why does the spit now outclimb the 109??

[trademe900]

109 can now not get away from spits in climb and are actually pulled in by them.

What is the reason for this and how is this historically accurate?

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

109 can now not get away from spits in climb and are actually pulled in by them.

What is the reason for this and how is this historically accurate?

Not in my game it doesn't..

There are a lot of factors here...

Your Power output, Your Energy state, Radiator position, Altitude and Model of 109

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

My own experience is that it depends on relative energy states and flight/engine controls management. See what others say though.

[Kling]

Spit1a should b3 faster and climb better than the 109E up to 10 000 feet and im not sure if it does...

[trademe900]

E4. Equal energy more or less, pull up and away full prop pitch wep on and they will still come back and get you every time. You can not lose them in a climb.

Spit should climb better up to 10k , really?

[Sabrefly]

Spit1a should b3 faster and climb better than the 109E up to 10 000 feet and im not sure if it does...

+1

... if not to 15K feet.

Sabrefly.

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

109 can now not get away from spits in climb and are actually pulled in by them.

What is the reason for this and how is this historically accurate?

Sorry dude, I took it you were on about above 15k?

I thought it was common knowledge that it was a better climber up to that Alt..~S~

[trademe900]

Oh OK, I must have had it wrong the whole time then

[Mattias]

Oh OK, I must have had it wrong the whole time then

:salute:

You should be able to outdive the Spit :thumbsup:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Most of the time what people are experiencing is that bullets will outclimb their 109.

The E-3B/E-4B/E-4N will outclimb the Spit IA 100 octane even under 10,000 ft, but the difference is such that it takes quite a bit of time to gain enough separation to put the target out of gun range.

Unless you are carrying a lot of energy advantage over the pursuing aircraft, his guns are going to get you.

Another mistake many 109 pilots make is trying to climb at too steep an angle for their speed. Pulling up vertically when you are only carrying 300 kph is not going to do it. The Spitfire or Hurricane is always going to be able to pull up vertically too, and get that gun solution, before they fall back.

109's on the deck are better off to maintain their speed, and use it to get separation.

Only if you are a real 'Experten' and are confident you can out scissor your opponent and force him out in front of you for a gun solution, should you take the risk of being low and slow on the deck. And even then, you are vulnerable to a second British aircraft coming in late.

Or if you have a wingman, who is equally talented, then you can dice on the deck, knowing there is someone to clear your tail. In all situations, the more aircraft involved, the more the advantage of the 109's guns increases, as they can get an instant kill, whereas the Spits and Hurris take time to bring down their opponent.

Personally, whether I am flying a Spit, Hurri or 109, I don't like to get low and slow... it is a recipe for death.

[Royraiden]

Most of the time what people are experiencing is that bullets will outclimb their 109.

The E-3B/E-4B/E-4N will outclimb the Spit IA 100 octane even under 10,000 ft, but the difference is such that it takes quite a bit of time to gain enough separation to put the target out of gun range.

Unless you are carrying a lot of energy advantage over the pursuing aircraft, his guns are going to get you.

Another mistake many 109 pilots make is trying to climb at too steep an angle for their speed. Pulling up vertically when you are only carrying 300 kph is not going to do it. The Spitfire or Hurricane is always going to be able to pull up vertically too, and get that gun solution, before they fall back.

109's on the deck are better off to maintain their speed, and use it to get separation.

Only if you are a real 'Experten' and are confident you can out scissor your opponent and force him out in front of you for a gun solution, should you take the risk of being low and slow on the deck. And even then, you are vulnerable to a second British aircraft coming in late.

Or if you have a wingman, who is equally talented, then you can dice on the deck, knowing there is someone to clear your tail. In all situations, the more aircraft involved, the more the advantage of the 109's guns increases, as they can get an instant kill, whereas the Spits and Hurris take time to bring down their opponent.

Personally, whether I am flying a Spit, Hurri or 109, I don't like to get low and slow... it is a recipe for death.

Well put:thumbsup:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Turning while climbing is the same as turning level, it is an advantage for the lower wingloaded, angles oriented aircraft. The aircraft which is attempting such a maneuver has to have big advantage in climb-rate to overcome the disadvantage they are imposing on themselves by turning as they climb.

So the typical low speed spiral climb that some 109's attempt cannot sustain an advantage for them, the better turning Spitfire and Hurricane will show an advantage. This is especially the case if the slats on the wings are deploying. Ideal turn and pursuit angles for the 109's do not see slats deploy, thus preserving maximum energy. Only when you have a chance for a quick gun solution should you resort to angles which see the slats deploy. Climbing with slats deployed means a big energy bleed.

As Werner Molders, the ranking Luftwaffe Experten of the BoB said:


The best climb for Bf 109 E and Bf 110 C is achieved with shallow climb angle
and higher speeds than at the enemy fighters. It is wrong to climb away steep or climb
behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

and


An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of
existing superiority in performance.

By 'existing superiority in performance', he means more energy or speed.

As mentioned previously, there are some Blue side pilots on the servers who can prove me wrong, and who are capable of winning close in knife fights using the 109's rollrate, but they are exceptions and extremely talented pilots.

[Roblex]

P/O Peter St. John of 74 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 10 July
1940:

I was No. 3 in Yellow section patrolling over a convoy off Deal at about 10,000 ft. C.B.1200 visibility good. I sighted three enemy aircraft
below and to the right. I informed Yellow leader of them; we went into line astern and went down to engage enemy aircraft. On the way down I
saw another formation of 109's to the left and slightly down. Yellow leader had seen them also and we climbed and attacked from the rear.
The 109's split up and I picked one and gave him a short deflection burst. I did not have time to see the effect of the burst as another 109 was on
my tail. I outclimbed the 109 without difficulty.

Sgt. H. Chandler of No. 610 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 14 August
1940:

Attacked e/a which seemed to be above. Attempted to get on his tail, he immediately turned left to return the attack. We manoeuvered for
a long while, during which he fired quite a fair amount. I got two short bursts which had no effect. After about 12-15 minutes he tried to out-climb
me, I immediately went into fully fine pitch and easily caught up.

F/Lt Eric Thomas of No. 222 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 9 October
1940:

I was leading the Squadron on patrol at 30,000 feet roughly over Chatham. I followed 41 Squadron down to 28,000 feet and then saw about
5 Me.109's directly above at 29,000 feet. I climbed up into them and they made for a layer of cirrus, through which I followed them. I increased revs.
to 3000 and gradually outclimbed them and gave a 4 seconds burst into the belly of one enemy aircraft.

Note that the last account is of combat while climbing from 29,000ft!

At 9000ft with 12lbs boost (5 minute limit) the Merlin engine produced 1305bhp while the DB601A at the same alt produced a little under 1000bhp.
The merlin then started losing power above 9,000 while the DB601 did not start dropping until 13000 but never caught up and remained around 100bhp lower from then on. The unboosted Merlin is about 1200bhp lower up to 5000ft then the gap narrows to zero at around 12,000ft and at 16000ft is 100bhp higher than the DB601 where it remains.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

P/O Peter St. John of 74 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 10 July
1940:

Sgt. H. Chandler of No. 610 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 14 August
1940:


F/Lt Eric Thomas of No. 222 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 9 October
1940:


Note that the last account is of combat while climbing from 29,000ft!

At 9000ft with 12lbs boost (5 minute limit) the Merlin engine produced 1305bhp while the DB601A at the same alt produced a little under 1000bhp.
The merlin then started losing power above 9,000 while the DB601 did not start dropping until 13000 but never caught up and remained around 100bhp lower from then on. The unboosted Merlin is about 1200bhp lower up to 5000ft then the gap narrows to zero at around 12,000ft and at 16000ft is 100bhp higher than the DB601 where it remains.

All of your quotes are anecdotal, and therefore cannot be taken as objective scientific testing.

It is impossible for the narrators of your quotes to know whether the German aircraft they were up against were using full power, partial power, what their fuel status and weight were, what the status of the engines were, etc. etc. They also do not mention their own fuel status. Without knowing what the relative weights of the aircraft are, it is impossible to know which might have an advantage. Perhaps one aircraft had almost empty tanks, perhaps one had full tanks.

In your discussion of engine power, you neglect to mention the fact the 109E, fully loaded, was approx. 500 lbs lighter than a Spitfire.

In addition, your facts in regards to engine power are inaccurate.

Here are the power charts for the 3 main types of DB601 engines:

DB601A used in 109E-3/E-4

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6196/ttj7.jpg

DB601Aa used in E-3B/E-4B

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/6783/8jgl.jpg

DB601N used in E-4N

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/1978/vpmj.jpg

The following is a chart for the Merlin III used in the Spit IA, (the blue line) showing both +12 boost and +6 boost power levels:

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8094/65gx.jpg

I would recommend you study the charts carefully.

The Merlin III produces 1310 Bhp at 8000 ft.

At that altitude the DB601A at 1.30ata is producing 1070 PS, which is 1055 Bhp, not your claim of under 1000 hp.

And when using 1.40ata, its emergency power rating, not shown clearly on the chart, but it could provide approx. 1150 PS, or 1134 Bhp.

At 8000 ft, the point at which is the Merlin III's strongest altitude, the Spitfire IA 100 octane holds a powerloading advantage, with 1310 hp pushing approx. 6172 lbs, for a powerloading figure of 4.71 lbs per hp.

At that same altitude, if we extend the 1.40 ata power line, the 109E-3 at 5600 lbs has 1134 hp, for a powerloading of 4.93 lbs per hp.

Moderate advantage Spitfire.

Now lets look at 14,763 ft, where the DB601A has its full throttle height at 1.30ata. At that altitude, it is producing 1020 PS or 1006 Bhp for a powerloading of 5.56 lbs per hp.

The Merlin III is producing 1090 Bhp at the same altitude, for a powerloading of 5.66 lbs per hp, now slightly behind the German aircraft.

Slight advantage 109.

Now lets look at 20,000 ft, where the Merlin III is producing 890 Bhp, for a powerloading of 6.93 lbs per hp.

At the same altitude, the Daimler Benz is producing 840 PS or 828 Bhp, for a powerloading of 6.76 lbs per hp, it has improved its lead.

Moderate advantage 109.

Altitude now up to 7000 meters or 23,000 ft, the DB601A is producing 750 PS or 739 Bhp, for a powerloading of 7.57 lbs per hp.

The Merlin III is now producing 780 Bhp, for a powerloading of 7.91 lbs per hp, falling further behind.

Definite advantage 109.

The Merlin line runs out, I could extend it and continue the comparison, but the facts are clear, the Spit IA holds a definite powerloading advantage at altitudes under 10,000 ft, but falls behind as the comparison is taken higher.

If you decide to compare the lower alt tuned DB601Aa engine, you can see it will do better at lower altitudes versus the Spit IA 100 octane, and if you factor in the DB601N engine, then you will find it is a match, or better than the Merlin III throughout the altitude range.

I haven't included the Merlin XII which powers the Spit IIA, it has slightly less horsepower at lower altitudes than the Merlin III, but more at higher, so it does better than the DB601A which equips the E-4 throughout the altitude range, but is a little behind the E-4N and its DB601N.

I have also not factored in the fact the DB601 engines were cleared for higher rpms at altitudes over 6000 meters, for the DB601A and Aa, they were allowed 2600 rpm and the N models were allowed 2800 rpm. This is going to provide additional horsepower and add to the advantage they already hold.

[Osprey]

109's on the deck are better off to maintain their speed, and use it to get separation.


I am at odds with this since sources show that the Spitfire I @ 12lbs and 3000rpm is faster than the 109E4 by a handful of mph - even when WEP is engaged, which the Spitfire merlin should happily cope with for some time as long as it remains cooled. Is this not the case in game? I realise that there are overheat issues in 4.0 but I understood that these are planned for correction. If you employ this tactic ceteris paribus then the 109 will be reeled in.

I guess some people will then wonder why the 109's got away in real life. One major reason is that they were allowed to go since RAF pilots were ordered not to chase them back to France. A valid tactic as pilot lives were the most important, and bombers were the real targets - send the escort away into an escape dive = job done, stay high and find another to knock out.

[Osprey]

At 9000ft with 12lbs boost (5 minute limit) the Merlin engine produced 1305bhp while the DB601A at the same alt produced a little under 1000bhp.

You cannot achieve 12lbs at this altitude. The FTH of the Merlin III is IIRC 18,000ft, I'm at work and not looking this stuff up but I'm pretty sure the 12lbs boost can't be achieved above around 13,000ft and falls off to 6.25lbs by that 18,000ft mark (approx). Buzzsaw has these figures more in his mind though.

The 109 should need a lot of management at height though, constant raising and lowering the pitch to get the best speed. Steinhilper writes about this and it's backed up with accounts of people hearing the 109's 'droning' as the RPM changed. Interesting stuff at least.

[hnbdgr]

I am at odds with this since sources show that the Spitfire I @ 12lbs and 3000rpm is faster than the 109E4 by a handful of mph - even when WEP is engaged, which the Spitfire merlin should happily cope with for some time as long as it remains cooled. Is this not the case in game? I realise that there are overheat issues in 4.0 but I understood that these are planned for correction. If you employ this tactic ceteris paribus then the 109 will be reeled in.

I guess some people will then wonder why the 109's got away in real life. One major reason is that they were allowed to go since RAF pilots were ordered not to chase them back to France. A valid tactic as pilot lives were the most important, and bombers were the real targets - send the escort away into an escape dive = job done, stay high and find another to knock out.

Or perhaps you know... they were better in a dive so that's why they got away? that was the preferred disengagement tactic as far as i know.

EDIT: wording

[Royraiden]

I am at odds with this since sources show that the Spitfire I @ 12lbs and 3000rpm is faster than the 109E4 by a handful of mph - even when WEP is engaged, which the Spitfire merlin should happily cope with for some time as long as it remains cooled. Is this not the case in game? I realise that there are overheat issues in 4.0 but I understood that these are planned for correction. If you employ this tactic ceteris paribus then the 109 will be reeled in.

I guess some people will then wonder why the 109's got away in real life. One major reason is that they were allowed to go since RAF pilots were ordered not to chase them back to France. A valid tactic as pilot lives were the most important, and bombers were the real targets - send the escort away into an escape dive = job done, stay high and find another to knock out.

Osprey you missed this part:

An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of
existing superiority in performance.


By 'existing superiority in performance', he means more energy or speed

Buzzsaw was referring to the 109 extending away, for that to occur the 109 needs to have a significant energy/speed advantage to begin with.

[Osprey]

OK Roy well in such case I agree, however I did state "ceteris paribus" in my statement.


Or perhaps you know... they were better in a dive so that's why they got away? that was the preferred disengagement tactic as far as i know.

EDIT: wording

Well initial dive acceleration certainly and a lot of that was due to negative G cut out, the time taken for the Spitfire to roll over before diving. Note that the Spitfire has a very high dive speed (FAE dived some at mach .89 later in the war) and the pilot doesn't need to put a large force on the rudder bar to prevent slip either, unlike the 109. There are many accounts of 109's being caught following initial dive, even by a Hurricane in one account (a charming tale where the 109 pilot was allowed home by the Hurricane and post war a letter arrived from the wife of the survivor thanking him for his mercy), but of course we don't know the exact details and I don't think we'll ever have acceleration figures for these types either. However if you think that a 109 can't be caught following a dive then I don't agree at all, it's likely refutable too. In summary, once the dive ends, or the 109 reaches a terminal velocity, then the advantage shifts.

Please note that I am not a 'red pilot', I'm an historian and do not care for winning, only what is most accurate. Also, I fly the Hurricane so that pretty much sums up how much emphasis I put on success in a server.

