[David603]

@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.

[LuckyOne]

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.

My point and historical fact too.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Also beware anyone that trys to overwhelm you by simply posting a bunch of links to multiple reports

Under the guise that you should simply trust them that they made the right choice between which data to use

What are you referring to?

Its rhetorical, Ace, so don't answer it and like i said i'm not attmepting to single you out, you just pushed me to answer you more concretely and your previous post was a prime example.

i think this attitude is unhealthy for building, and i know you are not the only one to adopt this attitude and that you don't always reflect this attitude 100 percent of the time.

A researcher should be unbiased and willing to consider all data presented to them and leave their own thoughts at the door, agreed?

"The most simple explanation is often the correct one."

I was making no specific reference to anything, i just offer it as a wise suggestion when approaching data that people seem to have such differing opinions over.

I guess in my mind i'm hoping that we see one version of the sim one day, and i really get tired of seeing repeatedly toxic spats that only seem to disrupt any progress toward unity. This goes for everyone, including myself.

that's all

Bill

Since the comment you quoted of mine had noting to do with you

I won't bother replying to anything you said in responce to it

It was in reference to what FireSkull alluided to, not you

[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.

[LuckyOne]

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.

Share with us names and science works of those experts....please.Only place where I constantly read about that artificial equalization of some Spitfire and some Bf-109 is on internet forums and Osprey series....

[Fireskull]

LuckyOne,


The two most important are 1C: Maddox Games and Team Daidolos. Numerous publications which include the issue of the Spitfire compared to the Bf-109 have been available.


Note: Edited by Fireskull

[David603]

@Fireskull.

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.

This is the specific sentence I wrote my earlier post in reply to.

While I mostly agree with your point, for example while the Spitfire IX did outperform the Bf109F when brought into service in July 1942, the older Spitfire V remained the most common Mark into at least September or October of that year, and for even longer outside the UK based RAF squadrons.

Similarly, while the MkXIV did hold superior speed and climb performance over any version of Bf109 up until the K, the most common Spitfire in service throughout that period was of course the MkIX, and the late model G versions of the Bf109 are at least faster in a straight line, although not superior in climb rate.

A real superiority in speed and climb by the standard Spitfire in service over the standard Bf109 was only be held between the widescale introduction to service of the later versions of the Spitfire IX (Merlin 63 and 66) in mid 1943 and the service debut of the Bf109G10 and G14 in late 1944 (thanks to heavy losses of earlier G models at this time, the late model G's rapidly became the most common version in service).

Still, this is a period of more than a year when the standard service Spitfire was faster and climbed better than the standard service Bf109, hence what I was saying about it not being entirely true that the Bf109 enjoyed a margin of superiority over the Spitfire in these aspects throughout the war.

Regards

[Fireskull]

David,

The proper context for this was covered in my previous posts.

Frontline fighter performance varied wildly. It especially departs from official factory and test pilot data.

You seem to be largely missing the magnitude of this reality, but I will let it rest in peace.

I like your interest in this topic.

[David603]

David,

The proper context for this was covered in my previous posts.

Frontline fighter performance varied wildly. It especially departs from official factory and test pilot data.

You seem to be largely missing the magnitude of this reality, but I will let it rest in peace.

I like your interest in this topic.

I would agree that frontline fighter performance did differ substantially from data recorded by test pilots in factory fresh aircraft and prototypes, but I'm curious as to why you think this difference would be beneficial to the Bf109 in such a way as to overcome the period of superiority in speed and climb rate the Spitfire IX enjoyed over the early-mid G models of the Bf109.

Surely the falling standards of production and field servicing in Germany towards the end of the war would penalise the Bf109 more than the Spitfire? Also, while I can accept that there may have been field modifications that would have boosted performance of individual Bf109s, surely these can't have been applied on a sufficiently widescale basis so as to make a typical Bf109 in service outperform a typical Spitfire in service over this period? C3 Grade fuel for example was in service, but in strictly limited quantities.

Regards

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Frontline fighter performance varied wildly. It especially departs from official factory and test pilot data.

and

I would agree that frontline fighter performance did differ substantially from data recorded by test pilots in factory fresh aircraft and prototypes,

Just wondering what these statements are based on..

Can you give me an example?

