omg the meserchmitch i so easy to shoot with the spit i love it

[NaBkin]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

The documentary is riddled with inaccuracies... 55 seconds of firing for the Germans... No. For their MG's maybe, not for cannon. No mention of the mere 7 seconds of cannon ammunition, nor of the cannon's extremely low velocity or poor trajectory, absolutely the worst type of weapon to use for dogfight deflection shooting.

And the comments about "...long wide curves" are in relation to a 109 pilot escaping, as are all the comments about negative G.

I'll post again:



People have a little trouble with reading it appears.

IN EVERY CASE

The German report says nothing about "long wide curves" or any other method. This is a guide which was issued to all of the 109 Staffel commanders.

The documentary relies entirely on anecdote and not factual, objective tests. As per the excerpt I posted above, there were tests done of the 109E vs Allied planes by the Germans, but also by the French, British, and Russian. Guess what? They all agreed, the 109E did not turn well, it was inferior to French, British and Soviet planes in that regard. Both the British and Soviet tests, indicated a turn time of approx. 25 seconds.

I can provide anecdotes and combat reports which suggest the Hurricane was faster than the 109E, the following details how a Hurricane pilot chased down and shot down a 109E:



Here's a link to another report where a Hurricane chased down a 109E

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ler-7oct40.pdf

Does that mean the Hurricane was always faster than the 109E? No, they're just anecdotes of a situation which happened in combat.

The British did at least 4 separate different tests of the 109 vs Hurricanes and Spitfires, and all the tests were conclusive. At all speeds and in all types of turn contests, the Spitfires and Hurricanes were superior. Below one with Hurricane:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ricane-109.pdf

Yes, the Germans liked their plane, it had definite advantages, but it also had weaknesses, and turn contests were often fatal.

Yes, any plane can outturn any plane given the most optimum circumstance, ie. full fuel on one, nearly empty on another, one with superior alt or E etc. But in a balanced situation, the 109E was not a good choice to turnfight in. Which is why the German pilots who knew the facts made their recommendations for 109E's not to turn fight.

This is a wonderful example of a wishful thinking thread made up by someone who obviously can't master the skill required to fight in the vertical and is letting his frustration get the better of him rather than working on improving his skills.

So what do you personally think of the CLoD plane's perfomance? Which planes do you fly and do you think they are "historical correct" (if one can say so about a PC Sim).

I think it's common sense, that the 109 turns worse than most of the Red planes. It's well modeled in Clod I think.

But the problem I have with the game is that if I have a Spit on my 6 I have no chances to deal with her whatsoever. You can't outturn it, neither can you outclimb it fast enough (only if you are out of shooting range) nor dive away. It just sticks at your 6, only chance is that you are the better pilot and manage to make it loose you in wild maneuvres.

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

[raaaid]

climbing performance influences turning performance

i would out turn zeros in my spit 25lbs(il246) in a climbing spiral by spit superior climbing ability which in the end means better turning in an upwards spiral

edit:

playing this game i get the feeling british engineering is amazing and german one not so much, like oh yeah now i understand why the war was won and what car ill buy

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by NaBkin

So what do you personally think of the CLoD plane's perfomance? Which planes do you fly and do you think they are "historical correct" (if one can say so about a PC Sim).

I think it's common sense, that the 109 turns worse than most of the Red planes. It's well modeled in Clod I think.

But the problem I have with the game is that if I have a Spit on my 6 I have no chances to deal with her whatsoever. You can't outturn it, neither can you outclimb it fast enough (only if you are out of shooting range) nor dive away. It just sticks at your 6, only chance is that you are the better pilot and manage to make it loose you in wild maneuvres.

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can see where the advantages and disadvantages lie.

The question is, what altitude do you fight at?

If you are fighting on the deck for any length of time, at some time you are inevitably going to find yourself in the situation you describe, ie. with a Spitfire on your six. If its a Hurricane on your six, then you really have been asleep at the wheel.

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?

