Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

  1. #1
    Admin ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    119.89 MB

    Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    I just joined the “Battle of Britain Site” on Facebook and received a warm welcome from the Admins there. One of them, Paul Davies, just posted an interesting overview on the relative combat performances of the fighter adversaries. Some of the site’s members contested the discussion of the 110 by referencing anecdotal comments by some RAF pilots that they were “easy pickings”. However, I think the discussion below very closely mirrors the BLITZ experience we share every day on the ATAG Server thanks to Team Fusion Simulations!

    By Paul Davies:

    Discuss the Fighters:The Messerschmitt BF110 and BF109E fighters had advantages over the Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. The Messerschmitt BF110 was faster than a Hurricane, not too much slower than a Spitfire, and at certain heights as fast. It could dive away in a bunt, negative G dive leaving a following fighter standing initially. The Messerschmitt BF109E could dive away more rapidly even than the BF110 and was away across most of the Channel before a following Spitfire could catch it, again due to the initial dive rate due to the Negative G Bunt.

    The BF109E could also be faster than a Spitfire at certain heights and not much slower at medium altitudes also. It climbed better and at a different angle, it had a higher top ceiling and was better armed with cannon and machine guns than the Spitfire and Hurricane 8 machine guns. The BF109E could reach speeds in some models of 354 MPH and the Spitfire Ia could reach 355 MPH Some earlier Mark I Spitfires could reach 362 or above but most of these were converted to Mark Ia and were heavier and slower later. The Hurricane was slower than the other three main Battle of Britain fighters at between 305 and 315 MPH in actual flying tests taken of several.

    The Hurricane turned tighter than the Spitfire and both Messerschmitts although on paper the BF109E was the tightest turning circle of all the 1940 fighters but dare not get too slow in a turning fight as the slats opened asymmetrically in the leading edge of the wings. Designed to extend the stall speed further, these snatched and caused often a spin which at low levels a BF109 pilot dare not risk, so in reality a Spitfire and a Hurricane could out turn the BF109E in 1940. There were pilots who out turned Hurricanes and Spitfires however, it all came down to the pilots.

    The DB601 engines used on the BF110 and BF109E were more powerful in horsepower and direct fuel injection meant faster acceleration and a negative G combat performance also. It also performed better at heights as an engine for both Messerschmitt fighters. The Merlin III engines of the RAF fighters had 1030 HP and the DB601 had 1175 HP.

    For a Spitfire or Hurricane to bunt over into a negative G Dive, the engine would starve of fuel and the BF109E was away and gone in a negative Split S dive and away. The Spitfire and Hurricane pilots employed the half roll, pull through to inverted keeping the fuel flowing into the carburettors and then roll the way right way up to follow the 109, however, by then, these were too far away unless a sustained high speed dive was maintained and this took the chase often to over the Channel with waiting 109s or AA fire to contend with.

    The diagram shows the different technique for a dive and follow chase by a Spitfire or Hurricane in 1940 before a washer was put into the Carburettor by a Miss Schilling to help restrict the fuel flowing away, but this was a temporary measure until the engine feed was altered in later models.

    Paul Davies


    i7 4770K @3.5 GHZ, 24 Gigs DDR3 1600 DIMM, Gigabyte GTX970 4 Gig, Win 10 64 bit, TrackIR 5, TM16000 joystick, TM Warthog Throttle, CH Quadrant, Saitek Pro Combat rudder pedals

  2. Likes ATAG_Noofy, ATAG_TCP, danperin, SD_MBen liked this post
  3. #2
    Manual Creation Group ATAG_Noofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    GMT+2
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    373.36 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    No words about the G50?
    Gigabyte Z390 UD | i7 9700K @3.60GHz | 16.0 GB | Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
    T16000M FCS HOTAS | CH_PRO Pedals | TrackIR 5 | TeamSpeak 3.3.0 | TS Notifier 1.6.0h

  4. Likes biggles1666 liked this post
  5. #3
    Admin ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    119.89 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Noofy View Post
    No words about the G50?
    Nada!

    Imagine my shock!

