[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.

Not strictly true. An early Spitfire IX (with Merlin 61) is faster than the contemporary Bf109F, while the Merlin 63 and 66 versions retain this superiority over the G2 and G6, and also have better climb rates. The Spitfire XIV (introduced in early 1944, and almost 1000 built, along with 300 of the similar MkXVIII) is substantially superior in speed and climb compared to any Bf109 up until the K series introduced in late 1944, and even then the K only has a slight top speed advantage and climb rates are very similar.

As for manouverability, the only time 109's and Spitfires had anything close to equality is when the Bf109F was facing the Spitfire V (to a lesser extent also G2 vs Spit IX).

I am not a Spitfire Fanboy as such, I actually enjoy flying both planes a great deal, and if anything the Bf109K4 is the plane I spend most time in online, but the old myth that Bf109s are always faster and better climbing than contemporary Spitfires needs to be dispelled.

Hi, David603


Thank you for your part in this topic.

I already emphasized that the Spitfire vs Bf-109 generalization is "not strictly true", as redone by you in your own way. This makes me assume that you are actually agreeing with me and simply adding some more information into the topic.


Fundamentally, these were covered by me earlier:

1) Frontline fighter data is sketchy for many reasons and the performance of frontline fighters is different than a new fighter directly from the factory and also therefore different than the official factory and/or test pilot data.

2) Fighter variants, both factory and field modified, authorized and unapproved, added a wide expanse of new considerations. I also made this clear.

3) Deployment or location of the fighter variants weighs heavily in consideration of what the performance would be of two opposing fighters which encounter one another over the battlefield. Not only that, but it varied wildly from time to time. These factors made dynamic changes in the characteristics of the fighters which actually fought in battle as compared to one another.

4) Battlefield condition, such as wear, damage, added weight by repair, and modifications made the fighters which opposed one another have ever changing performance characteristics.

5)Generalization exceptions were admitted by me several times. Examples were given by me.



Experts in agreement
Almost all the experts uphold the basic generalization that the Spitfire was more maneuverable than the Bf-109, and the Bf-109 was generally a bit faster and climbed somewhat better than the Spitfire. The experts include the best wartime and post-war test pilots, as well as engineers doing controlled testing of equipment. Historians, who have examined the official combat reports and post war accounts, have concluded that all sources of information on the subject are generally in agreement. They acknowledge the generalization and also the exceptions which were covered in this topic. Included in their summary reports are the acknowlegements of the fluidity in the performance characteristics of opposing fighters as time, locations, and battle circumstances changed.


Summary
My summary was to acknowledge the wisdom of using factory and/or official test pilot data where possible for the sake of ingame fairness and for upholding the integrity of IL-2 flight model testing. Stock IL-2 flight models should be preserved for the same reasons. Directly related to this is the awareness that many IL-2 enthusiasts are confusing real world frontline fighter characteristics with the IL-2 method of using official data to create flight models. This is because frontline fighters perform very differently than factory new or test fighters. Subconsciously, the typical IL-2 pilot knows this but is frustrated and/or confused about how to reconcile the differences. At the present time, we do not have the skills or the technology in IL-2 to reconcile the difference between the performance of actual frontline fighters and factory/test data.


Commentary
With all the advantages of the Information Age and Globalization, human nature continues to be effecting practically every facet of World War Two history and simulation. Though it is good to question all information which is presented, a result of the Age of Enlightenment, it is quite easy for a person to be carried away in a habit of opposition.

A further condition of humanity, which was established in modern times, is the widespread use of controlled test data and sound methods of experimentation. This scientific culture is at the core of aviation and flight simulation.

The dance of hunches, myths, intuition, and the fog of World War Two combat can be partially clarified on a solidly built foundation of testing methods. However, this also requires that we see the whole set of circumstances. Some people thrive and prosper in this atmosphere of competing information and ideas. Others don't understand for any number of reasons.

General George S. Patton is given credit for revealing his thoughts of "Lead, follow, or get out the way!"

ACE-OF-ACES, on this basis I am glad to give you moral support in your development and presentation of flight model test data. We IL-2 fans are carrying a legacy to future aviation and simulation fans. It benefits humanity in a small but important way. The energy of the efforts will echo for a long time into the future. In the din of world information, the legacy is important for the sake of innovations and historical lessons toward better thinking. Better thinking creates more prosperity. All this is expressed in a small way by the fairness of gameplay and the social justice at work with endless potential rewards, especially for the young people who appreciate it.



David603,

Thank you for adding a fraction of the factors available for possible consideration-EXACTLY WHAT I DID. Though it takes us to wondering around the already established fundamental principles, it is an interesting discussion, none the less.

David, you made a positive contribution to this topic and inspired my response in this post. Thank you also for having civil conversation.