On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat. In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical, no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget, there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had, and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts. It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive, and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom. Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri. The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically. And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

What planes are modelled accurately in CoD? None of them. The G50 is probably the closest. The 109 is definitely wrong in any number of ways, some of which I mention above, also it is too slow on the deck, climbs worse than it should over approx. 3000 meters, and should have a ceiling 3000 meters higher than the game plane. But its climb is not as far off as the British planes, which are also slow.

[NaBkin]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can see where the advantages and disadvantages lie.

The question is, what altitude do you fight at?

If you are fighting on the deck for any length of time, at some time you are inevitably going to find yourself in the situation you describe, ie. with a Spitfire on your six. If its a Hurricane on your six, then you really have been asleep at the wheel.

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?

I hope so, I fly il2 ever since the demo in 2001, mostly in online squads, so in theory I know how to fly the 109

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat. In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical, no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget, there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had, and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts. It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive, and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom. Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri. The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically. And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

What planes are modelled accurately in CoD? None of them. The G50 is probably the closest. The 109 is definitely wrong in any number of ways, some of which I mention above, also it is too slow on the deck, climbs worse than it should over approx. 3000 meters, and should have a ceiling 3000 meters higher than the game plane. But its climb is not as far off as the British planes, which are also slow.

I agree with most of your points. And since I want historical correct FM, I neither like the 1.45 ata issue which gives blues an advantage, nor do I like the too low ceiling of course.
I'm not quite with you with the trim, because I have to adjust it quite often, but this is something minor I suppose.

Maybe the problem we have is also a bit that as a 109 pilot, you have to stay very disciplined and if you don't you'll loose. As oppose to a Spit Pilot who has to "just" outturn and wait for his opponent to make a mistake and take the advantage over it.

So what you say is that as a german pilot, you only are able to actually win/shoot down the enemy if you are in better position. If you are at same alt and you've been spotted which means "equal starting position" you'll loose. We just don't know if this is what the reality was back then.
Maybe it's true and it's an issue considering the impossibility to "simulate" other important issues like better trained pilots, better tactics, coms, leadership and stuff. Which would mean a todays "pc ww2 simulation limitations" do favour the red flying style. Or just the FM of CLoD's a mess. I guess we will never know, but I'm almost sure that it is a combination of the two.
Sorry about my strange english but I have a hard time thinking in english at the moment...

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Most successful 109 pilots caught on the deck use scissors or a series of bunts into dives and then zooms, then repeat, or a combination of both to get a Spit off their tail, and they make sure they keep their speed up. Do you have those skills?

Its difficult to have those skills. Yes, scissors would be effective, but the 109E has some sort of stall bug that resembles that of the old Il-2's horrendous G-6 FM at its worst state. The CLOD 109E seem to stall randomly and with no warning, making a manoeuvre like scissors very hard to execute.

On the other hand, I watch a lot of 109 pilots come over with the bombers, sit on top of them and prey on the Spits and Hurricanes below. At those altitudes, there is no competition, the 109's rule. On the remote chance a Hurricane or Spit IIA has taken 20 minutes to climb up to 20,000 ft and attacks from higher alt, the 109 maneuvers a bit, and the Spit/Hurri loses its e, then the 109 is in the drivers seat.

In short the fight usually develop along the current disadvantages of the FM. The 109s stall is nerfed, so nobody in good sense goes down to engage in manouvering combat, as we all know that the Spit is practically impossible to stall and has no stability issues at all (as opposed to the real thing). OTOH the Reds can't come up to altitude because of their even more flawed altitude FM. So it's isn't that much of a surprise that 109 stay high where they are untouchable and Spits/Hurris wait down below where they are untouchable.

In emergencies, you just dive away at max speed, Hurricanes or Spits following will lose parts at those speeds.

Except that in my experience its next to impossible to shake of even the Hurricane in level flight by extending in the 109 that is supposedly much faster in both dive and level flight - either the Hurricane is too fast, or the 109E is too slow, or both.