    Being the new guy to that FB page, I'm keeping a low profile. Some of the FB members take a dim view of PC flight sims, conflating them with arcady FPS video games. It's a shame and is likely based on their lack of first hand knowledge of the painstaking level of research and attention to detail and accuracy that the high end flight sims adhere to - especially Cliffs of Dover Blitz. Nonetheless, there it is. I'm just using this (and other related FB pages) as a source of background info for the time being.



    i7 4770K @3.5 GHZ, 24 Gigs DDR3 1600 DIMM, Gigabyte GTX970 4 Gig, Win 10 64 bit, TrackIR 5, TM16000 joystick, TM Warthog Throttle, CH Quadrant, Saitek Pro Combat rudder pedals

  6. Likes ATAG_Noofy, Gingerbread liked this post
  7. #4
    Team Fusion Cybermat47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    817
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    2.68 GB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper View Post
    Some of the FB members take a dim view of PC flight sims, conflating them with arcady FPS video games.
    Well, I’ve met a lot of people on Facebook with strange views on WWII (such as the Nazis being a far-left group) and on reality in general.

    A lot of nice people on the site, but also a lot of people who are misinformed and too stubborn to think otherwise.

    Download the Blood in the Skies 1 mission pack here: https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.c...downloadid=106

  8. Likes SD_MBen liked this post
  9. #5
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    9,446
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    306.59 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Couple comments:

    First of all, Paul Davies post is a collection of mis-information.

    The 109E-4N was faster than any Spitfire at just about any height. Other versions of the 109E were faster than the Spits at higher alts... the fluid drive supercharger on the DB601's was much more efficient.

    The suggestion that the 109E could turn tighter than any other BoB fighter is complete nonsense and contradicted by all sides... both by German and British testing. The suggestion that the slats caused spins is also complete nonsense... the slats acted to counter the loss of lift on the wings at max. AOA... when they deployed they changed the aerofoil profile and increased lift... delayed the onset of the stall and in fact reduced the chances of a spin... they provided very benign stall characteristics. The asymetrical opening of the slats at certain speeds did caused a minor instability... a wobble which could put off the pilot's aim if he was about to fire. Other than that, they were an asset to a pilot in a low speed situation.

    The Hurricane when using +12 boost and 100 octane, was faster than the Bf-110 at lower altitudes and very similar at medium alts. It could hit close to 330 at medium alts using +12 and 100 octane.

    The DB601 engines did not have more horsepower than a Merlin III operating at +12 boost... even at +6 boost the Merlin III at Full Throttle Height had more horsepower, (1030 BHP) than the DB601A (1020 PS) at FTH. At FTH at +12 boost, the Merlin III had 1310 BHP. Only at much higher altitudes did the DB601A start to exceed the Merlin III in hp. The reason the 109's were able to compete with less hp was that their aircraft was much smaller and lighter and was overall dealing with less drag than the Spits/Hurris with their large wing area and span.

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper View Post
    I just joined the “Battle of Britain Site” on Facebook and received a warm welcome from the Admins there. One of them, Paul Davies, just posted an interesting overview on the relative combat performances of the fighter adversaries. Some of the site’s members contested the discussion of the 110 by referencing anecdotal comments by some RAF pilots that they were “easy pickings”. However, I think the discussion below very closely mirrors the BLITZ experience we share every day on the ATAG Server thanks to Team Fusion Simulations!

    By Paul Davies:

    Discuss the Fighters:The Messerschmitt BF110 and BF109E fighters had advantages over the Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. The Messerschmitt BF110 was faster than a Hurricane, not too much slower than a Spitfire, and at certain heights as fast. It could dive away in a bunt, negative G dive leaving a following fighter standing initially. The Messerschmitt BF109E could dive away more rapidly even than the BF110 and was away across most of the Channel before a following Spitfire could catch it, again due to the initial dive rate due to the Negative G Bunt.

