[Fireskull]

Well, in my opinion it is still a beast of an aircraft in Il-2, a real killer. It's worth bearing in mind that the 150 grade fuel was only used for a little while and with several suspensions while in RAF service due to various problems such as lead fouling of spark plugs, so it's not as common an aircraft as Il-2 dogfight servers would have you believe by a long way...and given the fuel availability, maintenance problems and pilot quality of the Luftwaffe in the later part of the war, we see an idealised version of the Luftwaffe aircraft in Il-2 as well. I don't think it's so much of a problem myself in-game because I don't think that anyone would want to fly the Luftwaffe aircraft if they were simulated to be of poor fit and in poor repair with C3 fuel rarely available, but it's always worth remembering that the Luftwaffe had it a lot harder than this game depicts and so there's a much more even balance of power to the aircraft in the game than there was during the later years of the war. This and the very high average quality of blue pilots seems to make some red pilots feel a bit cheated, while personally I think it's brilliant because I prefer the idea of a test of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions.

Grunch, this aircraft-the Spitfire IX, has a relatively unique set of factors. I think that you only touched the surface of it, which is fine.


Above all else, I want to see the stock IL-2 FM remain respected and untouched for many reasons, which I will pass to another time.

However, relevant to this discussion is the fact that exact same types of Spitfire IX out the factory could see factors added to it later which would change performance in combat, as previously covered in these FM test data topics. Ground crews made both authorized and unauthorized modifications, which are impossible to accurately simulate with our present technologies and skills. Some of these ground crew modifications increased performance and others simply added weight.

In general, the performance of almost all fighters decreased with the number of sorties flown because of normal wear and damage from air combat and anti-aircraft fire.

In many cases, the authorized and unauthorized performance enhancements made after the aircraft reached the field were offset by wear and damage.



All versions of the Spitfire were generally able to take more punishment than the Bf-109. However, that could also directly translate to more weight on the surviving Spitfires which had repairs such as welding, patches, and addition bracing added by ground crews. During most of the war, Bf-109s would be less prone to survive battle damage and therefore scrapped in larger numbers. More Bf-109s were lost to take-off and landings than were lost in combat, which created even more of a condition of there being more new Bf-109s available. The surviving Bf-109 pilots tended to have more new aircraft at their hands than the Spitfire pilots, especially as far as front line fighters is concerned. This is a small contribution to the speed and climb advantage of the Bf-109 over the Spitfire, in general, among fighters which experienced combat. Another issue is the prolific performance enhancements and experiments which were done, authorized and nonauthorized, by Bf-109 ground crews.


My point is that there are too many factors for us to consider with our present limitations in order to determine an accurate fighter flight model for the typical one which has seen some battle, wear, and damage with repairs. Therefore comparing battle experienced fighter planes with factory and/or test pilot specifications is not reasonable.

The IL-2 fighter planes which we fly are essentially according to factory specifications at the beginning of our mission, supposedly. I clearly see from the data and know from experience that these FMs are never realistic to combat aged aircraft and sometimes also don't seem to be factory new characteristics relative to one another. In my experience, the stock IL-2 aircraft have better flight models than the modded ones, though the reverse is sometimes true. Keep in mind that I have flown thousands of hours in IL-2 over the last five years. I must admit that gut feeling is no substitute for controlled test data, unless I were a highly trained test pilot myself.


Oleg Maddox has taken these issues very seriously, bless him for that. Team Daidolos and all the other communities need another set of test data from an independent source, such as ACE-OF-ACES. This is healthy for everybody.



Grunch, in one sense, I agree with you that we should not get too carried away with considering the almost endless factors that can effect the battlefield fighter performance.



I must disagree with you, Grunch, on one point: Actual testimonies of both Spitfire and Bf-109 pilots from combat state that the each plane packed a hell of a punch in firepower and both were close enough in maneuverability and performance that the skill of the pilot was by far the most important issue. Generally, the Spitfire was more maneuverable while the Bf-109 was a bit faster with some better climbing ability. The skills of the pilots varied wildly from location to location and from time to time. Remember that this is according to pilot testimonies, which seems to shed additional light on the flight characteristics that remained true to the legends of the Spitfire and the Bf-109. I see clearly that we should stear completely from pilot skill and aged battlefield flight characteristics in our considerations.

Where I disagree with you is that we will never see the "ideal conditions" under IL-2 technology-it is simply impossible at this time:

"...while personally I think it's brilliant because I prefer the idea of a test of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions."

The ideal conditions ain't gonna happin' any time soon with IL-2. If you think that you have experienced ideal conditions, then I must write that we are not even close for many reasons, some of which I highlighted here.


Oleg Maddox might authorize highly advanced combat flight model characteristics in Storm of War. An example is the fact that the higher the rank and/or skill of the Luftwaffe pilot, then the more options the pilot had to have his personal fighter modified by ground crew. It was common in the real war. This is one of many factors not available in IL-2 but might be in Storm of War over the coming years.



We take-off in IL-2 on equal terms with factory level flight models at the beginning of missions. Do we agree that we need the scientific approach for this reason?: When we take off in IL-2 at the beginning of a mission, we are all on the same page with essentially factory new aircraft and all the fairness that this offers for those who view it only as a game. Therefore we use factory or authorized data for testing the flight models.

However, the real World War Two was not a game and nothing was fair about it. Ruthless advancements and modifications abounded, unevenly dispersed across rank and physical locations. Added to this, it dynamically changed with time.


Okay, so the IL-2 aircraft which are modelled by factory/test pilot data should demand the same data in independent tests where possible. This will reveal how accurate the flight models of IL-2 are to the same data, but only if a compilational average is taken of many identical tests of the same aircraft.

ACE-OF-ACES is clearly evolving his methods along these principles and he has shown that the tests are progressing in an orderly way. He is made it clear about his willingness to improve in the testing issues.