As far as what planes I fly in CoD, usually Red side, although I have flown the 109 quite a number of times, all models, E1/E3/E4, as well as the G50 and 110. I found the 109 very easy to fly compared to the British planes, the opposite of historical,

Nope. The stall characteristics of the 109E are horrendous, it stalls and enters a flat spin all the time as opposed to the real thing, which was next to impossible to be put into a flat spin. Even the British emphasized the mild stall characteristics of the 109E which enabled it to be taken easier and closer to the edge of its performance envelope than British fighters. The Spitfire

no overheating at all unless you actually don't open the rad, but basically it's open to 3/4 and then forget,

Perhaps that's better than the current overheat model than British planes, but let's not forget that the real 109 did not overheat even at 1/4 radiator open during level flight. Our one does, however, and it forces Blue pilots to open the radiators more and as a result fly with reduced airspeed, ie. effectively taking away the advantage in performance the 109 should have.

there are none of the real life takeoff or landing issues the plane had,

I agree that loops are still not modelled, which is a shame. The 109 should be more prone to this, but than again, neither the Hurricane or the Spit does groundloop.. as for landing its average, the Hurricane for example is childishly easy to land because it flies at much slower speeds.

and even when running manual pitch, seems impossible to overrev the engine unless you are a complete numbnuts.

No the engine does over- and underrevs all the time as speed and altitude changes, and on the manual prop pitch models you have to keep an eye on it all the time. Performance suffers accordingly. OTOH even in real life there was not much of a consequence of slight under or overevving, since the DB 601A could tolerate even 3000 rpm (instead of the normal 2400) for 30 secs.

It doesn't sustain turn with the British planes in my experience, but it does accelerate like a rocket in a dive,

As it should. It is the highest wing loading plane with the highest power to weight ratio and lowest drag, remember?

and turns well enough to allow plenty of shots out of a boom and zoom.

As it should.

Also rolls extremely well, better than the Spit or Hurri.

Again, as it should.

The boost can be left at 1.35 ata forever, not accurate, and 1.45 can be used as often as you like and for longer than than the 1 minute allowed historically.

There was nothing preventing the use of 1.35ata, apart from oil/coolant temperatures (which the cooling system could easily handle) , fuel consumption (modelled) and increased wear of the engine (which is not a concern for any Blue/Red player).

There was no limit on how often the 1-minute rating could be used and you are wrong that it's possible to use for longer than 1-min since it disengages automatically after 60 secs.

In the end neither should be that much of a concern since the 109 cannot reach it's 1.35/1.45ata performance at all and it's slower by 40 km/h than it should be at those ratings.

And the trim never seems to be an issue, even though the historical 109 needed rudder adjustments at most speeds, the plane may show the ball off center, but it doesn't seem to cause it to actually yaw much.

The 109 does fly out of trim all the time and with a yaw as the ball clearly shows. It needs rudder adjustments for perfect flying. It's mildly annoying but not much of a practical concern, neither it was in real life - and neither it is for Red planes.


Currently the 109s have the following issues:

- auto prop pitch bug on the E-4
- cannot reach historical level speeds and is slower by ca. 40 km/h
- altitude FM bug (common to all planes)
- lack of armor
- stall modelling, with unpredictable and violent stalls, flat spins
- it overheat model is much worse than the real thing, which could sustain allowable temperatures at 1/4 radiator open (or 3/4 closed) in level flight
- the weight of E-1, E-3, E-4 is slightly off (though I do not think this is that much of an issue, since turn times are hard coded and it should only effect behaviour)
- ground handling model is simplistic (common to all planes)
- best climbing speed is off, it's 270 km/h instead of 250 kph, which may seem unimportant, but it has an effect on the turn/climb envelope, curve and related tactics, low speed flight etc.
- tailwheel lock is present in 3d cocpit model (it was present on E-7 onwards)
- speaking of which there's no E-7
- no E-4/N either :p
- manual prop pitch lacks feathering option

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Its difficult to have those skills. Yes, scissors would be effective, but the 109E has some sort of stall bug that resembles that of the old Il-2's horrendous G-6 FM at its worst state. The CLOD 109E seem to stall randomly and with no warning, making a manoeuvre like scissors very hard to execute.

It is supposed to be difficult. Emil is not an easy plane to fly and / or master Regarding the stalls you mention, I often use scissors as a maneuveur and I never stall the plane - that includes rolling scissors, vertical, horizontal combined with aggressive hammerheads - the problem is not in the aircraft. I see many other pilots being in perfect command of the 109...

