View Full Version : Something for the 100oct gang...
335th_GRAthos
Mar-22-2012, 05:13
Just in case you missed it, there is a very interesting post by lane at 1C
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=75
(fourth post from the top)
~S~
ATAG_Snapper
Mar-24-2012, 15:15
Thanks for linking this, Athos. :thumbsup:
It was an interesting thread with a ton of information in it. At times I left it, shaking my head at some of the arguing, but like the post you mentioned there was a lot of good stuff to read, too.
ATAG_Torian
Mar-25-2012, 09:41
At times I left it, shaking my head at some of the arguing
Thx Athos. Yes it seems this subject generates more heat than light. Oh well, at
least the good guys won in the end in the real world.
Winny does make a valid point in his response to Kurfurst "If they didn't have 100
octane then what they achieved in 1940 is even greater than I thought it was.
Truth is what happened happened, if they did it on 87 octane (they didn't, but I'll
humour you) then they are even better than I thought they were."
If the Spit Ia was a fair match against a 109 with 87 octane fuel without 12lb
boost capability then what they achieved was stunning. The reality is tho, as
noted here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html , pilots smack
in the middle of the BoB in Ia's were regularly engaging 12lb boost and out
performing 109s.
This, regrettably, is not modelled in CloD...a sim whose flagship was to be a
detailed modelling of the BoB. Putting in liberal access to the IIa would, IMHO, be
more realistic than what we have now especially in light of the devs
unwillingness to address FMs at this time. They must devote resources to enable
us to mount flak cannons instead. (Ok don't flame me, I couldn't resist) :hiding:
ATAG_Deacon
Mar-25-2012, 09:53
Thx Athos. Yes it seems this subject generates more heat than light. Oh well, at
least the good guys won in the end in the real world.
Winny does make a valid point in his response to Kurfurst "If they didn't have 100
octane then what they achieved in 1940 is even greater than I thought it was.
Truth is what happened happened, if they did it on 87 octane (they didn't, but I'll
humour you) then they are even better than I thought they were."
If the Spit Ia was a fair match against a 109 with 87 octane fuel without 12lb
boost capability then what they achieved was stunning. The reality is tho, as
noted here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html , pilots smack
in the middle of the BoB in Ia's were regularly engaging 12lb boost and out
performing 109s.
This, regrettably, is not modelled in CloD...a sim whose flagship was to be a
detailed modelling of the BoB. Putting in liberal access to the IIa would, IMHO, be
more realistic than what we have now especially in light of the devs
unwillingness to address FMs at this time. They must devote resources to enable
us to mount flak cannons instead. (Ok don't flame me, I couldn't resist) :hiding:
:hpyclp::hpyclp::hpyclp::hpyclp::hpyclp::hpyclp::h pyclp::hpyclp:
ATAG_Snapper
Mar-25-2012, 10:18
@Torian: how hard would it have been for the devs to correctly model 12 lbs boost for a max of 5 minutes? After that the engine would be fried, but at least it would make for more interesting dogfights for Red & Blue alike.
ATAG_Torian
Mar-25-2012, 18:31
@Torian: how hard would it have been for the devs to correctly model 12 lbs boost for a max of 5 minutes? After that the engine would be fried, but at least it would make for more interesting dogfights for Red & Blue alike.
Maybe too hard ? I'm no programmer so maybe that sort of detail is too hard to
model. If it is too hard then the argument for more liberal access to the IIa on ALL
maps really is justifiable. Remember 12 boost was available on Hurricanes as well.
I'm sure Hurri pilots would appreciate that capacity. Just irks me that the one
trick pony 109 jocks who are worshipped as such gr8 pilots are getting away with it
because the opposition has to fly undermodelled inferior planes for the most part.
A good 109 pilot v a good IIa pilot is gr8 fun with both having a fair chance rather
than the obvious one sided contest in anything less.
ATAG_Snapper
Mar-25-2012, 19:03
Maybe too hard ? I'm no programmer so maybe that sort of detail is too hard to
model. If it is too hard then the argument for more liberal access to the IIa on ALL
maps really is justifiable. Remember 12 boost was available on Hurricanes as well.
