[Fireskull]

@Firescull

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.

Well,that is common generalization from the beginning of the war,regarding Spitfire MK I/II,and Bf-109E4/E7,which is somehow reflected on all future Spitfire models...it is clearly mistake.

LuckyOne, I see where you are going with this point. For frontline fighters-which saw the vast majority of combat, actual accounts show that this remained true until almost the end of World War Two: Spitfires being somewhat more maneuverable and Bf-109s being somewhat faster with better climb.

Now here is the tricky part for most people. IL-2 is modelled after available data, sometimes the preferred data when more than one source is available ( Such data is obviously debatable for use ). How can anyone expect accurate flight modelling of the frontline fighter, given that there is no consistent data on it and IL-2 is not actually modelled after front line fighter characteristics? Largely, this can be resolved in post-war testing. Expert test pilots who provided post war data proved that the generalizations about the frontline Spitfire and the Bf-109 were true into 1945. The gap narrowed with factory stock aircraft and was confused across types and subtypes. In other words, the trend projected through most of the war, a kind of parallelism, but this post-war data is often not available, only the test pilot personal conclusions. Because of this, there is disbelief and opposition to the generalization.

None the less, front line fighter accounts diverged from factory data, according to test pilots. The classic example is how Luftwaffe fighters in rear areas or marginal locations were usually given stock hardware. Frontline fighters would progressively be given more enhancements in favor of combat readiness. Rank and the proven success in combat were rewarded with fighter enhancements, which were expected to create combat results in defeat of the enemy. Several different technologies were used to increase the speed of the Bf-109, including various types of chemical injection into the engine, with different amounts of deployment and success. A few things were widely deployed exclusively to frontline fighters in the last several months of the war. This conserved resources and labor for better efficiency-rookie pilots not expected to survive long were given stock aircraft, for example. Though almost no reliable data can come from pilot combat reports toward an IL-2 flight model, the pilot combat reports do reveal that the frontline Bf-109s were faster and better climbing than the factory data for new aircraft, for the reasons which I revealed in this paragraph.

I am convinced that IL-2 is mainstreamed, so to speak, as The Grunch and ACE-OF-ACES agree. It is an over simplification, but it is made this way for the fairness of gameplay and because of the limits of present technology. Since IL-2 does not focus specifically on frontline fighter performance as favored over rear, marginal, reserve fighters, and newly delivered aircraft, then we should logically assume that the flight models of the Spitfire and the Bf-109 are supposed to be closer in IL-2. However, I can assure you according to both official data and pilot combat reports that the performance of the Spitfire and the Bf-109 did not merge. It might only be the case of the narrowing of characteristics of these two fighters in IL-2 as compared to the actual historical frontline fighters which were modified, enhanced, repaired, and had wear. For ethical reasons, we will not alter the flight models of stock IL-2 aircraft, so this proposal has been dead before it was born.

This confuses most IL-2 enthusiasts, but it is why we discuss issues in open forum. I disagree with you, LuckyOne on your point, but completely understand why you took your position.

This being the situation with many people instinctively or subconsciously bothered by the wide discrepancies, we see that the causes of the annoyance are in the awareness that IL-2 is not really modelled to simulate the frontline fighter. Along with that is the myth that the Spitfire caught up to the Bf-109 in speed. Among frontline fighters, this is not the case. In factory data among a wide berth of fighter type variations, the case could loosely be made for that but difficult to prove for IL-2 purposes. For factory new aircraft, the gap lessened, but for frontline fighters, the gap remained significant regarding the speed advantage of the Bf-109 over the Spitfire. Sure, there were individual subtypes which were the exception, but people ignore the fact that those were created usually to meet very specific combat roles, such as interceptor, fighter/bomber, and so forth. People often confuse the data on such aircraft as being frontline fighters in the air superiority role.

LuckOne, can you see that you can not be so sure of your position in the light of this understanding?

Therefore, I recommend that we continue to use factory and/or test pilot official data, and estimates if that is all which is available. The advantages are very numerous, including order, clarity, game fairness, and plain progress. This is the only reliable way to scientifically compare flight models at this time.