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

In short the fight usually develop along the current disadvantages of the FM. The 109s stall is nerfed, so nobody in good sense goes down to engage in manouvering combat, as we all know that the Spit is practically impossible to stall and has no stability issues at all (as opposed to the real thing). OTOH the Reds can't come up to altitude because of their even more flawed altitude FM. So it's isn't that much of a surprise that 109 stay high where they are untouchable and Spits/Hurris wait down below where they are untouchable.

Interesting, this is in exact opposite of what many RAF pilots are doing - you have much better chances higher up as the performance gap closes the higher you go. 109 up high are not untouchable, they're actually more vulnerable.

I am not sure if you ever flew the Spitfire in the current patch, but I can tell you it is very much possible to stall her if you're not careful. Same for the 109. The most difficult in my experience is the Hurricane, she likes to drop her wing if you're not precise with the rudder.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Except that in my experience its next to impossible to shake of even the Hurricane in level flight by extending in the 109 that is supposedly much faster in both dive and level flight - either the Hurricane is too fast, or the 109E is too slow, or both.

The difference is perhaps not as big as it used to be, Spitfire and even the Hurricane can be dangerous of course when the pilot keeps the speed up and you don't. But the 109 is faster than anything in the game if flown right. I see many 109 pilots have no problem to shake me even if I fly my Spitfire on the edge. Even worse in the Hurricane.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Nope. The stall characteristics of the 109E are horrendous, it stalls and enters a flat spin all the time as opposed to the real thing, which was next to impossible to be put into a flat spin. Even the British emphasized the mild stall characteristics of the 109E which enabled it to be taken easier and closer to the edge of its performance envelope than British fighters.

Not entirely true, you had to be better pilot in order to get the 109 on the edge, Spitfire was generally easier to fly. I repeat I believe this stall experience of yours is not a 109 problem.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Currently the 109s have the following issues:

Some of the issues (top speed, top ceiling, ground handling) is equally present in all planes in the game.

I agree with most and I would add wings too fragile and stock rudder trim being wrong (maybe making the plane less stable, it was OK in on of the previous patches then changed back). Main issue is the engine modeling - Aa and A-1 mixup with FTH and power ratings - this actuly favours the Emil in the game. I don't think the real life pilots were flying at 1,45 ata during the whole flight with no consequences like we do

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by NaBkin

...the problem I have with the game is that if I have a Spit on my 6 I have no chances to deal with her whatsoever. You can't outturn it, neither can you outclimb it fast enough (only if you are out of shooting range) nor dive away. It just sticks at your 6, only chance is that you are the better pilot and manage to make it loose you in wild maneuvres.

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

I think in a way you've answered your own question. Typically, the Luftwaffe (like most air forces) took, or came to the view, that the smallest viable unit in air combat is two. Flying on your own usually has just one outcome - particularly if you are engaged by multiple bad guys at the same time. Sure you can do well on some trips but over time the balance sheet is unlikely to be very healthy - this is certainly my own experience. If you want to do well your best bet is to get on coms and fly as a team. Having said that, I think there are a couple of things you can do to increase your chances of survival in a 109 when flying alone, but you will always be at a serious disadvantage, especially when flying against Spits and Hurricanes that perform at least as well as you in most respects and in some respects far better.
First and foremost, fly and fight at altitude. My rule, which I unfortunately break all the time, is to fly above 3k at all times and preferably much higher. Do not allow a situation to develop (low alt) where an ability to turn can become decisive. Stay high and only engage aircraft that are at a tactical disadvantage - ie, below you. If you are taken by surprise by a Spit or Hurricane that is higher or is co-alt but has greater speed; dive away and keep diving (the 109 dives well but a Spit is almost as good so keep it right on the edge). Do not attempt to re-engage. If you happen to engage an aircraft that attempts to take the fight down near the deck, break-off and return to altitude. Avoid sustained fighting wherever possible. It's far too easy to be taken unaware by an unseen bandit. If your initial attacks fail, (say 2-3 passes) break-off and look for another target. Always assume that the target aircraft has a wingman.
Finally, what should you do do if you find yourself well below 3k and in a situation where an enemy attack is imminent, ie, where diving away isn't a viable solution and you have an enemy behind you in a co-alt and possibly co-E state, ready to attack? What can be done to escape and possibly regain the initiative? Sometimes the answer is that very little can be done but there are two things that help. Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack.