I'm sure Hurri pilots would appreciate that capacity. Just irks me that the one
trick pony 109 jocks who are worshipped as such gr8 pilots are getting away with it
because the opposition has to fly undermodelled inferior planes for the most part.
A good 109 pilot v a good IIa pilot is gr8 fun with both having a fair chance rather
than the obvious one sided contest in anything less.
I basically got ripped a new one for expressing a similar view over at the banana forum. After being accused of being "misleading" and a "hypocrite" I disengaged from the discussion. (Did I say discussion? Ha! :angrymob:). However....water under the bridge.....
In a different direction: how would the G50 stack up against the Spitfire I or Hurri DH5-20?
Recoilfx
Mar-25-2012, 19:25
I have no problem with Spit IIa on the server, as long as the 109s are also correctly modeled :)
It's not only the speed that Spit IIas can achieve, but the handling quality - a Spit IIa can turn on a dime and retain/regain much of the energy in no time. Also you can practically pull back the stick and have a sustained turn with no risk of stalling - that just doesn't feel right.
ATAG_Torian
Mar-25-2012, 19:41
I have no problem with Spit IIa on the server, as long as the 109s are also correctly modeled :)
Also you can practically pull back the stick and have a sustained turn with no risk of stalling - that just doesn't feel right.
Don't think the problem is quite as acute with 109 modelling unless the ability to
manually control slats is critical. Pulling back on the stick of a IIa too hard will black
u out pretty qwik...been caught out with that a few times. The added speed is good
but just like in a 109 u need to handle it properly too.
ATAG_Snapper
Mar-25-2012, 20:16
In the right hands the Spitfire IIa can definitely be an effective 109-killer, despite its negative g cut outs and 15 seconds of widely-spaced .303's. Our own Jack Morris downed four 109's in his Spit IIa last week before going winchester and turned for home which certainly illustrates the point. OTOH, the Spitfire Ia is a joke in this sim, the Hurricane Rotol being slightly faster but bleeds energy and enters accelerated stalls in an eye blink. Both are inferior as modelled in this sim to any of the 109 models.
Robo reflects my views far more eloquently in post #18 today here:
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1263-Video-from-the-server-ATAG&p=10031#post10031
Yesterday I chased a 110 that had been strafing the Beaufighters at Ramsgate far out to sea. In my Spitfire Ia at full overboost I could only watch him grow smaller and smaller as he outdistanced me with impunity.
Yes, I've downed 109's and 110's in RAF Mark I fighters, but never on an equal co-energy basis. The 109's simply accelerate and climb into the sun, far outpacing my pursuit at full boost settings. Then, at THEIR initiative they dive, shoot, and zoom up again into the sun far out of reach. Yes, sometimes you can dodge their fire IF you can see them against the sun's glare. You might get a lucky snap shot as they zip by while you're turning hard IF they flash through your convergence cone when you apply the precise deflection needed. So long as you don't expend your precious 15 seconds of load out. Since you can't out run a 109, your only option is to seek cloud cover (oh, wait....there isn't any) or if over terrain fly through the trees and hope the 109 hasn't turned trees OFF (what are the odds of THAT? LOL).
Yes, I can understand why Blue LW fighter pilots want to maintain the status quo. In fact, many want to tip the odds even GREATER in their favour by making impassioned pleas to Luthier to eliminate the RAF's open-canopy "SONAR". Certainly by flying with canopies open the Red fighter pilots CAN hear the supercharger's whine of the Daimler engine, giving just enough time -- usually -- to dodge the initial hail of cannon and machine gun fire if a split-S maneuvre can be effected. It delays the inevitable, but if caught at a co-energy or energy-disadvantage by a 109 pilot of equal skill -- the 109 pilot will prevail. It will just take him a little longer, but the RAF pilot can only dodge so many times against a diving aircraft out of the sun's glare.
