 90 degrees in 8 seconds at 400 mph, we have tested it under the same conditions in Il2COD in 2012, and has found that it rolls in about 2.5 secs instead. Its not a matter of anybody's opinion anymore. It simply does not match RL figures.

Nor do anybody agrees with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of people acknowledged and endorsed that bug at il2bugreport already. You of course are not one of them.

because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does.

No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.

You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to.

Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.


You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?

I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game.

You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.

I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.