[NaBkin]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

I think in a way you've answered your own question. Typically, the Luftwaffe (like most air forces) took, or came to the view, that the smallest viable unit in air combat is two. Flying on your own usually has just one outcome - particularly if you are engaged by multiple bad guys at the same time. Sure you can do well on some trips but over time the balance sheet is unlikely to be very healthy - this is certainly my own experience. If you want to do well your best bet is to get on coms and fly as a team. Having said that, I think there are a couple of things you can do to increase your chances of survival in a 109 when flying alone, but you will always be at a serious disadvantage, especially when flying against Spits and Hurricanes that perform at least as well as you in most respects and in some respects far better.
First and foremost, fly and fight at altitude. My rule, which I unfortunately break all the time, is to fly above 3k at all times and preferably much higher. Do not allow a situation to develop (low alt) where an ability to turn can become decisive. Stay high and only engage aircraft that are at a tactical disadvantage - ie, below you. If you are taken by surprise by a Spit or Hurricane that is higher or is co-alt but has greater speed; dive away and keep diving (the 109 dives well but a Spit is almost as good so keep it right on the edge). Do not attempt to re-engage. If you happen to engage an aircraft that attempts to take the fight down near the deck, break-off and return to altitude. Avoid sustained fighting wherever possible. It's far too easy to be taken unaware by an unseen bandit. If your initial attacks fail, (say 2-3 passes) break-off and look for another target. Always assume that the target aircraft has a wingman.
Finally, what should you do do if you find yourself well below 3k and in a situation where an enemy attack is imminent, ie, where diving away isn't a viable solution and you have an enemy behind you in a co-alt and possibly co-E state, ready to attack? What can be done to escape and possibly regain the initiative? Sometimes the answer is that very little can be done but there are two things that help. Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack.

Good post, thank you.

Do you also have the data for this style of flying?
Say for this:

"Firstly, if your in an E 1 or 3, always ensure that your prop pitch is set for max power. Never let this slip because in bad situations a lost second or 3 can mean everything. Next, initiate a 'step-climb'. Whereas sustained climb works when you have a distant threat, 'step-climbing' is a better response to a more immediate threat. To do this, firstly level out as quickly as possible without bleeding speed and at the same time use your pitch controls to achieve the highest possible acceleration. Once you have reached 350-400k (IAS) set prop pitch for climb and lift the nose. When airspeed drops to about 300ks level out again and adjust pitch controls for acceleration. Repeat this 3 or 4 times and you should have a significant vertical and horizontal distance between you and your would be attacker. At this point you can now wipe your brow, look back and start planning your counter attack."

"prop for climb" or "pitch for acceleration" - do you fly the 109 by the book or do you have data you've made yourself which work better in CloD? My 109 E manual for example says 250 is the best climbing speed, 2400rpm. Which I use to try to escape the reds.

Does this work for you, or are these theories from a red pilot? For me, sometimes it works, sometimes not, and I'm not sure if it is me or the FM.
I'm just not so sure if this really works, becaus if I fly the spit the same way (BnZ) I feel like I don't have any disatvantages to the 109 (BnZ).

[JG14_Josf]

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

To whom it may concern:

The forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately, and so this will be my last try at using this forum to communicate accurately with anyone else who cares to communicate accurately on the Topic of this game that is for sale, and a game that I have purchased with my own earnings.

If the forum "moderator" censors my efforts to communicate accurately again, then there will no longer be any more sense, at all, in my expending the effort to use this forum to communicate accurately with other people who have also purchased this game with their own earnings.

The person quoted above has a legitimate and interesting concern and I may be able to help that person with that specific concern because that specific concern is a concern that I share.

Every single World War II Air Combat Simulator since Air Warrior, that I have purchased, fits on a scale of which World War II Air Combat Simulator does the best job of simulating World War II Air Combat.

This game is currently the best I've seen, however it suffers from what I will call the Spitfire Lobby effect.

There are people who resort to personal attacks and deception on forums to push an agenda of altering the relative combat effectiveness of the Allied planes relative to the Axis planes, and their favorite tactic is to pollute discussions with personal attacks so as to censor the accurate information being reported in those discussions.

Sometimes the moderators on these game forums aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported, sometimes the forum moderators do not aid those devious people in their quest to censor the accurate information being reported.

What will it be this time?

Last time I tried to communicate accurate information on this forum was a test case that proved the rule that confirms the fact that the forum moderators aid the people whose obvious goal is to censor the accurate information being reported on World War II Air Combat Simulation Forums, and this is not news. The odds are that accurate discussion of the game, we paid for, and we share an interest in, will not be possible on this forum.

We shall see.

Back to the point:

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

In almost every book I've read on relative combat performance there is one very important performance variable that is measurable as Specific Excess Power and to understand that measure of that performance variable you don't need to know all the information contained in the following sources:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c4.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c5.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c6.pdf

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flig...-FTM108/c7.pdf

The important point to realize, in my opinion, is to know which plane accelerates faster than the other plane, and if you know that fact, then you know which plane has that advantage, and that is a very important advantage.

Like the English Fighter Pilot in the video linked earlier in this topic says the following words:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game then the following may be the case:

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

Now, the person who has an interest, a concern, and an accurate message quoted above, a concern I share, he may be a person who has purchased the game with his own earnings too, and he may want to know what I know, and if the moderators censor my attempts to communicate what I know, then that will happen again.

Too bad for me. I will try this one more time.

There are easy to perform tests that can be done in the game so as to avoid having to rely on any other opinion from any other person who may have also purchased the game with their own earnings and who may be reporting information on this forum, accurate or inaccurate information.

If two players use the game in an on-line session and they fly side by side, one in a Spitfire and one in a 109, and then both players fly side by side in level flight, and at once both players dive their planes, then both players switch planes, repeat the test, then repeat the test, then repeat the test, then see which plane does this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

I can speak about the importance of having a small plane (less drag) and a weighty engine (sectional density) and why a small plane (less drag) with high sectional density (a weighty engine) tends to accelerate faster in a dive, and tends to decelerate slower in a zoom climb, but I think it may be better to avoid my opinion on such things and call upon the writings of someone who actually flew 109s, Spitfires, 190s, and many World War II Air Combat Fighter Planes during World War II, since he was one of those Fighter Pilots who was also testing captured planes to test relative performance of those planes.

The quote I am going to pick out concerns an evaluation of a 190 which was also a small plane with a weighty engine but before doing that it may be a good idea to make sure that the reader understands that the point being accurately communicated is the point concerning the advantage of a higher rate of acceleration, which is a measure of Specific Excess Power under the conditions of flight specified, a dive, which is an unloaded dive, and conversely could also be an unloaded zoom climb advantage.

The point is to point out the meaning of the term B and Z, or BnZ, or Energy Fighting which is not the same thing as Hit and Run and not the same thing as Turn and Burn.

Energy Fighting is a term used by Robert Shaw in his book titled Fighter Combat. BnZ is a term used by people who play a game.

Here is the source of a relevant measure of performance advantages used in Air Combat for World War II:

http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Luftwaff.../dp/1853104132

Here is a quote that may help anyone if anyone wants to understand game performance relative to actual performance where a dive and zoom advantage was used in World War II, how it was used, and the source of the information is a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot, who aught to know more than someone playing a game.

It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

If the 109 does not accelerate faster in a dive, in the game, then there is an obvious lack of performance advantage required to Energy Fight in the vertical.

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

That would not have happened that way if the 109 was only marginally faster or not at all faster in unloaded acceleration.

There are many examples of captured aircraft test flown by the British and in each case where I've read the results of those tests the 109 has been proven, by the British, to have that dive acceleration advantage.

If that dive acceleration advantage is not modeled into the game, then it isn't modeled into the game.

There are easy ways to test these things, and remove all inaccurate opinions.

As to the question of turning there were tests done by British pilots and they concluded, in their own test reports, that the 109 "had no tendency to spin" and that is not modeled into the game.

The British pilots, in their own reports, were unable to turn with the 109 when the British pilots were not flying close to their stall because their planes tended to spin.

That is not modeled into the game.

The 109 has a nasty stall in the game, it tends to stall in the game.

The actual rate of relative acceleration difference between the 109 and the Spitfire can be measured side by side in level flight too, in the game, to see which plane has the faster rate of acceleration in level flight, in the game, which is also a specific way to measure Specific Excess Power, which is the most significant performance advantage needed when employing Energy Fighting Tactics, or vertical maneuvering, in Air Combat, according to more than one source.

If the game models the Spitfire with a smaller turn radius in a sustained level flight turn and the 109 has a nasty stall flying a larger turn radius, then the 109 is considered to be Single Inferior according to the information provided by Robert Shaw in his book Fighter Combat.

If there is no significant advantage in acceleration modeled into the 109 over the Spitfire or Hurricane then there is no Single Advantage, or none of this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

Which leaves Hit and Run tactics, or team tactics, to be used by the inferior plane if the inferior plane has both a sustained turn disadvantage and no significant advantage in unloaded, or dive, acceleration.

Then there is the matter of climb angle. It was noted by the British that both the 109 and the 190 had climb angle advantages over their Spitfires and Hurricanes, whereas the rate of climb may have been roughly equal or slightly more of an advantage for the German planes, in reality, the climb angle was steeper on the German planes, for some reason.

If there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game, then there is no climb angle advantage modeled in the game.

Back to this:

Every time i sit in a Spit or even in a Hurri I have a much better Kill ratio than in my 109. And that's the problem I have with Clod at the moment:
If you have two equally skilled pilots, the 109 almost every time looses. I have a good ratio if I fly with my squad mates, because then it's all about communication and discipline. But if I fly alone I feel like I sit in a defenisve-only plane. It's so much easier to fly the spit. And I'm just no sure if this was the case back then in 1940. And this is only early war, let alone 1944...

There is one other very important measure of relative combat performance and this measure of relative combat performance has to be understood by the player of the game if the player of the game has a concern on this topic of relative performance.

That measure of relative performance is termed Corner Speed.

Here is my first try at communicating the accurate information that concerns these relative performance topics:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34792

Corner Speed can be easily tested in the game, and it may help to know which plane has that advantage too, in the game.

This topic may be censored by the moderators when the Spitfire Lobby people begin to break the forum rules, attack me personally, and twist the information offered into some false version of it.

If that happens again, I won't respond again.

Dive acceleration is a real advantage for the 109 in reality, according to many documented tests for that specific performance advantage.

That was an advantage that was significant enough to inspire that British Fighter pilot to say this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

What gamers call Boom and Zoom may be, I don't know what any specific person playing this game may think, at any given moment, but that game term, Boom and Zoom, may be the actual tactic described by Robert Shaw as Energy Fighting, which is a tactic also described by a World War II British Fighter/Test Pilot named Eric Brown in his own published words here:

It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

If this:

"It was a small airplane with a very weighty engine and it could dive very quickly and it could escape very quickly so the tactics were largely determined by them."

If that is not modeled in the game, then Hit and Run, not Boom and Zoom, is the remaining tactic that can be employed by the plane that is modeled in the game as a target.

[NaBkin]

Wow, this is some sophisticated stuff right there. I wish the devs would read this and treat it as what it is: a very valuable contribution of a comitted customer!

Also I hope it's treated from the red pilot as a basis for discussion as oppose to the beginning a flame war.

Me for myself I don't have this much of a clue considering WW2 aircraft data but this post seems pretty legit for me, not only because it backs up my own experience that I have been having with the Sim so far but also because it the Luftwaffe wasn't been defeated in every single sortie they've made back then.
But if you fly on ATAG it's hard to imagine the Luftwaffe could've had a technical advantage at all at that time.
If this is for reasons a game can't simulate (like better coms, leadership, tactics etc.) or just wrong FM I can't say, but I have the feeling that something is wrong, especially that every single patch the reds had gotten better and better. So I think the man has a point!

Keep up the gread discussion!