Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Just explain how a plane with less or no excess thrust can pull a sustained turn better than a plane with more excess thrust, thank you.

How much excess thrust does a Spitfire at SL, running at +6 1/4 boost has at about 280 mph 1g at David?
How much more excess thrust does a Spitfire at SL, running at +6 1/4 boost require in 2g turn at about 280 mph David?

(Glider remains silent on the issue)

Interesting that you keep talking about the 6 1/4 boost and not the 12 boost.

In fact we all do, except for you. The discussion is about trying to explain to you the fact that the 109E has a better sustained turn than the Spitfire using 6 1/4 boost at and above 400 km/h near SL.

less than a 12 boost Spitfire

(Glider remains silent on the issue)

... and how much is that David?

Spit every time.

And why is that, David? How can a Spitfire sustain a turn without any excess thrust to start with? Does it have anti gravity drives perhaps? Can it just defy the rules of physics?

I am sorry David, but I believe that you did not fully grasp some of the basic elements of the this discussion, such as the difference between sustained and unsustained turns, the effects of parasitic and induced drag depending on airspeed and the importance of thurst and excess thrust. So let me put it down for you in the most simply terms:

Unfurtunately, the Spitfire cannot sustain a turn at 400 mph at all. Depending on altitude, it has either ZERO or NEGATIVE "excess" thrust already at 1 g.

We have been over this already anway, see http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=194



In short, the 262 (blue line) starts to run circles around the Spitfire IX (red line) above 460 km/h. At 640 kph, the Spitfire is outright hapless...

I am still trying to work out how the German test authorities got it so wrong.

Nope, they got it exactly right. They say:

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known shooting-technique disadvantages.

It seems to me that the Germans regarded the flying qualities of the Spitfire overall inferior to their fighters.

[Glider]

Kurfurst you are full of charts which are calculated by yourself and crumpp, however you never talk about the real tests undertaken by the real pilots and real test establishments.
I know what I know and I acknowledge what I don't.

You talk about the 6 1/4 boost and I talk about the 12 boost. Why, because the RAF fighters in the BOB used 12 boost. You talk about the 6 1/4 boost because that gives the 109 a better chance, not what they faced in combat, a big difference.

The one part of the report that you quote
In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known shooting-technique disadvantages
You make a big deal on this but forget to mention that the Spit in question didn't have the CSP only the two pitch prop which they rightly make a number of comments about. No one is trying to pretend that the Spit was the greatest gun platform which is part of the equation and they had wing mounted guns, not exactly new.

However you don't quote the bit about turning which is what the conversation is about, interesting. So just to be clear, do you also agree they had it right when they said
Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that
all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

In which case what are you disagreeing about, or are you only disagreeing with the bits you don't like?

I agree with everything that the report says, will you make the same statement?

As for the 262 I notice another nice chart but nothing re tests or pilot experience so it remains a theory, no more no less.

[JtD]

The chart Kurfürst posted is not a theory, it's a calculation. Physics and maths are just as relevant as tests and pilot experience. There are methods that are standard and accepted. If you use them properly, they can be more accurate than tests and pilot experience and are imho at least as valid.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by JtD

The chart Kurfürst posted is not a theory, it's a calculation. Physics and maths are just as relevant as tests and pilot experience. There are methods that are standard and accepted. If you use them properly, they can be more accurate than tests and pilot experience and are imho at least as valid.

This is the sort of thing that raises my doubts. I am confident that the Grippen had many thosands of calculations undertaken by some of the finest minds in aviation. Using the latest computers, many hours in a simulator and then this happened. I should add that this was being flown by a test pilot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc

Show me any report of any 262 pilots who would go into a turning dogfight against a Mustang, Spit, La 7, whatever take your pick. The theoretical world is one thing, hard combat another.
Look at it another way, Why did the Mig 17 do so well against the F4, F105 and so on. Find any US pilot who would go into a turning combat in any of the above against an old slow Mig 17.

[bongodriver]

I love the way Kurfurst seems to think the 262 would even be in with a shot at a turning fight, at those speeds it's going to fly circles so big it's circumnavigating the globe

[JtD]

It's not about turning fights, it's about the ability of a plane to sustain a turn at a given speed. That's what the chart shows. It's something else what you make of it - both here at the forum discussing it, and in the air piloting these planes.

Like with that Gripen, most accidents happen due to pilot error, not erroneous design calculations. It's rather an argument against the reliability of pilot accounts, than an argument against reliability of maths and physics - so I'm not quite sure why you posted the video.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

It's not about turning fights.

Oh, have I misunderstood something? I just figured since the thread went OT within 7 pages or so and it turned into an argument about which aircraft had the turning advantage it 'was' about turning fights, if I'm not mistaken that is exactly what triggered the whole change of topic was a turning circle diagram and the usual suspects denying that the Spit would win in a turning fight.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by JtD

Like with that Gripen, most accidents happen due to pilot error, not erroneous design calculations. It's rather an argument against the reliability of pilot accounts, than an argument against reliability of maths and physics - so I'm not quite sure why you posted the video.

What is more likely to go wrong, A prototype on its sixth flight or a test pilot of many years experience. The problem was traced to issues with the avionics and delayed responses to control input, not pilot error.
These had been calculated and tested in simlators but it was only when they flew that the problem was idnetified.
So the calculations and theory was flawed resulting in a serious accident the pilot was lucky to get away with. People who rely on theory are banking the farm on a theory and thats why I posted the video.

I notice that no one has come up with any examples of an F4, F105 or 262 taking on a slower aircraft in a turning fight. The F4 and F105 people say that they had the advantage in a turning fight at over 0.9. If this is the case then why didn't the US pilots use that advantage?
Its a simple question, in reality they didn't, they used their speed to go vertical or gain a tactical advantage.

This is the core of the difference. In Vietman I can find examples of US pilots going vertical or using speed to gain a tactical advantage. No one has (so far) show that US pilot wanted to go into a turning fight.
I believe from what I have read that the 262 pilots did exactly the same thing.

PS the main target for the 262 were the bombers, not fighters

As far as the game goes, do you want it to reflect what could happen, or did happen.

Going back to the subject. I do get a little frustrated when people pick and choose which part of the offical test reports they agree with.

Can I ask you if you agree with what the German test establishment said about the 109 and Spitfire? I do in its entirety good and bad from all points.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I love the way Kurfurst seems to think the 262 would even be in with a shot at a turning fight, at those speeds it's going to fly circles so big it's circumnavigating the globe

By the time it was allowed to be a fighter those pilots had little intention of being fighters what with the sheer number of escorts to deal with. No, get fast and whip through the formations with those mighty cannon.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Osprey

By the time it was allowed to be a fighter those pilots had little intention of being fighters what with the sheer number of escorts to deal with. No, get fast and whip through the formations with those mighty cannon.

In fact, I am pretty sure that most of the airplane shot down by the 262 were Spitfire and Mustang. There is some video on the net showing 262 involve in turning fight. Some are really dramatics. You shld take a look into that instead of preaching endlessly that nothing came close to the Spit in term of turn fight.

Turning is all about changing direction. If your plane is stuck at the limit of his performances there is no chance for it to turn corners. That's why fighters pilot enjoyed speed as the most valuable perfs... until reliable short range missile came

The Mig17 Vs F4 is quite a good example. Pass the Mach 0.9 and then the F4 had the advantage. Especially in high G pull up and vertical manoevre. Exvatly what was teach at TopGun (see the the story of R. Cuningham). An F105 could turn with a 17... Above the mach

Keep in Mind that BFM is all about E not turning circle. It's pretty easy to understand that with the late gen fighters. But so much could be said.