Something else for Buzzsaw, I've noticed that post TF4.0 the Hurricane acceleration appears to be very poor compare to the last patch. Push the throttle forward, even to 12lbs, and there is little in it, the IAS creeps up. Obviously I'm keen to test this and try to get such aspects investigated, how would you want it approached? I could do some tests and recordings from standing, from low speeds and from cruising speeds, monitoring/viewing the IAS - but what can be 'proved'?

[Talisman]

Provided I can get/keep enough separation, I find it is fairly easy to escape in the vertical from the Spit. With separation, the trick is to climb at a steep enough nose up attitude that the following Spit cannot raise his nose high enough to get a guns solution on you. The 109 is able to fly at a constant slower air speed at a steeper nose up angle than the Spit, without overheating (having 2 x radiators probably helps this, LOL). Many is the time I have sat just under a 109 escaping in the vertical and I just can't get my guns to bear on him because he is climbing at too steep an angle for me and he just climbs away. Having noticed this, I perform the same tactic when I fly a 109 and it works a treat :)) All the best 109 pilots know this. Keep your energy and you can almost always escape in the vertical. It is all an assessment of risk. If you risk giving the Spit a chance (turn fight) then you may well pay the price. Limit the risk by flying to the strength of the 109 and all is usually well. Use the vertical and know your aircraft! It is very important to know your aircraft inside out and to know what optimum oil and rad settings to use for every occasion.

[hnbdgr]

Provided I can get/keep enough separation, I find it is fairly easy to escape in the vertical from the Spit. With separation, the trick is to climb at a steep enough nose up attitude that the following Spit cannot raise his nose high enough to get a guns solution on you. The 109 is able to fly at a constant slower air speed at a steeper nose up angle than the Spit, without overheating (having 2 x radiators probably helps this, LOL). Many is the time I have sat just under a 109 escaping in the vertical and I just can't get my guns to bear on him because he is climbing at too steep an angle for me and he just climbs away. Having noticed this, I perform the same tactic when I fly a 109 and it works a treat :)) All the best 109 pilots know this. Keep your energy and you can almost always escape in the vertical. It is all an assessment of risk. If you risk giving the Spit a chance (turn fight) then you may well pay the price. Limit the risk by flying to the strength of the 109 and all is usually well. Use the vertical and know your aircraft! It is very important to know your aircraft inside out and to know what optimum oil and rad settings to use for every occasion.

What? given an equal energy situation and 0.5km difference between you, you will never outclimb a spit by pointing your nose up high, that's a sure way to get caught and shredded to pieces.... you could do it to a certain extent in tf3.0, now you can "step" climb from what I'm told, but certainly not steep climb.

[Osprey]

That may be possible right now, I don't know because I don't fly the Spitfire, but is it right anyway? One of the escape moves for an RAF aircraft was a 120mph climbing spiral, the 109 could not to follow it, slats popping out and they'd fall away. Lots of accounts of aces being made by this problem.

[hnbdgr]

There are many accounts of 109's being caught following initial dive, even by a Hurricane in one account (a charming tale where the 109 pilot was allowed home by the Hurricane and post war a letter arrived from the wife of the survivor thanking him for his mercy), but of course we don't know the exact details and I don't think we'll ever have acceleration figures for these types either. However if you think that a 109 can't be caught following a dive then I don't agree at all, it's likely refutable too. In summary, once the dive ends, or the 109 reaches a terminal velocity, then the advantage shifts.

Whilst the tale is charming, if you look at this comparison (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf) of a rotol hurricane and a captured 109 - the brits have concluded that 1.) the 109 is faster than the hurricane by some 30-40mph in level flight (of course we don't know the precise altitude except it was inbetween 3-4.5km) and when the 109 went to dive it escaped the hurricane easily and "it was felt that had the pilot continued this dive he might have got away" (which is british for "that plane was faster".)

So in equal energy scenario - the hurricane would likely not catch up with the 109.

[trademe900]

Awesome analysis buzzsaw, has fully answered my question.

Thanks for that link, hnbdgr. Very good read.

[hnbdgr]

no probs.

on the other hand.. has anyone done tests on pursuing the 109 with a spit @ 12lbs boost? the figures I got are 498kmh for the 109 at full power (not sure if WEP engaged) and 312mph(502kmh) for spit with cutout - so technically they should be faster.... are they?

[Roblex]

.

At 8000 ft, the point at which is the Merlin III's strongest altitude, the Spitfire IA 100 octane holds a powerloading advantage, with 1310 hp pushing approx. 6172 lbs, for a powerloading figure of 4.71 lbs per hp.

At that same altitude, if we extend the 1.40 ata power line, the 109E-3 at 5600 lbs has 1134 hp, for a powerloading of 4.93 lbs per hp.

Moderate advantage Spitfire.


I am afraid you cannot 'extend the 1.4ata power line', certainly not to 8000ft! Simply put, the only way to achieve 1.4ata was by using the 1' erhöhte Abfluglestung (roughly 'increased take-off' ) system which increased the manifold pressure but used a clockwork system (wound up by opening the throttle all the way) to automatically cut out after 1 minute. Trying to hold the throttle in the Abfluglestung position did not stop the manifold pressure being reset and just resulted in an over rich mixture which killed all performance at anything over 1000m. The DB601Aa used a smaller blower that allowed the over rich mixture to work up to 1500m but then the engine starting dying as before

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I am afraid you cannot 'extend the 1.4ata power line', certainly not to 8000ft! Simply put, the only way to achieve 1.4ata was by using the 1' erhöhte Abfluglestung (roughly 'increased take-off' ) system which increased the manifold pressure but used a clockwork system (wound up by opening the throttle all the way) to automatically cut out after 1 minute. Trying to hold the throttle in the Abfluglestung position did not stop the manifold pressure being reset and just resulted in an over rich mixture which killed all performance at anything over 1000m. The DB601Aa used a smaller blower that allowed the over rich mixture to work up to 1500m but then the engine starting dying as before

I would suggest you look at the charts more carefully. Yes, the 1 minute clockwork does apply, but there is nothing stopping it from being started at higher altitudes. The power line of the DB601A at 1.40ata would extend in the same fashion as the DB601Aa, except that the peak is at 2000 meters instead of 1000.