    The BF109E could also be faster than a Spitfire at certain heights and not much slower at medium altitudes also. It climbed better and at a different angle, it had a higher top ceiling and was better armed with cannon and machine guns than the Spitfire and Hurricane 8 machine guns. The BF109E could reach speeds in some models of 354 MPH and the Spitfire Ia could reach 355 MPH Some earlier Mark I Spitfires could reach 362 or above but most of these were converted to Mark Ia and were heavier and slower later. The Hurricane was slower than the other three main Battle of Britain fighters at between 305 and 315 MPH in actual flying tests taken of several.

    The Hurricane turned tighter than the Spitfire and both Messerschmitts although on paper the BF109E was the tightest turning circle of all the 1940 fighters but dare not get too slow in a turning fight as the slats opened asymmetrically in the leading edge of the wings. Designed to extend the stall speed further, these snatched and caused often a spin which at low levels a BF109 pilot dare not risk, so in reality a Spitfire and a Hurricane could out turn the BF109E in 1940. There were pilots who out turned Hurricanes and Spitfires however, it all came down to the pilots.

    The DB601 engines used on the BF110 and BF109E were more powerful in horsepower and direct fuel injection meant faster acceleration and a negative G combat performance also. It also performed better at heights as an engine for both Messerschmitt fighters. The Merlin III engines of the RAF fighters had 1030 HP and the DB601 had 1175 HP.

    For a Spitfire or Hurricane to bunt over into a negative G Dive, the engine would starve of fuel and the BF109E was away and gone in a negative Split S dive and away. The Spitfire and Hurricane pilots employed the half roll, pull through to inverted keeping the fuel flowing into the carburettors and then roll the way right way up to follow the 109, however, by then, these were too far away unless a sustained high speed dive was maintained and this took the chase often to over the Channel with waiting 109s or AA fire to contend with.

    The diagram shows the different technique for a dive and follow chase by a Spitfire or Hurricane in 1940 before a washer was put into the Carburettor by a Miss Schilling to help restrict the fuel flowing away, but this was a temporary measure until the engine feed was altered in later models.

    Paul Davies

  10. #6
    Admin ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    119.89 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Ouch!

    Well, there ya go!



    i7 4770K @3.5 GHZ, 24 Gigs DDR3 1600 DIMM, Gigabyte GTX970 4 Gig, Win 10 64 bit, TrackIR 5, TM16000 joystick, TM Warthog Throttle, CH Quadrant, Saitek Pro Combat rudder pedals

  11. #7
    Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw View Post
    Couple comments:

    First of all, Paul Davies post is a collection of mis-information.

    The 109E-4N was faster than any Spitfire at just about any height. Other versions of the 109E were faster than the Spits at higher alts... the fluid drive supercharger on the DB601's was much more efficient.

    The suggestion that the 109E could turn tighter than any other BoB fighter is complete nonsense and contradicted by all sides... both by German and British testing. The suggestion that the slats caused spins is also complete nonsense... the slats acted to counter the loss of lift on the wings at max. AOA... when they deployed they changed the aerofoil profile and increased lift... delayed the onset of the stall and in fact reduced the chances of a spin... they provided very benign stall characteristics. The asymetrical opening of the slats at certain speeds did caused a minor instability... a wobble which could put off the pilot's aim if he was about to fire. Other than that, they were an asset to a pilot in a low speed situation.

    The Hurricane when using +12 boost and 100 octane, was faster than the Bf-110 at lower altitudes and very similar at medium alts. It could hit close to 330 at medium alts using +12 and 100 octane.

    The DB601 engines did not have more horsepower than a Merlin III operating at +12 boost... even at +6 boost the Merlin III at Full Throttle Height had more horsepower, (1030 BHP) than the DB601A (1020 PS) at FTH. At FTH at +12 boost, the Merlin III had 1310 BHP. Only at much higher altitudes did the DB601A start to exceed the Merlin III in hp. The reason the 109's were able to compete with less hp was that their aircraft was much smaller and lighter and was overall dealing with less drag than the Spits/Hurris with their large wing area and span.

    I was about to say.

