Energy Maneuverability

[JG14_Josf]

When you make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinions and statements such as "double superior spitfire" expect people that actually have experience in this sim to tell you are wrong, and even laugh at you. A DR1 has a better sustained turn than a spitfire.

Anyone,

Aside from the fact that the above contribution to this Topic does not have anything to do with the topic, there is the matter of misrepresentation to deal with as mud is slinging in this form of obvious, measurable, deception.

If I made a claim that the Spitfire was "double superior" then it could be proven with a quote such as:

Which plane is the better plane?

Is the Spitfire Double Superior or Single Superior?

The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, that is uncontroversial.

So...logically, and reasonably, why would I be asking a question if instead I had made an "unsubstantiated" claim as my forum enemy (why he is targeting me for misrepresentation I can't know, exactly) endeavors to attack my character publicly?

My guess is that the Spitfire will turn out to be Double Superior. I want to be wrong.

That may be as close as I am able to become that which my forum enemy claims me to be in his mind as he publishes these personal attacks upon my character.

Note how a guess on my part is not a claim on my part, and again why would I continue to be asking these questions if instead I were making claims as my forum enemy claims (unsubstantiated).

Did I miss something written by me on this forum, something that could be misinterpreted to be what my forum enemy claims is credited to me as a character flaw?

ON Topic so far:

Spitfire is coded in the game to be Single Superior at least.

Spitfire, at least, has an accurately measurable Sustained Turn Performance Advantage in the order of about 25% better Sustained Turn Performance compared to the 109 in Cliffs of Dover.

How does that fact turn into personal attacks upon me as forum members target me for misrepresentations such as this:

When you make unsubstantiated claims based on your opinions and statements such as "double superior spitfire" expect people that actually have experience in this sim to tell you are wrong, and even laugh at you.

The tactic used here is a flanking maneuver, a diversionary tactic, it is a variation on deception, it is also called a Man of Straw, as somewhere, someone, has made these unsubstantiated claims, but who has done so, where is this person, where are these claims?

I can guess things, and I can even offer up my guesses of things, and even while I guess things, I can state, without room for misinterpretation, that I do not know if the Spitfire is Double Superior, as I ask for the information that could support, or substantiate, any claim from anyone, anywhere, who may claim that the Spitfire is, or is not, Double Superior.

Where is this Man of Straw who has made these unsubstantiated claims?

Look left, and there is vapor.

Look right, more vapor.

Smoke and mirrors?

The Spitfire may yet turn out to have a Corner Speed advantage, which would be another significant Performance Advantage for any fighter plane that may fight any other fighter plane where the significant Performance Advantage might approach the significant measure of a 25% Advantage.

If the Spitfire does have a corner speed advantage, then how much is that advantage?

The 109, as far as my testing goes so far, when loaded with fuel, near the 4 kilometers altitude range, turns at the margin of stall and black out at about 350 km/h.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

Personal attacks, exemplified by my forum enemy, who resorts to deceit as a means of accomplishing some goal of some kind, discredit, whatever, are not welcome, and they are in fact against the rules.

Where does the Spitfire Corner Speed plot on a Maneuvering Diagram?

That question is on topic.

How can anyone claim that any plane is Double Superior or not if Corner Speed isn't even known?

I can't, so I don't make such claims, instead I ask questions, and if someone had something to offer, on topic, then reasonably, the on topic question could be answered accurately.

[JG14_Josf]

Hi

Welcome

Please ignore the trolling members, they are well known, and most posts have been removed already.

Try to keep upbeat as some of the usual suspects have already tried to "upset" the thread with thier usual agenda, keep on topic and have fun.

Try to get as much stick time as you can, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ?

On a similar note............

If I remember correctly IL2 1946 FW190 pilots were told to hunt in at least pairs against enemy aircraft,
as they were unable to fight alone against Spitfires and P51's (forum consensus) dictated that nothing was wrong with the aircraft performance,
its just that FW190's were not to hunt alone due to being inferior to Allied FM's.

So why do axis have to fly in pairs against single allied aircraft ? ............ its an old question that's been around many years.

Fresh air!

Thanks and I do appreciate the honest welcome from those who honestly welcome my participation on this forum.

Topic question:

Try to get as much stick time as you can, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ?