I rarely get to fly a Spitfire IIa online. They get snapped up so darn fast. It DOES feel empowering to get your hands on one, but care must be taken not to get sloppy or careless. It still takes good maneuvering and marksmanship in a IIa to down a well-flown 109. However, to match and even exceed a 109 in a climb or in a dive for a change is exhilarating. It's a wonderful feeling that I can well understand the Blue 109 pilots do not wish to give up!
ATAG_Torian
Mar-25-2012, 21:43
The 109's simply accelerate and climb into the sun, far outpacing my pursuit at full boost settings.
My point is that I don't think we are actually getting much if any boost at all. Try
it with and without flipping the boost cutout. Bet there is little if any difference.
This is the Mark Is I'm talking about (Hurri or Spit). Hitting boost is supposed to be
a noticeable power surge. We just don't have that modelled at all in this.
I mean we are all still gonna fly and use what we get but the adulation accorded
to certain 109 pilots who won't fly Brit planes (or anything other than a 109) is,
quite frankly, nauseating. Level the playing field with more IIa's and lets see how
good they really are. At least these guys rarely bother me in a Blenhiem. They are
usually skulking over fighter bases. The pilots I admire are the ones who take me
down defending their teams objectives...like in the real BoB.
ATAG_Snapper
Mar-25-2012, 21:51
Re boost: yeah, the boost needle, at sea level and 2500 rpms, climbs from 6.25 lbs to 6.50 lbs when boost cutoff is engaged. There is no noticeable increase in speed. In fact, there is more of an effect when I close my radiator from wide open to 50% open. :0: How the devs missed this is impossible to understand.
335th_GRAthos
Mar-26-2012, 04:09
Don't think the problem is quite as acute with 109 modelling unless the ability to manually control slats is critical.
A side comment for historical correctness, the Bf109 slats were automatic without any posibility to manually control them.
~S~
ATAG_Torian
Mar-26-2012, 20:06
A side comment for historical correctness, the Bf109 slats were automatic without any posibility to manually control them.
~S~
Thx Athos. There is a control setting for them so wasn't sure whether they were
auto or not. Are they modelled to work in the sim ? Can't say I recall seeing them
deploy in flight but may be missing them in the heat of combat.
335th_GRAthos
Mar-27-2012, 04:10
The Bf109 slats, I have seen them move while on the ground but never saw them while in the air.
If they are modelled in the game?... he, he, that is a trap, right!? :hiding2:
:bgsmile:
~S~
Thx Athos. There is a control setting for them so wasn't sure whether they were
auto or not. Are they modelled to work in the sim ? Can't say I recall seeing them
deploy in flight but may be missing them in the heat of combat.
The manual slat control is for the Tiger Moth. As Athos says, the 109s were automatic from a British design by Avro (I think, or was it Handley-Page? I'll check!). Airflow determines at what speed/rate of turn they deploy.
Now I don't fly 109s but did try it out offline just to see if the slats worked. If you start a turn and increase the rate of turn as speed drops, just as you think you're going to stall, - Bang! - out pop the slats, giving a very tight turn radius. It works just as I'd imagined it to. Cool feature.
[FFCW]Urizen
Mar-29-2012, 22:27
Now I don't fly 109s but did try it out offline just to see if the slats worked. If you start a turn and increase the rate of turn as speed drops, just as you think you're going to stall, - Bang! - out pop the slats, giving a very tight turn radius. It works just as I'd imagined it to. Cool feature.
Thatґs the way to deploy them, can be handy if you are caught in a turn fight :angrymob:
335th_GRAthos
Apr-20-2012, 06:08
Something interesting happened there:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110&page=110
The problem here is the behaviour of one poster in particular.
In the case of nztyphoon at least, he is accurately posting information from a previous 'discussion' elsewhere in which Kurfurst misrepresented my reserarch and my personal views. I note Kurfurst is doing this again to further his own rather selective and ahistoric views on the use of 100-octane fuel in the Battle of Britain.