And in any case, the comparative performance at lower levels is not the key issue, and your reply does not acknowledge the other facts I presented, that being the clear advantages the DB601 has over the Merlin III as we look at the power levels at higher altitudes.

And any attempts to make claims about what the FM of the mod should be by presenting anecdotal evidence is not going to pull much weight.

[ATAG_Snapper]

no probs.

on the other hand.. has anyone done tests on pursuing the 109 with a spit @ 12lbs boost? the figures I got are 498kmh for the 109 at full power (not sure if WEP engaged) and 312mph(502kmh) for spit with cutout - so technically they should be faster.... are they?

Not at this time. Low altitude performance of the Spitfire 1a 100 octane became sub-specification with the recent 4.00 patch, plus all the RAF fighters suffer premature catastrophic failures when Boost Cut Out Overide is operated per Pilots Notes. This will be fixed in an upcoming hotfix we were told.

On a very positive note the 4.00 patch has rendered much more realistic flight characteristics and performance at high altitudes (> 25 angels) where previously they struggled.

I'm not on Team Fusion, so Buzzsaw may correct/clarify the above. I do spend most of my time in Contrail Country in my Spitfires now. Flying the Hurricane Rotol 100 octane on patrol and in combat at 20+ angels in the current Storm of War Campaign has been sweet. :thumbsup:

[Kwiatek]

I think at high alts not only powerloading is important but also wingloading. Real life climb times from 6 km till 9 km give some adventage for Spitfire over 109.

Best known climb times for 109 E 601A ( 2400 RPMs) from 6km ( 6.3 min) till 9km ( 16 min) - ab. 9.7 min

Climb times for Spitfire MK 1 Merlin III ( 2600 RPMs) from 6km (7.7 min) till 9 km ( 16.4 min) - ab. 8.7 min ( without armour plate)

So Spitfire MK I had about 1 minute adventage in climb over 109 E from 6 km till 9 km ( if Spitfire MK I was not equimpment in armour plate behind pilot)

We known that both fighters could use higher RPM's settings above 6 kms - 2600 RPMs for Db601 and 3000 RPMs for Merlin III - so still Merlin could have adventage using much more RPMs - 200 vs 400 RPMs more. Armour plate begind pilot added more wegiht for SPitfire ( ab. 73 lbs - 33 kg) so its climb should be slighty reduced with it - so probably more comparable with 109 then ( although Spitfires pilots still clamied that they had adventage in climb at high alts over 109).

[Roblex]

I would suggest you look at the charts more carefully. Yes, the 1 minute clockwork does apply, but there is nothing stopping it from being started at higher altitudes. The power line of the DB601A at 1.40ata would extend in the same fashion as the DB601Aa, except that the peak is at 2000 meters instead of 1000.


I refer you to my learned friend; "I would suggest you look at the charts more carefully" :P

It would be pointless for me to restate why you *cannot* get 1.4ata at 8000ft, even for 1 minute. Do you not think it odd that no charts will give you figures for 1.4ata over 1500m?

I don't want to cause any embarrassment or bad feeling so I will withdraw from the conversation but please think on my last point.

[Osprey]

Whilst the tale is charming, if you look at this comparison (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-109.pdf) of a rotol hurricane and a captured 109 - the brits have concluded that 1.) the 109 is faster than the hurricane by some 30-40mph in level flight (of course we don't know the precise altitude except it was inbetween 3-4.5km) and when the 109 went to dive it escaped the hurricane easily and "it was felt that had the pilot continued this dive he might have got away" (which is british for "that plane was faster".)

So in equal energy scenario - the hurricane would likely not catch up with the 109.

Yes I know, it simply won't. I was referring to the Spitfire of course, the other was a story and I have caught many 109's myself because I had greater E, or retained it better.

[hnbdgr]

Yes I know, it simply won't. I was referring to the Spitfire of course, the other was a story and I have caught many 109's myself because I had greater E, or retained it better.

no worries.:salute:

Now then, I'm getting a bit lost in all these performance charts, etc. I wonder if there still are some documents at boscombe down, regarding spitfire tests.... being that I live nearby and one of my colleagues is an ex-engineer there.... I really want to ask him if there is a way to find out.

The only +12lb performance test I've seen is this:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I-rae-12lbs.jpg

which is from august 41, doesn't say anything about the conditions of the test and loading of the aircraft and has the +12lb noticeably scribbled in later.

Does anybody know any further sources for the +12lb speed?

[Kwiatek]

One document claimed that using +12 lbs incrased maximum speed from 28 till 34 mph depend of altitude ( not bad kick of power :) )

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-12lbs.jpg

[VO101_Kurfurst]

P/O Peter St. John of 74 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 10 July
1940:

Sgt. H. Chandler of No. 610 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 14 August
1940:

F/Lt Eric Thomas of No. 222 Squadron wrote in his Combat Report for 9 October
1940:

Dead men tell no tales...

