My little 109 v spit experiment

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by pstyle

2. The visibility is excellent. Much better that you would imagine based on the external look of the 109. That extra little bit of over-the-shoulder window meant I could see aircraft behind/below (7, 5 o'clock) that you just don't see in the spits. This helps explain why I'm often spotted, when I think I'm concealed. You really have to be under the 109 to be invisible - which is not a safe place to be anyway!

I disagree, do you use TrackIR? I do and I am addamant that rear visability is better in the Spitfire. You can also open the canopy in the Spit and look even further!

Forward visability on the other hand is ALLOT better in the 109, partially due to the tinted windshield in the Spit and hurri which is terrible.

[lonewulf]

the nose weapons configuration is great. they shoot where you point it! (unlike the wing-mounted only fighters) my confidence in the trajectory of the fire is much greater with the 109. This is historical, and reflects one of the real advantages the 109 had - its armament.

This isn't the first time I've heard this but really it makes little sense in relation to a 109 "E". You could certainly make the case with later variants of the 109 because they incorporated an engine mounted cannon, but the E had just two little MG 17s in the cowl. That gives you about the same stopping power as a Sopwith Camel or a Fokker D7! Furthermore, all of the forward firing weapons on a fighter are harmonized to group at a given range, not just the wing guns. If you shoot at too great a range, you miss, unless of course you incorporate some elements of successful deflection shooting within your calculations. Gravitational forces apply equally to wing and fuselage mounted weapons.

I don't usually fly red but I can assure you that once my 10 seconds worth of cannon ammo have been expended (uselessly in most cases) I'd very happily swap my twin MG 17s for your eight Brownings any day of the week!

[notafinger!]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

I disagree, do you use TrackIR? I do and I am addamant that rear visability is better in the Spitfire. You can also open the canopy in the Spit and look even further!

Forward visability on the other hand is ALLOT better in the 109, partially due to the tinted windshield in the Spit and hurri which is terrible.

Agree 100%. All around visibility in the Spit is far better than the 109. You can lean left/right even with canopy closed and get a full view of 6 & low 5/7. Red pilots can even sit up a bit and get a look out over the nose which can't be done in a 109.

Originally Posted by pstyle

3.The 109 engine sounds gave me a warning when the RPM was too high, and was about to overspeed/ blow! All I had to do was reduce rpm, and she went back to normal running. How I wish we had that kind of audible "warning" in the red fighters... which just suddenly blow the second they hit the modelled threshold!, and there's no way to anticipate/ recover in time without strict engine management procedures. I think the 109 engine setup is more forgiving.

IMHO in-cockpit 109 engine sound was much better in last official Steam release patch when the engine would really scream when it went over 2500 rpm. The current sound is very bland in comparison.

[Torian]

Only noticed this a few days ago but the manual prop pitch control is missing in the E4. Was prop pitch auto (only) in the real E4s ? Is manual prop pitch control of the E4s in CloD unrealistic ?
Personally I prefer manual prop pitch when in an E4 as some of the auto settings are annoying. However this fact alone would make flying against an E4 more interesting if they were subject to the vagaries of auto prop pitch manipulation.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

I disagree, do you use TrackIR? I do and I am addamant that rear visability is better in the Spitfire. You can also open the canopy in the Spit and look even further!

Forward visability on the other hand is ALLOT better in the 109, partially due to the tinted windshield in the Spit and hurri which is terrible.

One of the aspects of forward visibility in the Spitfire that Jeffrey Quill (amongst others) complained about was the distortion to forward visibility created by the rounded sides of the windscreen - this was one reason later Mk VBs and all Cs switched to flat sidescreens and an internal bullet-resistant windscreen, first used on the prototype Mk III.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by pstyle

4. Recovering from a flick-stall (but not in a spin) was marvellous. I took my hands and feet off and just waited about 3 to 5 seconds for the heavy nose to drop. she righted herself and I was power diving and under lift within a second or two more. really nice. really stable. I might try and put one in a spin soon too, to see how that experience compares.

Defo a nice crate to fly. I might brave a few missions in the busier servers now too....
Does anyone know if point 4 is "historical"? Are the reasons why a 109 v spit will blow engines different, and thus the "sudden" nature of the spitfire breakdown is accruate? Should there be any kind of audible warning from the engine in either case that something is about to pop? Should it be avoidable to a point, even once the engine tone has changed to "abnormal"?

As to 4, yes, from everything I have read the gentle stall characteristics were definitely a forte of the 109 (which is the no. 1 reason I kept flying it in the old Il2 times, even after when the 190 was added, and which I would have normally preferred). I guess the plane's longitudinal stability has a lot to do with it.

As for the Spitties engine breakdowns, I would say the prime reason is that the 109 has so many automated systems that its basically fool-proof. It has great cooling capacity, and essentially you only need to adjust the throttle. In comparison the Spit has a zillion engine related switches and levers, so its quite easy for the pilot to select wrong mixture/rpm/boost/temperature combination. In addition the negative g problem of the Merlin means that you can suddenly loose oil pressure with a bad move on the stick, and that is not a good thing for any engine. There's quite simply too many things going on too keep track of all of them. Rpm should be probably less of a problem on both planes, since actually both the DB and the Merlin tolerated fairly high overreving for considerable periods (2400/3000 and 3000/3600 for 30 secs iirc)

[SlipBall]

There was a training period for those pilots that we do not have access to for this sim. Mistakes being made here is understandable, a training do's and don'ts is needed, or the butchering of fm.

[swift]

Originally Posted by Toni74

i don't. I'm totally all right with flying my favorite bf 110 only. that's i've bought this game. i dont interested in flying any other planes.

Then try the stuka. This plane is so arcadish in this game it's a shame!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by Torian

Only noticed this a few days ago but the manual prop pitch control is missing in the E4. Was prop pitch auto (only) in the real E4s ? Is manual prop pitch control of the E4s in CloD unrealistic ?
Personally I prefer manual prop pitch when in an E4 as some of the auto settings are annoying. However this fact alone would make flying against an E4 more interesting if they were subject to the vagaries of auto prop pitch manipulation.

You can use manual in the E4, the control was moved to the throttle. You must set toggle prop pitch automation key. In fact when flying online you need to disable it and re-enable it when your going 300kmh plus or it tends to malfuction and either got to 12:00 or 08:30 hours...

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

I don't usually fly red but I can assure you that once my 10 seconds worth of cannon ammo have been expended (uselessly in most cases) I'd very happily swap my twin MG 17s for your eight Brownings any day of the week!

I'd very happily swap my eight .303 for two nose mounted MG 17s with 60 seconds of fire. I fly both RAF and LW and the stopping power and accuracy of the nose mounted mgs is great and suits me well. You can shoot long range and you can keep the thumb on the trigger for much longer. The effect is suprisingly strong when you hit well - works against 109s and RAF fighters as well - fire, PKs, important parts falling off etc... Flying for the RAF, you might have more guns but unless you get your target on the convergence range, you're wasting your 14 seconds of fire. Now getting a good 109 pilot to convergence range is a bit of a problem on its own, but even against the bombers, the MG17s are very effective and you can snipe from very long distance. Works great, trajectory is nice as it should be. Just my 0.02, YMMW of course...

Whoever said in this thread that the armament was an advantage on LW side was right - nose mounted mgs + cannons = hell of a punch. Good shot will be succesful with anything, but I admit the MG17 are a great weapon when used right, as a RAF pilot I fear not the Oerlikon cannons, but long range MG 17.