  12. #8
    Manual Creation Group
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Heidelberg
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    197.31 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Never get involved in such discussions on FB and other portals like this.
    It’s not worthwhile.
    I know this from discussions about archaeology and archaeology between scientists and ‘interested amateurs’. There are scientific standards that each scientist has to observe (checking, evaluating and documenting all available sources etc.) to be allowed to publish in scientific papers.
    In Online platforms all you need is a strong opinion and rhetoric abilities. Instead of knowing you just need to believe. If you promote your believe in an entertaining way, you collect more ‘believers’ or followers, and the one who has most followers can shout everybody else down.
    Thus, this is a kind of ‘asymmetrical warfare’ in which one side has to stick to very strict standards and the other side can do whatever they want.
    As far as I know TFS is working in a strictly scientific way (as described above) trying to reconstruct and simulate the performance of aircraft. As with all scientific results this does not mean that ‘they know the TRUTH’, but that they do everything possible to get as close to it as possible. There is always information missing, and sometimes new information coming up.

    S!
    DerDa

  13. #9
    Student Pilot biggles1666's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    433.78 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Macchi

    Crew: 1
    Length: 8.85 m (29 ft 0 in)
    Wingspan: 10.58 m (34 ft 9 in)
    Height: 3.49 m (11 ft 5 in)
    Wing area: 16.82 m2 (181.0 sq ft)
    Airfoil: root: NACA 23018 (modified); tip: NACA 23009 (modified)[90]
    Empty weight: 2,491 kg (5,492 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 2,930 kg (6,460 lb)
    Powerplant: 1 × Alfa Romeo RA.1000 R.C.41-I Monsone V-12 inverted liquid-cooled piston engine at 2,500 rpm for takeoff
    Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed propeller
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 600 km/h (373 mph; 324 kn) at 5,600 m (18,400 ft)
    Range: 765 km (475 mi; 413 nmi)
    Service ceiling: 11,500 m (37,700 ft)
    Rate of climb: 18.1 m/s (3,560 ft/min)
    Wing loading: 174.2 kg/m2 (35.7 lb/sq ft)
    Power/mass: 0.35 kW/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
    Armament
    2 × 12.7 mm (0.500 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the engine cowling, 360/400 rpg
    2 × 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the wings, 500 rpg
    2 × 50 kg (110 lb), 100 kg (220 lb) or 160 kg (350 lb) bombs
    2 × 100 L (26.4 US gal; 22.0 imp gal) drop tanks
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by biggles1666; Aug-10-2019 at 06:51.

  14. #10
    Student Pilot biggles1666's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    433.78 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Noofy View Post
    No words about the G50?
    Specifications (G.50)
    Data from A Second String Arrow...The Fiat G.50[72]

    General characteristics

    Crew: One
    Length: 8.01 m (26 ft 3​1⁄3 in)
    Wingspan: 10.99 m (36 ft 0​3⁄4 in)
    Height: 3.28 m[73] (10 ft 9​1⁄8 in)
    Wing area: 18.25 m² (196.5 ft²)
    Empty weight: 1,963 kg (4,328 lb)
    Max. takeoff weight: 2,402 kg (5,295 lb)
    Powerplant: One × Fiat A.74 RC38 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 649 kW (870 hp) (take off) each
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 470 km/h (254 knots, 292 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)
    Range: 445 km (240 nmi, 276 mi)
    Service ceiling: 10,700 m (35,105 ft)
    Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 6.05 min
    Armament
    Guns: 2 × 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by biggles1666; Aug-10-2019 at 06:46.

  15. Likes ATAG_Noofy liked this post
  16. #11
    Manual Creation Group ATAG_Marlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Marlow, Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    945
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by DerDa View Post
    Never get involved in such discussions on FB and other portals like this.
    It’s not worthwhile.
    I know this from discussions about archaeology and archaeology between scientists and ‘interested amateurs’. There are scientific standards that each scientist has to observe (checking, evaluating and documenting all available sources etc.) to be allowed to publish in scientific papers.
    In Online platforms all you need is a strong opinion and rhetoric abilities. Instead of knowing you just need to believe. If you promote your believe in an entertaining way, you collect more ‘believers’ or followers, and the one who has most followers can shout everybody else down.
    Thus, this is a kind of ‘asymmetrical warfare’ in which one side has to stick to very strict standards and the other side can do whatever they want.
    As far as I know TFS is working in a strictly scientific way (as described above) trying to reconstruct and simulate the performance of aircraft. As with all scientific results this does not mean that ‘they know the TRUTH’, but that they do everything possible to get as close to it as possible. There is always information missing, and sometimes new information coming up.