[Hood]

Dead men tell no tales...

Don't understand this post. Does he mean that as they're now passed away that their combat reports have no value? If so then the opinion of every WWII pilot who is now dead can be discounted. Regardless, opinions are only ever that and cannot be compared to test data, and even test data should be taken as values within the possible range of values that could arise from different conditions on the day, drag on one aircraft that may not have present on another etc etc.

Either way the comment is disrespectful to those named.

Hood

[VO101_Kurfurst]

Don't understand this post. Does he mean that as they're now passed away that their combat reports have no value? If so then the opinion of every WWII pilot who is now dead can be discounted. Regardless, opinions are only ever that and cannot be compared to test data, and even test data should be taken as values within the possible range of values that could arise from different conditions on the day, drag on one aircraft that may not have present on another etc etc.

Either way the comment is disrespectful to those named.

Hood

I meant that you get a lot of post combat reports from the victors of the air combat, showing that some tactic was employed and it worked under the given circumstances. I mean no disrespect to those people who fought and risked their life, on the contrary. But there are a lot of variables - pilot skill, powers used, initial speed, condition of the airplane etc. - involved, however, which gave too much uncertainty to rely on these much.

You never get post combat reports from people who have tried the same and it didn't work, they lost the combat and their lives in the process. You never get combat reports like "I tried to outmaneuver him but he was more skilled, had more speed to stat with etc. and in the end he outmaneuvered and killed me." That what I referred under dead men tell no tales.

The point is that combat reports are always written by those who survived and this gives you a very one-sided, subjective view. The writers of the combat reports always won. You can't really rely on these to get an idea of aircraft performance - the winner always had some sort of advantage, but that does not translate to that under equal conditions (which almost never occured IRL) he would still have this advantage. However modelling always assumes equal conditions.

[Hood]

Understood - thank you for the explanation.

Some of the reports suggest nobody was the victor or anyone lived or died but in any case they were highly subjective.

I think there were some better reports from later in the war with the MkIX - equal energy to 10,000ft then the stage 2 blower kicked in and pulled away kind of thing.

In CloD I try spiral climbing after a Spit in an E4 on manual CEM and can't really do it - probably the wing surface of the Spit giving more lift at tighter angles of attack. In a straight line at a good climb speed (240 - 260 km/h) it's a different matter.

Hood

[Gromit]

Anecdotal evidence taken in isolation will not give you an accurate assessment, however numbers of reports by different pilots saying the same thing gives you a definite trend and cannot be dismissed!

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

The 109 does out climb the Spitfire in game. If you are having trouble with this, you need to manage your energy better.

The E-3 is especially difficult because you have to maintain a decent climb speed, ata, and climb angle. The advantage is small, so it may take you a minute or two to achieve any significant altitude advantage from someone chasing you from co-altitude. The more energy you waste pulling pitch or yaw to look behind you, the longer this will take. You can be as sloppy as you want in an aircraft as light as the E-1, but the E-3 just isn't that forgiving.

I suggest you first get some distance. Keep calm and keep your speed. You know the Spit is behind you because you just passed him. You don't have to yank up at a 70 degree angle just to get a glimpse of him. Start with a shallow climb, finish your beer, and then check to see how far he is. I find that ~300kph 1.3ata and 2300 rpm does just fine for a sustained climb; it just takes patients.

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

The 109 does out climb the Spitfire in game. If you are having trouble with this, you need to manage your energy better.

The E-3 is especially difficult because you have to maintain a decent climb speed, ata, and climb angle. The advantage is small, so it may take you a minute or two to achieve any significant altitude advantage from someone chasing you from co-altitude. The more energy you waste pulling pitch or yaw to look behind you, the longer this will take. You can be as sloppy as you want in an aircraft as light as the E-1, but the E-3 just isn't that forgiving.

I suggest you first get some distance. Keep calm and keep your speed. You know the Spit is behind you because you just passed him. You don't have to yank up at a 70 degree angle just to get a glimpse of him. Start with a shallow climb, finish your beer, and then check to see how far he is. I find that ~300kph 1.3ata and 2300 rpmdoes just fine for a sustained climb; it just takes patients.

In the E3 250Kph will be your best climbing speed :thumbsup:

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

In the E3 250Kph will be your best climbing speed :thumbsup:

Yeah, that's what the manual says, but 300kph feels better. I guess it depends on the situation. 300kph still gets you both separation and altitude. 250 gets you a better climb rate, but not so much separation. I usually wait until I have about 500m of advantage before I start climbing at 250kph, to avoid giving easy pitch up, pot-shots.

[Affe]

but it steel bizarre to see how the spit can maintain his energy on hard horizontal maneuver and climb like a v2. spitboy :lolol: you :confused!:

[aus]

I refer you to my learned friend; "I would suggest you look at the charts more carefully" :P

It would be pointless for me to restate why you *cannot* get 1.4ata at 8000ft, even for 1 minute. Do you not think it odd that no charts will give you figures for 1.4ata over 1500m?

I don't want to cause any embarrassment or bad feeling so I will withdraw from the conversation but please think on my last point.

Actually, the limitation for the Db601Aa is more a matter of supercharger size rather than altitude. What Buzzsaw is saying, is that this is not the case for the Db601A or N.