That was very obvious as the first versions of the IL2 game were very well documented in specific performance areas such as dive acceleration, the first versions of the game were modeled with each plane diving the same acceleration rate, no difference at all.

Players had to work with what was in the flight model, and it was a fun game, very good for eye candy for sure.

Somehow the code was changed and there were differences in dive speeds, so it was as if a whole new simulation occurred in actual fighter combat (simulated) and the fights then went vertical instead of either/or hit and run or angles fighting.

Then the game started to change the g force tolerance limits on specific pilots, as far as I can tell that is what happened, and then when the players were able to adjust those Code lines one plane was one way one day and the same plane could be opposite the next day.

I had to get out of that mess awhile ago. The people who changed the code knew exactly what they were changing so they knew what to do in combat while those who didn't yet understand the changes were significantly powerless in combat, and about the time the targets figured things out the flight model changes again.

Weird?

Hardly.

Thanks for dropping in.

If I remember correctly IL2 1946 FW190 pilots were told to hunt in at least pairs against enemy aircraft,
as they were unable to fight alone against Spitfires and P51's (forum consensus) dictated that nothing was wrong with the aircraft performance,
its just that FW190's were not to hunt alone due to being inferior to Allied FM's.

So why do axis have to fly in pairs against single allied aircraft ? ............ its an old question that's been around many years.

It seems as if any effort to actually quantify, as in precisely quantify, the actual significant performance variables, such as Corner Speed, is unwelcome for some reason.

Why?

If it is a given that Sustained Turn Performance favors one plane, why is that deemed to be insignificant by someone?

Is that nonsense or are there honest reasons for people who resort to personal attacks to keep accurate information bottled up?

If they resort to deceit, can you expect to get an honest answer?

Flying in pairs can be nothing more than a decision to cooperate with someone else in an effort to simulate very effective tactics and in some cases, such as on-line wars, where there is a mutual desire to simulate World War II combat, not just quake type flying, the instances of 2 versus 1 are fewer, and the instances of 2 versus 2, 3 versus 3, etc., are more numerous.

Setting that aside, and not diving into the Energy Maneuverability aspect of team fighting, I do want to communicate something that I think you are trying to communicate with your welcome words in this Topic.

When a plane is Double Inferior, inferior in both angles and energy fighting, it may yet be modeled with a Top Speed advantage. That was the case with many versions of IL2 and the 190s.

Shaw published an opinion concerning what can be done with a plane that is Double Inferior and it went something along the lines of leave the thing in the hanger, or be restricted to only hit and run tactics or team tactics.

Does that sound familiar?

I think that there is a general desire for a Double Superior plane even when the only advantage afforded the opposition is a top speed advantage.

I have hopes that this game is not that way.

A good wing team flying Stukas can win every battle against a single Spitfire IX pilot, so long as they know enough to attack before the Spitfire wheels are up.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

I can't, so I don't make such claims, instead I ask questions, and if someone had something to offer, on topic, then reasonably, the on topic question could be answered accurately.

I did just that for you.

Do you have any more questions? Let me ask you a few, too, because I am now very confused about what you actually want to achieve.

Do you need this information (answers for your questions) for yourself as a start for flying this sim (e.g. particular optimal engine settings for particular phases of the flight)? If this is the case I am more than happy to answer most of your questions or I am happy to guide you to specific threads on this forums regarding that particular topic.

Do you need this information to find out where the general advantages / disadvantages of particular fighter types portrayed in this sim lay? I believe I answered most of these questions and pointed you in the right direction already (e.g. informing you that the 109 is indeed modelled as dominant in the vertical level, compared to the RAF fighters). I also strongly suggested trying for yourself (spending time actually playing this game). I also strongly suggested flying all types available in order to achieve complete and objective perception of the relative performance as modelled in this particular sim.

Do you need this information to discuss the theoretical side of Air combat and observe how these universal rules are applying within this particular sim? I believe I am sure I did my best to explain to you just that side of this discussion. I did that from the position of a person that spent hundreds of hours playing this particular simulator. Bliss did the very same thing for you and I believe you do now have a very good idea of how the overall situation in this sim is percieved by its users.

Is your intention sharing the outcomes of your first online encounters in this particular sim (e.g. shooting of AI bombers on the ATAG server)? If this is the case, I heartily congratulate to your success and I wish you even more.