    S!
    DerDa
    Brilliant, DerDa! You took the words right out of my mouth! Well....that is.....I wish you had but I could never have put it so eloquently! Salute!

  17. #12
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    9,446
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    306.59 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by DerDa View Post
    Never get involved in such discussions on FB and other portals like this.
    It’s not worthwhile.
    I know this from discussions about archaeology and archaeology between scientists and ‘interested amateurs’. There are scientific standards that each scientist has to observe (checking, evaluating and documenting all available sources etc.) to be allowed to publish in scientific papers.
    In Online platforms all you need is a strong opinion and rhetoric abilities. Instead of knowing you just need to believe. If you promote your believe in an entertaining way, you collect more ‘believers’ or followers, and the one who has most followers can shout everybody else down.
    Thus, this is a kind of ‘asymmetrical warfare’ in which one side has to stick to very strict standards and the other side can do whatever they want.
    As far as I know TFS is working in a strictly scientific way (as described above) trying to reconstruct and simulate the performance of aircraft. As with all scientific results this does not mean that ‘they know the TRUTH’, but that they do everything possible to get as close to it as possible. There is always information missing, and sometimes new information coming up.

    S!
    DerDa
    Thanks for your comments.

    Yes, TF tries to accumulate as much original source data as possible, we read over the material, study it carefully and compare the different sources... sometimes it is easy to overlook some detail with a few reads, sometimes a detail we see when we compare only comes to mind after weeks of study.

    Even so, there is the fact these aircraft are now 70+ years old... the original designers and manufacturers are often no longer either alive or in operation.

    So it is a difficult process to get 'absolute' facts.

    There is also the fact that while the CLIFFS OF DOVER engine is an advanced flight simulation modeler, it is limited by the fact it has to run on a home PC... and limited by the fact it is a commercial product which has to be profitable.... unlimited resources couldn't be invested... this is not a simulation designed for the US Air Force with no restrictions on price or cost.

    So every detail of a real aircraft simply cannot be replicated... it is simply impossible. The game gives an approximate/estimated simulation of performance.

    Still I think the game does manage to provide a good experience, and a relatively accurate portrayal of the WWII types.

    That is a credit to the original developer, Oleg Maddox more than Team Fusion.... his original genius is there... we are fortunate to be able to build on that solid foundation.

  18. #13
    Supporting Member IIJG27Rich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    29.64 MB

    Re: Discussion of BOB fighters on Facebook

    Quote Originally Posted by DerDa View Post
    Never get involved in such discussions on FB and other portals like this.
    It’s not worthwhile.
    I know this from discussions about archaeology and archaeology between scientists and ‘interested amateurs’. There are scientific standards that each scientist has to observe (checking, evaluating and documenting all available sources etc.) to be allowed to publish in scientific papers.
    In Online platforms all you need is a strong opinion and rhetoric abilities. Instead of knowing you just need to believe. If you promote your believe in an entertaining way, you collect more ‘believers’ or followers, and the one who has most followers can shout everybody else down.
    Thus, this is a kind of ‘asymmetrical warfare’ in which one side has to stick to very strict standards and the other side can do whatever they want.
    As far as I know TFS is working in a strictly scientific way (as described above) trying to reconstruct and simulate the performance of aircraft. As with all scientific results this does not mean that ‘they know the TRUTH’, but that they do everything possible to get as close to it as possible. There is always information missing, and sometimes new information coming up.

    S!
    DerDa
    I left FB ..couldn't stand it
    "It's not pretty. It's not "your girlfriend". It's not comfortable.....but it is extremely cool"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •