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

[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!

[JG14_Josf]

NaBkin,

There are very specific and accurate methods by which relative combat performance can be measured and those methods are described in great detail on the Navair links.

In particular, for purposes of your specific concern, a side by side test for level flight acceleration will show you, or anyone, which plane has an advantage.

If there is no advantage in level flight acceleration then there is little room to make any claims about the 109 having any advantages, since the 109 with the nasty stall and the significantly larger sustained turn radius and the significantly larger turn rate is modeled as a target in this game.

The historical record describes something described by Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat called Single Superior performance advantage held by both as the 109 had a superior Energy Fighting (BnZ in game terms) envelope and the Spitfire had a superior Angles Fighting (TnB in game terms) envelope.

The advantages either way were not as significant as the advantage held by the FW190A-3 once the Germans entered that plane into combat against the Spitfire V, and the early Spitfire IX, so the "better" fighter between the Spitfire and 109 during The Battle of Britain was marginal at best, where the Pilot was the determining factor not the plane since the Spitfire had only a slight sustained turn advantage and the 109 had only a slight acceleration advantage, so the Spitfire was slightly better in Angles Fighting, if the pilot knew how to fly close to the stall, and avoid spinning the plane, and the 109 pilot has a slightly better Energy Fighting advantage if the 109 Pilot knew how to avoid entering a fight with a better Spitfire pilot who starts the fight with an Energy Advantage (such as a better Spitfire pilot attacking from a higher and faster position in the rear hemisphere of the 109).

If you care to know about a very good test that can be done to measure relative combat effectiveness between two planes then I can describe Robert Shaw's Sustained Turn Technique in detail, and you can try that out in the game, to see what you find out when you use that technique.

You can also read the book yourself.

It is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat.../dp/0870210599

I can explain the technique with words, and I have used the technique in games. I had an IL2 Training Track File posted on the internet once too. It is a very valuable maneuver to know and understand, and it will show you, without a doubt, which plane is Double Superior. It is an Energy Fighting maneuver, which may not be indicated by the title of the maneuver, but that is what it is, an Energy Fighting Maneuver called The Sustained Turn Technique.

[Al Schlageter]

fixed

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

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NaBkin

But if you fly on ATAG it's hard to imagine the Luftwaffe could've had a technical advantage at all at that time.

This very much depends how and with whom you fly. There are some fantastic Bf 109 pilots on ATAG and they're joy to fight against - they are in command of the plane and they know how to use it to their advantage, they cooperate and they shoot very well - they simply use the potential of the 109 as a fighter plane 100% ly. I do have great respect for their skill and I have to do my best to beat them or even survive. I am not sure what is your nick on ATAG, but I can name you a few excellent 109 pilots - many of them from ACG (5./JG27, 6./JG26), many Russian pilots, some ATAG squad 109 chaps, I./JG1 pilots recently and many many more. 109 is not easy to master, but if once you get there you will find that you can have upper hand unless you make some obvious mistake.

Originally Posted by NaBkin

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.

Yes, but to be fair, the RAF planes were portrayed very badly to start with. The effort in last few patches fixed lots of issues and what we have now is much closer to the R/L specifications, although there are obviously still some issues left to be resolved... I suggest you fly for the other side for a month or so, you will see the things from different perspective.

[NaBkin]

Originally Posted by Robo.

This very much depends how and with whom you fly. There are some fantastic Bf 109 pilots on ATAG and they're joy to fight against - they are in command of the plane and they know how to use it to their advantage, they cooperate and they shoot very well - they simply use the potential of the 109 as a fighter plane 100% ly. I do have great respect for their skill and I have to do my best to beat them or even survive. I am not sure what is your nick on ATAG, but I can name you a few excellent 109 pilots - many of them from ACG (5./JG27, 6./JG26), many Russian pilots, some ATAG squad 109 chaps, I./JG1 pilots recently and many many more. 109 is not easy to master, but if once you get there you will find that you can have upper hand unless you make some obvious mistake.

Well, it's not wrong what you say. But maybe lets put it that way: it probably needs a too experienced pilot to tap the full potential of the 109. I also agree that in the JG27 there are some of the best pilots, but even they do complain about their plane's performance. Go on TS with them and ask themselves

Originally Posted by Robo.

Yes, but to be fair, the RAF planes were portrayed very badly to start with. The effort in last few ptches fixed lots of issues and what we have now is much closer to the R/L specifications, although there are obviously still some issues left to be resolved... I suggest you fly for the other side for a month or so, you will see the things from different perspective.

I can't really tell since I didn't fly red back then. It was too much fun to fly my 109 against the red fighters but I can imagine that it is true because it really was too easy to compete against them. And since I want historical correct FM on both sides I'm glad that the devs did correct this issues.

By the way, I found a good way to test and sort of measure the fighting performance of the planes: REPKA Server. I never tried ict because Of the map end icons and everything. But today I flew like 2h on it just to find out if I can climb out a Spit (I couldnt try it with my squad members because nobody was on tonight but I will do it for sure to gather better info soon).

So what I've found out for me personally (this isnt very accurate and 100% scientific but it it what I did experience tonight in like 20+ sorties):

- I CAN out climb avery other plane in my 109 BUT rather slowly. it seems that 300 kmh +-20 and 2400rpm is a good performance to gain as much distance as fast as possible (because icons and outside view are on you can see how fast you gain distance, very cool).
BUT can I escape from shooting range to a non shooting range fast enough? It don't seems so, unless maybe the red pilot is a very bad shooter. You gain distance just too slowly.

- If I sit in a Spit and a 109 does a rather slow BnZ on me, I easily can do a 180 turn and still be able to deal a few hits or even shot the 109 down. Sometimes I almost didn't believe how fast I could make that single turn and still being able to maintain the speed. I feel that the spit looses a bit too less energy in tight turns.

- If you don't want to die in a 109 you don't have to (at least on Repka). If you fly perfectly and savely you'll stay alive, but its pretty hard to shoot enemys down then. You have to be a excelent shooter and very disciplined (which either I'm just partially)

- Its very hard to survive in a Hurry though. if you do the right thing like a very tight turn just at the right time and let the 109 pass you, its very unlikely to get shot down, but also you neither can make progress and fly home, you have to wait for help, unless the 109 pilot looses sight on you (which on Repka dont happen because of the icons. But on ATAG it happens all the time, as well because of the blind LOD spot in about 700 to 1k meters)

These are the main things I found out today and I really can encourrage you to go on repka yourself to try it out and test your plane. I think the Sim is on a good way but stll has some annoying flaws.

Some things I want to test as well are diving speeds. I couldnt do it properly without my teammates but I will do it for sure.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NaBkin

Well, it's not wrong what you say. But maybe lets put it that way: it probably needs a too experienced pilot to tap the full potential of the 109. I also agree that in the JG27 there are some of the best pilots, but even they do complain about their plane's performance. Go on TS with them and ask themselves

Well I don't know. You need to be very experienced in any aircraft to tap its full potential, even Hurricane or Spitfire. And everybody complains, no matter what About own plane, about 'their' plane, about anything. The main problem is that most people usually stick to one side only and they simply don't understand what the 'other' side is talking about.

Originally Posted by NaBkin

I can't really tell since I didn't fly red back then. It was too much fun to fly my 109 against the red fighters but I can imagine that it is true because it really was too easy to compete against them. And since I want historical correct FM on both sides I'm glad that the devs did correct this issues.

Well there you go. Flying for the RAF prior to the latest FM reissue patch was pure masochim I wouldn't mind at all if that had some historical reason, but the gap simply was not as huge in RL as it was portrayed in the game. Difficult to explain if you didn't fly it back then. Some people still see that 'FM fix' by the devs as listening to the red agenda etc. Fair enough, as long as we have more realistic game.

Originally Posted by NaBkin

By the way, I found a good way to test and sort of measure the fighting performance of the planes: REPKA Server. I never tried ict because Of the map end icons and everything. But today I flew like 2h on it just to find out if I can climb out a Spit (I couldnt try it with my squad members because nobody was on tonight but I will do it for sure to gather better info soon).

I agree, I spent hours on Repka 4 practicing shooting and maneuvres, you will find that most of the guys in there fly the 109s on boths sides. Guess why Of course you can be successful in a Spitfire, but you have to be good. Even with the models as they are presented now, you can still outperform the RAF planes in your 109 - but your speed and climb is not as superior as it used to be and you can't afford as many mistakes as before. Flying for the RAF, you are still competetive if you fly well and smart, no huge complaints on my end.

Originally Posted by NaBkin

- I CAN out climb avery other plane in my 109 BUT rather slowly. it seems that 300 kmh +-20 and 2400rpm is a good performance to gain as much distance as fast as possible (because icons and outside view are on you can see how fast you gain distance, very cool).

