Throwing some light on rates of turn

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by SEE

These ac were tested in mock combat by the RAE back in 1940 and the results are well documented.

May be two or more players could agree to test the 109 v Spit on a server - find a quiet part of the map and be on the same TS channel.

It would be interesting to see the results of such a test for the CloD 109/Spits but, for the results to be meaningful, the players would have to be completely impartial.

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

Manu, you raise some good points IMHO about the fallibility of the RAE tests -- I forgot to add about the 109 pilot not being an actual LW pilot (and preferably an experten to wring out maximum performance from the captured 109). Obviously it was the best the RAE could provide at the time, but it would've been dangerous for a Spitfire pilot to put his trust in those RAE test results for the reasons we've both noted.

What Evangelus (See) suggests is of value and interest from a subjective viewpoint. It can help point to some glaring issues with both aircraft if all pilots' findings agree. Per your post, any actual changes to FM's of any aircraft should be done scientifically using established data. A good example would be the increasing complaints amongst 109 pilots of the wicked flight departure in an accelerated stall that seems to have cropped up with the latest patch + Hotfix. Is this really so? Certainly organized trials with Red & Blue pilots, all on Teamspeak, could establish this fairly quickly during dogfight scenarios. If all (or most) pilots actually find this to be so, then this would certainly be worth noting on the Bugtracker Report as a high priority item.

(As a Red pilot, I get great satisfaction if a pursuing Blue pilot "collides with terrain" at ground level....call it a "maneuver kill". But I would get no satisfaction if it occurs at, say, 2000 feet. I would much rather try for a guns kill as he recovers from the stall or take that opportunity to escape if I'm damaged or Winchester-ammo.)

So, I'm strongly in favour of one-on-one trials with plane swapping simply to get the subjective viewpoints of the pilots as a matter of interest.

[SEE]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please NO... those RAE tests are useless since in both the planes there were RAE pilots. We don't know the experience and skill of both nor we know how the fight started (engagement).

We should really limit our knowledge to absolute facts (speed, climb rate ect taking note about the test machine's condition) leaving out all the relative facts (X turn better than Y...) who depends mainly on the pilots.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean for the RAE tests to be uses as benchmarks for what we have in CloD - that would be pointless. I was just pointing out that, like the RAE did, it's possible to do similar and make in game comparisons regards particular aspects of FM that are the subject of discussion.

[Crumpp]

I don't think many guys here are against the 100 octane fuel introduction.

It was certainly being used and the RAF was in the process of transitioning. Of course it should be included.

Both sides were phasing in 100 Octane fuels during the Battle of Britain.

IMHO, they should model the stability and control characteristics of both aircraft correctly, too.

Does ANY thread dealing with something even remotely related to aircraft performance need to turn into a slap concest on the 100 octane issue?

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Does ANY thread dealing with something even remotely related to aircraft performance need to turn into a slap concest on the 100 octane issue?

ROFL!

A proof that people can still take things with good humour, even after years reading this forum... cudos!

+1



~S~