In my case I went to the trouble of researching the issue and then publishing an article on it in a respected peer-review publication. I've received a fair number of inquiries as a response, most of which have been genuine expressions of interest from people interested in the subject, and I've generally been happy to pass on further details from my research in response. However, since Kurfurst started up in about 2009 I've had about as many inquiries from people questioning me on the basis of what they've read about my work in online debates started by Kurfurst.
In the case of Kurfurst, nobody claiming to be him has ever attempted to contact me before repeatedly misrepresenting my views, and then accusing me of impersonating myself, and all on public forums. This has been done on ww2aircraft.net, wikipedia and now here.
This is discreditable to the point of being comic, but in my view a more serious issue for anybody who wants these internet dicussion forums to be taken seriously is the way in which more responsible contributors are forced on to an equivalent level with participants such as Kurfurst by the editorial approach on forums such as this. There is no illusiary middle-ground to be found here; Kurfurst's behaviour has clearly been (and apparently remains) ahistorical mendacity. Anybody in any doubt about this should familiarise themselves with the details of Kurfurst's behaviour as posted previously.
One minor result of this is that I don't feel any encouragement to contribute anything to sites like this or ww2aircraft.net because there is little or no value to be had from being pressured by lies to engage in 'debates' where genuine information and discussion is so consistently distorted by the activities of trolls.
I don't gain anything from this. Quite the opposite. In fact, even when I don't participate in the discussion, as a result of Kurfurst's behaviour I am forced to waste time that I would prefer to spend completing a new book in dealing with three-year old canards which have already been refuted. But the alternative is that the only exposure many will have to my work is through the wilful distortions of Kurfurst. Therefore I'm indebted to people like nztyphoon who have actually taken the trouble to challenge Kurfurst's views and accurately represent mine. The evidence posted by several people in response to Kurfurst has been genuinely informative, and I'd like to thank them for the effort.
One last point. I'm not that concerned with specific responses to Kurfurst, as he has been refuted before, and given his inability to modify his views or posting behaviour in response to evidence, continued debate with him is a waste of time and effort. However, the allegation that I hold anti-American views is a new departure, and I'd like to respond to that here.
In my view, the development of the Anglo-American alliance was both a fundamentally-important objective of British strategy, and was also critical to a successful outcome of the Second World War. However, any understanding the historical reality of how that alliance developed and how that war was fought must proceed from the historical evidence, regardless of any impact that has on post facto anti- or pro-American or British views held more than sixty years later.
If anybody wants to, they can contact me via the email address given on my departmental website -
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/
In the meantime, I suggest a more constructive approach would be to ignore Kurfurst and concentrate on the evidence other posters have already provided here and elsewhere which refutes Kurfurst's views but is also of larger historical interest.
Gavin Bailey
~S~
ATAG_Septic
Apr-20-2012, 07:35
Somewhat absentmindedly, I got drawn into reading the thread. I'm staggered at the effort people are putting into their disagreements. It's actually quite entertaining, there's allegations about posting under false names, threats of disclosure about academic wrongdoings to academic establishments, deliberate falsifications and I would not be surprised if pistols are not required at dawn before long!
I thought I had too much time on my hands nowadays.
Septic.
335th_GRAthos
Apr-20-2012, 07:42
...I would not be surprised if pistols are not required at dawn before long!
Oh that, has already been taken care of...;)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31199&page=13
You are right, too much free time...
~S~
Absolute madness.
I only login for info purposes, and post minimal questions/responses these days.
335th_GRAthos
Apr-20-2012, 15:42
OK guys,
I know I am too close to "trolling" but there are two posts that would be a pity to go unnoticed but I do not want to make a separate thread in the off -topic for this.
I had tears in my eyes laughing:
One picture, one thousand words (ok, ok, it is two pictures):
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=412224&postcount=23
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/JG52Uther/ignore.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/JG52Uther/cigar.jpg
And
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=412270&postcount=40
this thread just reached the Epic Facepalm mark :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E
There is still good humor after all :bgsmile:
~S~
PS. sorry for the OT
ATAG_Snapper
Apr-20-2012, 17:24
Hahaha! That is a classic post! (meaning very, very good! :thumbsup: )
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.