Reason I ask is this 'idea' seems to be a common one

I myself have held the same 'idea' for years

But to be honest I don't have documentation to support that 'idea'

That and I think it means different things to differnt people

My 'idea' goes like this

Rolling off the assembly line, a Henry Ford type where variance is minimized you would have some variances

But they would most likely be small

So small that you probably wouldn

[LuckyOne]

LuckyOne,
The two most important are 1C: Maddox Games and Team Daidolos.
Note: Edited by Fireskull

No my friend,1C: Maddox Games and Team Daidolos.they are still amateurs and over all...they are business mans.

Numerous publications which include the issue of the Spitfire compared to the Bf-109 have been available.

Well I know that,but I am interested in those "Numerous publications" which equalize some Spitfire and some Bf-109....and I do not want to hear word Osprey and similar based or amateur publications.

[David603]

Frontline fighter performance varied wildly. It especially departs from official factory and test pilot data.

and

I would agree that frontline fighter performance did differ substantially from data recorded by test pilots in factory fresh aircraft and prototypes,

Just wondering what these statements are based on..

Can you give me an example?

I can give you two just off the top of my head.

Clapped out Hurricane MkI's refitted for service late in BoB had substantially lower performance than factory fresh examples, in some cases as low as 305mph top speed.

Late in the P40's service life, many Allison engined models were modified in the field to run at 72" boost with a re-geared supercharger, giving an output of just over 1500hp at sea level, substantially boosting the P40's low level speed but exacerbating the power problems higher up.
[quote="ACE-OF-ACES"]Reason I ask is this 'idea' seems to be a common one

I myself have held the same 'idea' for years

But to be honest I don't have documentation to support that 'idea'

That and I think it means different things to differnt people

My 'idea' goes like this

Rolling off the assembly line, a Henry Ford type where variance is minimized you would have some variances

But they would most likely be small

So small that you probably wouldn

[David603]

LuckyOne,
The two most important are 1C: Maddox Games and Team Daidolos.
Note: Edited by Fireskull

No my friend,1C: Maddox Games and Team Daidolos.they are still amateurs and over all...they are business mans.

Not so. Oleg Maddox has spent 12 years building WWII flight sims and was an aircraft designer before he started working in the game industry (he designed the Su-26 acrobatic aircraft). If that does not make him an expert I dread to imagine what your requirements are.

Daidalus Team are not working for money (so they are not business men), and are very knowledgeable indeed about aircraft, so while they may not all be experts they at least know what they are doing, and where to go for truly expert advice.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I can give you two just off the top of my head.

Clapped out Hurricane MkI's refitted for service late in BoB had substantially lower performance than factory fresh examples, in some cases as low as 305mph top speed.

Late in the P40's service life, many Allison engined models were modified in the field to run at 72" boost with a re-geared supercharger, giving an output of just over 1500hp at sea level, substantially boosting the P40's low level speed but exacerbating the power problems higher up.

That would fall into the catogory of "Unless some authorized or un-authorized filed mod was implemented that change the factory settings"

Not usually, although a well maintained aircraft with the engine run in and a polished paint scheme could well be a bit faster than "factory fresh".

Well I see engine run in and break in period to be one in the same

As far as polishing and or waxing of the skin

That would fall into the catogory of "Unless some authorized or un-authorized filed mod was implemented that change the factory settings"

But I think we would all agree that would help

But I don't think it would qualify as 'vastly different'

This is my understanding too, hence my question to Fireskull about why he is putting forward the idea that throughout the war front line service Bf109s retained a superiority in speed and climb over frontline service Spitfires, when a direct comparison of factory spec aircraft shows this should not be so.

Ok good so we both agree they can only degrade with time

Unless some field mod that changes the factory settings

Oleg Maddox seems to be attempting this with Storm of War, in that planes with be factory fresh when new and degrade with use in missions. The effect will be simulated both visually and with a loss of performance and reliability.

Interesting for offline play

But I doubt it will factor into online play

[David603]

Oleg Maddox seems to be attempting this with Storm of War, in that planes with be factory fresh when new and degrade with use in missions. The effect will be simulated both visually and with a loss of performance and reliability.

Interesting for offline play

But I doubt it will factor into online play

For online play, I believe the solution discussed was to set each plane at a level of wear that could be considered typical for the type. For example, planes on both sides during the BoB might have quite low levels of wear, but a late model Bf109 would have lower levels of reliability to begin with and would suffer from a higher level of wear, as would be historical.