BUT can I escape from shooting range to a non shooting range fast enough? It don't seems so, unless maybe the red pilot is a very bad shooter. You gain distance just too slowly.

So the first bit is pretty much historical and just as expected in the game - and I agree, this is correct. You can often get the 109 using good tactics and flying clean, keeping your E and chosing good trajectory. Some 109 pilots just keep climbing in front your guns because they 'know' 109 is a better climber. They are actually right, it is a objectively better climber and faster, just not in that particular moment.

The second bit implies that if you happen to have a Spitfire on your 6 you expect to extend from his guns before he shoots you down. Why would you expect anything like that, you did a mistake already if you let him that close, you still have some options, some neg G maneuveurs, barel roll or scissors. But if he's good you're dead, simple as that. But not because of the 109 but because of you.

Mind you Repka 4 has got overheating effects OFF so the RAF can fly full power no matter what (3000rpm) - you would wreck your engine on ATAG by flying like that or it would splutter if you go above 2600 rpm at certain altitudes. You can fly the 109 just like on Repka enywhere else. You still outperform any RAF in there, even on 3000 rpm yet on full real servers you're obvously limited to slightly lower performance.

Originally Posted by NaBkin

- If I sit in a Spit and a 109 does a rather slow BnZ on me, I easily can do a 180 turn and still be able to deal a few hits or even shot the 109 down. Sometimes I almost didn't believe how fast I could make that single turn and still being able to maintain the speed. I feel that the spit looses a bit too less energy in tight turns.

I hear this very often from 109 pilots who often underestimate Spitfires E-state (or the Spitfire pilot makes them underestimate it) or fly in front of its nose and climb in a nice linear curve. I often have Spitfires Mk.II turning 180 after the BnZ pass but they can't touch me unless I allow them that by making some mistake. I've heard one extremely capable 109 pilot saying thet Spitfire in a headon merge will do a 180 high G - turn and catch the 109 flying straight past him. I'd like to see that one day, we'll certainly meet on Repka and I'd like you to show me how Spitfire doesn't bleed E in tight turns because my Spit certainly does, that's why I am usually sticking to flying it as energy fighter

Originally Posted by NaBkin

- If you don't want to die in a 109 you don't have to (at least on Repka). If you fly perfectly and savely you'll stay alive, but its pretty hard to shoot enemys down then. You have to be a excelent shooter and very disciplined (which either I'm just partially)

I agree. Some pilots on that server are extremely good shots, they will get you if you blink too slow. Deflection shooting is an art to master, that's why I also keep practicing almost every day and you're right there, Repka is perfect playground for that.

Originally Posted by NaBkin

- Its very hard to survive in a Hurry though.

Tell me about it. But that's why it is my favourite ride, it is actually pretty good fighter, not as good as Spitfire or 109, you have to work harder, but is not too bad either. The good thing about flying her (even on Repka) is that you have to be really better pilot than the other guy, no mistakes, solid shooting, solid flying... bleeds E like crazy... Very rewarding for me. All imho of course.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

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.

It is modeled rather well. Since the last patch, every plane in this sim is portrayed reasonable close to its r/l counterpart, so the 109 is perfect energy fighter, spitfire is an excellent turn fighter etc. - just as you would expect. Of course it very much depends on the individual pilot skill, tactics and teamwork. If the 109 pilot is experienced enough in this game and good at energy fighting and deflection shooting, he will usually succeed. If you speak of an aicraft modeled in the game as target, you probably mean Hawker Hurricane - and that's a reason I like and prefer it as it's more difficult to be successful in it. In capable hands, it can still be surprisingly nasty opponent, but overall, you have to work harder for your kills and for survival. Good pilot is good no matter what he flies.

[JG14_Josf]

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

How is that perfection measured exactly?

If the answer is ambiguous then the opinion is just an opinion. If there is an interest by anyone, at any time, to get past opinion, and reach for facts instead, then there are very specific ways to do that, if there is an interest of course.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG14_Josf

How is that perfection measured exactly?

If the answer is ambiguous then the opinion is just an opinion. If there is an interest by anyone, at any time, to get past opinion, and reach for facts instead, then there are very specific ways to do that, if there is an interest of course.

Sorry Josf, I ment perfect for me - in my opinion of a frequent 109 pilot. I hope it makes sense now.

You go ahead and measure it for us - after all you were banned from the forums only, not from playing the game and flying say on ATAG. I am looking forward for any facts you provide.