If you look at the Db601A chart, you will see there is, at all power settings, a linear decrease in power beginning at a particular altitude, resulting from the reduction in atmospheric density; which the supercharger can no longer compensate for. This of course is at a lower altitude the higher the ata setting. You can see this decrease starting at about 4,500m for the 1.30ata level. If you observe the different ata power lines, and the point at which they begin to decrease power with altitude, a line can be extrapolated backwards. This is the line which denotes the limitations atmospheric density imposes upon the Db601A (as atmospheric density is inversely, and linearly, correlated with altitude). If you follow this line back, you reach the maximum altitude at which 1.40ata can be maintained, assuming the 1.40ata curve is the same pattern as the others, which is of course a matter of supercharger design, and the supercharger design has not changed has it? No, of course not, that would be silly. Anyways, this max altitude for 1.40ata appears to be about 3,750m to my eye. I'm not arguing with you with regards to the Db601Aa, but again that is a limitation imposed by SUPERCHARGER design, not ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY. :)

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6196/ttj7.jpg

[Royraiden]

but it steel bizarre to see how the spit can maintain his energy on hard horizontal maneuver and climb like a v2. spitboy :lolol: you :confused!:

If a Spit burns a lot of energy and then catches up with you in a climb it means you are misjudging your energy :doh: It has been said countless of times, if you are to engage a Spit while flying the 109 your best bet is to make sure you have a significant energy advantage.Simply having a bit more energy is not enough and you will end up in a bad situation if you are not careful.

[ATAG_Lolsav]

If a Spit burns a lot of energy and then catches up with you in a climb it means you are misjudging your energy

This! 100% correct.

In fact let me elaborate a bit more. The keyword is not "misjudge", its plain "judge", as opposed to real facts. Judging is always tricky, because one´s assume the other energy based on altitude or momentum speed. A plane can be higher and end up with less energy when they both reach same level because the initial momentum was not equal.

As always, dont blame it on the plane. Fly it on its own strenghts. Long time ago i learned about altitude envelopes, ie, the diffrent planes produce diffrent ammount of power at diffrent altitudes. Its a tridimensional world (thats why its so fun), where surprises can happen.

For instance. On the deck the G50 produces a incredibily ammount of initial power, excelent accelaration, but it lacks pure speed. So.. in a theorical fight a G50 will always lose due to be outclassed by enemy performance. But alas, surprises do happen if the G50 pilot slows down the fight and then produces a quick acceleration, using it to his advantage. Ive been shot down by spits, hurricanes and 109´s (grrrrr ) countless times when im in a G50, but when i am able to turn the tides, because i outmanouver or outsmart (yes both work and ill take any of those) its more rewarding to me than using the turn tight allied strategy or the hit and run like hell axis one. Dont get me wrong, i use them too, but i like more variety the game offers. And i manage to have loads of fun in the G50.

One final advice for those who want to try this "machina": It has a boost (press T by default), dont try to out run a spit he will catch you easily. Just try to outmanouver (that does NOT means try to out turn). Do Barrel Rolls or Scissors or/and a combination of both. Use the negative G (push nose down) to throw enemy aim off. And finally, cry on TS for help before you get into real trouble ;)

[ATAG_Colander]

In short:

One final advice for those who want to try this "machina"
cry on TS for help before you get into real trouble ;)

[ATAG_Lolsav]

Colander the advice is worth to any aircraft, help should be asked before a pilot gets dead ;)

[Affe]

If a Spit burns a lot of energy and then catches up with you in a climb it means you are misjudging your energy :doh: It has been said countless of times, if you are to engage a Spit while flying the 109 your best bet is to make sure you have a significant energy advantage.Simply having a bit more energy is not enough and you will end up in a bad situation if you are not careful.

No joke..

but i say it's strange that the spit can maneuver at tight angle and maintain his energy like nothing happen.

[Gromit]

your obviously missing something there, tests have shown spits bleed airspeed in a turn same as everyone else, sounds like your the one losing too much energy by pulling too tight!

[Osprey]

Affe, next time we're in TS I'll show you the Spit and we can go and look for a fight. I'm sure you'll change your mind after that.

[Royraiden]

Affe, next time we're in TS I'll show you the Spit and we can go and look for a fight. I'm sure you'll change your mind after that.

Great advice.As Osprey suggested, flying the "enemy" plane, in this case the Spit, is the best way to understand what you are doing wrong and/or what the other guy in the red fighter is doing right.Take the offer Affe and get to know the enemy, it will help you improve your skills.

[Black]

No joke..

but i say it's strange that the spit can maneuver at tight angle and maintain his energy like nothing happen.

Not true at all!

[Bear Pilot]

I second Roy's suggestion to take Osprey up on his offer. Once you experience what a Spitfire is capable of from the cockpit, it will make you even more of a wary 109 pilot.

I'm sure the Spits you're encountering are losing energy in a turn BUT these are Spitfires we're talking about. They are turn fighters and have always, both historically and virtually, been known to be able to sustain turns and retain a relatively large amount of energy. That's what happens when you bolt a powerful engine to an elliptical wing.

[Wulf]

No joke..

but i say it's strange that the spit can maneuver at tight angle and maintain his energy like nothing happen.

Affe, from my own bitter experience on ATAG I am forced to say that if you find yourself in a situation where you are overly concerned about the turning and energy retention characteristics of the Spitfire, relative to the 109, then you 're flying the 109 incorrectly.

If you really want to 'dog it out' with the Spits down on the deck you can but you'd better have a squadron of 109s with you when you do it. Flying at medium-low altitudes in the vicinity of somewhere like Hawkinge, on your own, in a 109, is not survivable. Likewise, flying a Spit over occupied France at low altitude will have the same outcome. So, if you want to fly low in a 109 make sure you're on TS with squad mates. That way you can protect each other in the event that multiple bandits stooge into view.

If, like me, you fly alone, then you must stay relatively high (in relation to your enemy), if you want to succeed. Because you aren't going to know where all the bad guys are, you must stay considerably higher than those bandits that are actually in view. Attack from altitude and keep going straight after you merge with your bandit and then climb back up to altitude again. Never ever follow a Spit into a turn because if you do you've unwittingly started a turn fight you're unlikely to win. So, stay straight and climb. When you have sufficient separation and have re-established your energy advantage turn back towards the enemy and attack again. Shoot at him as he turns into you but never go head-to-head. If a head-to-head appears inevitable climb away from him at an angle. And finally, if your attacks fail to kill him and you start to lose your energy advantage, break off the fight and look for another victim.

[Dutch]

'why does the spit now outclimb the 109??'

I have never witnessed this. Can you provide a video demonstration?

:)

[Incog]

Affe, from my own bitter experience on ATAG I am forced to say that if you find yourself in a situation where you are overly concerned about the turning and energy retention characteristics of the Spitfire, relative to the 109, then you 're flying the 109 incorrectly.

If you really want to 'dog it out' with the Spits down on the deck you can but you'd better have a squadron of 109s with you when you do it. Flying at medium-low altitudes in the vicinity of somewhere like Hawkinge, on your own, in a 109, is not survivable. Likewise, flying a Spit over occupied France at low altitude will have the same outcome. So, if you want to fly low in a 109 make sure you're on TS with squad mates. That way you can protect each other in the event that multiple bandits stooge into view.

If, like me, you fly alone, then you must stay relatively high (in relation to your enemy), if you want to succeed. Because you aren't going to know where all the bad guys are, you must stay considerably higher than those bandits that are actually in view. Attack from altitude and keep going straight after you merge with your bandit and then climb back up to altitude again. Never ever follow a Spit into a turn because if you do you've unwittingly started a turn fight you're unlikely to win. So, stay straight and climb. When you have sufficient separation and have re-established your energy advantage turn back towards the enemy and attack again. Shoot at him as he turns into you but never go head-to-head. If a head-to-head appears inevitable climb away from him at an angle. And finally, if your attacks fail to kill him and you start to lose your energy advantage, break off the fight and look for another victim.

You have to be a damn good shot for those tactics to work, especially at 90° deflection angle. I read somewhere (in this thread actually, I think) that once you've hit with the 109, you extend and then start climbing at 400ish km/h once you have enough distance between you and your opponent.

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

Fritzi and Squirrel

The aircraft flying at Vy (best rate of climb speed) will get to 5000 feet before the aircraft flying at Vx (best angle of climb speed) but it will cover more ground in doing so.

Vx results in a steeper, slower climb while Vy gives a faster, shallower climb.

[Incog]

Fritzi and Squirrel

The aircraft flying at Vy (best rate of climb speed) will get to 5000 feet before the aircraft flying at Vx (best angle of climb speed) but it will cover more ground in doing so.

Vx results in a steeper, slower climb while Vy gives a faster, shallower climb.

Well put.

So would it be correct to say that a 109 at Vy will climb faster than a Spit at Vy and that a Spit at Vx will climb faster than a 109 at Vx ?

That's what I garner from posts here and historical accounts, very vaguely. I'm looking to confirm this from others.

[VMF214_Jupp]

~S~ I believe it's based on the "Fonzerelli Principle". Spits are just that cool. And I am a Blue-Flyer.

http://s7.postimg.org/exridd3nv/Spitfire_on_Startup.jpg

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

~S~ I believe it's based on the "Fonzerelli Principle". Spits are just that cool. And I am a Blue-Flyer.

http://s7.postimg.org/exridd3nv/Spitfire_on_Startup.jpg

Indeed they are mate

[Incog]

nice avionics in that spit :p

[Mastiff]

I meant that you get a lot of post combat reports from the victors of the air combat, showing that some tactic was employed and it worked under the given circumstances. I mean no disrespect to those people who fought and risked their life, on the contrary. But there are a lot of variables - pilot skill, powers used, initial speed, condition of the airplane etc. - involved, however, which gave too much uncertainty to rely on these much.

You never get post combat reports from people who have tried the same and it didn't work, they lost the combat and their lives in the process. You never get combat reports like "I tried to outmaneuver him but he was more skilled, had more speed to stat with etc. and in the end he outmaneuvered and killed me." That what I referred under dead men tell no tales.

The point is that combat reports are always written by those who survived and this gives you a very one-sided, subjective view. The writers of the combat reports always won. You can't really rely on these to get an idea of aircraft performance - the winner always had some sort of advantage, but that does not translate to that under equal conditions (which almost never occured IRL) he would still have this advantage. However modelling always assumes equal conditions.

by this very statement we shouldn't be flying this simm, as no one should be tweaking it because he said she said.. we should just tweak it by machine values and not by reported opinion's. :salute: