Could the Bf 109 E really out-turn the Spitfire Mk I? (2 Viewers)

[Engineman]

True, the Germans did have what we today would call GCI but as I recall it, there were some pretty funny episodes connected to this since Allied Intelligence soon began to try to take over and direct the intercepting German flights in the wrong directions, with verbal battles going on on the German frequencies with both real and fake German GCI officers saying things like: " No! Listen to me! I'm the REAL controller!" The other one is a British imposter! LISTEN TO ME!" and vice versa. IIRC then the Germans tried to counter this by using female controllers, to which the Allies of course responded by using their own female German speakers to impersonate them! ECM, ECCM and ECCCM in its infancy!

Yes, I think this is recorded by R.V. Jones in his book "Most Secret War", for British Night Bombing. Night bombing had particular requirements for GCI, in order to help the fighters find the bomber stream. In daytime, the fighters would hope to use visual engagement tactics but, the early warning leading to optimised launch times and guidance for routing to intercept the raid and escorts was more like the use of CH Radar in the BoB during daytime raids. Here, in 1944, I am unaware if real-time listening provided Bogey-Dope to the Escort fighters?

Eng

 

[GregP]

Greg,

A couple of questions. First, how do the slats on the Bf109 keep the airflow attached to the ailerons? Second, does your normal fighter weight for the Bf109 have him at half fuel weight (normal fuel quantity for having crossed the channel? Third, do the ailerons droop on the 109 with flap extension (or any WW2 aircraft)?

While I can't say how guys did it in WW2, but when I dropped the flaps on the Eagle I released some back pressure to counter the drag increase. I only used flaps when slow at the floor and I needed about 15-20 degrees more nose rotation to bring the gun to bear. If I misjudged I would hold airspeed (by not pulling too hard), misalign turn circles, and attempt another shot if fuel permitted.

Hi Biff. I believe in normal fighter armament and half fuel for dogfights, but have been a member here for 20 years. In that time, if I assume normal armament and half fuel, I have taken to task several times for not using normal fighter takeoff weight, so I finally gave up and just use it.

The Bf 109E had 106 US gallons.
The Spitfire I has 102 US gallons (85 imperial gallons).

So, I surmise that half fuel for the Bf 109E is about as heavy as half fuel for the Spitfire I, or within 12 pounds of the same weight. The wing loading will change slightly, but not really much different.

The function of slats is to delay separation until a lower airspeed or at a slightly higher angle of allack. So, they keep the airflow attached until the stall happens. Once it separates, it separates and the ailerons loose effectiveness. But, the slatted portion, in front of the ailerons, stays attached longer, even when the unslatted part (over the flaps area) stalls. So, it maintains some roll control even when half stalled. But, as noted, once stalled it acts like any other stalled wing.

In the Bf 109 there is pitch-up with application of flaps, but the flap wheel is centered and adjacent to the stabilator trim wheel. They are on the same shaft and within an inch of each other. The technique in the Bf 109 is to wind in nose down stab trim simultaneously with extending the flaps, using the left hand. If you do that, there is no pitch trim change with the flaps. You reverse the procedure when winding the flaps up. That's according to former Bf 109 pilots I have heard over the years. Long story I could relate if there is interest.

I have tried in the cockpit of our Ha.1112 Buchon and it is easy to use both wheels at the same time.

I was also relatively amazed that the visibility outside wasn't nearly as bad as I had thought it would be, except at the corners of the windscreen angles.

 

[Greg Boeser]

From what I have seen, performance stats are based on half fuel. Full fuel being considered overload.

 

[GregP]

Sounds very reasonable since very few missions result in combat directly over the launching airfield. If they do, then the airfield is defending against incoming attack, and likely at least has enough warning to get airborne. If not, no sense in giving them a sitting duck target ... take cover!

 

[andy1967]

Bf 109 and escorting Mustang engagements of Germany were fairly well defined. The defending Bf 109 fighters could be launched to intercept the raid with a good choice of altitude and position, T/O fuel would probably be 400L internal with 300L drop tank. Initial Combat would see the drop tanks released leaving 400L. The P-51 fuel state would be according to the time that they were engaged, again dropping tanks on contact.
German Bomber killer fighters may have operated similar to the fighter escort killers.
I suspect that the German aircraft would always try to operate with drop tanks, because the raid may divert and the fighters might need to travel a long way.
Also worth remembering that the escort fighters had only visual means to locate their attackers. I do not know if allied listening EW was effective in warning the raid about German fighter defence activity in real-time?

Eng

I recently read an article by Bill Marshall about P51 Scout Force.There main objective was to fly in front of the bombers and report on weather conditions on route and over Primary and Secondary targets and report this back in real time they also reported German fighter activity aswell in real time and on one occasion 8 P51 broke up a large attacking force of German aircraft .What's interesting is alot of the P51 pilots were Bomber Pilots who had completed their tours.

 

[drgondog]

I agree completely: Once you are committed to a turn fight you need all the advantages you can get. OTOH I can also sympathize with the objections I usually get when I mention that the Bf 109 had this item in the "toolbox", which is usually that this would not be the "right" way to fly a Bf 109 to its strengths. Because common wisdom holds (and rightly so I suppose) that the Bf 109 should be used in slashing attacks, and not "mix it up" with Spitfires and Hurricanes in turn fights. But as you say, once you ARE in a turn fight, anything that helps you is positive, and this is where the Bf 109 flaps come in handy IMHO: Because while probably not the first item you would reach for, it's still there, ready to be picked up if you ever need it.



True, the Germans did have what we today would call GCI but as I recall it, there were some pretty funny episodes connected to this since Allied Intelligence soon began to try to take over and direct the intercepting German flights in the wrong directions, with verbal battles going on on the German frequencies with both real and fake German GCI officers saying things like: " No! Listen to me! I'm the REAL controller!" The other one is a British imposter! LISTEN TO ME!" and vice versa. IIRC then the Germans tried to counter this by using female controllers, to which the Allies of course responded by using their own female German speakers to impersonate them! ECM, ECCM and ECCCM in its infancy!

Jokes aside, I recently listened to an audiobook on Spotify (The German Aces Speak, Volumes I and II) where Johannes Steinhoff lamented that towards the end of the war, they were according to him maybe 75 German fighters climbing up to meet what he called a thousand escorts. And that must have been tough: Facing well trained pilots who swooped down on you from above in great numbers. Being able to turn slightly better with flaps seems like a pretty poor substitute under those conditions!

Enormous courage was required of LW pilots intercepting a large formation of bombers, even if vectored to avoid the fighter escort. That said LW controllers were successful many times to vector large formations of interceptors to lightly defended boxes. Another point to emphasize in parallel is that the relay system of penetration support, passing on to target and withdrawal support diluted the number of escorts actually attached to the bomber stream. The LW Day fighters often attacked with numerical superiority over the fighter escort.

IIRC the average strength of LuftFlotte Reich was about 500+ operational single engine fighters in 1944, compared to approximately 750 8th AF escorts dispatched on a maximum effort mission. Target escort numbers were greatly reduced for key targets such as Schweinfurt, Merseburg, Berlin, Munich, etc. during the period Feb 1944 through D-Day when most of 8th and 9th AF FGs were still equipped with the P-47.

That reality means that and entire Bomb Division of perhaps 10-12 BGs/3-5 Bomb Wings over a 20-30mile trail, were only escorted by 1-3 FG's composed of P-38J or P-51B. The LW was very successful at probing to launch and intercept, particularly Spring 1944 with much cloud cover, while actually hitting where there was limited to zero local escort cover. The technical feature that was responsible for making fighter escort more effective was the SCR-522 command radio in which the Fighter Commander and Flight leaders were on the same channel as the Bomb Group designated 'call for help' channel. This often meant the difference between massive bomber losses to none or only a few as the escort would throttle up and head for the distressed BG.

The oft repeated claim of 'we were outnumbered 10 to 1' was hyperbole, even when attacking with one flight. SOP for FG commanders were to dispatch flights or sections rather than an entire squadron, retaining the balance for escort. But more often than not the LW controller positioned Gruppe's to entire JGs to a soft spot in the escort coverage with excellent results.

 

[Engineman]

Enormous courage was required of LW pilots intercepting a large formation of bombers, even if vectored to avoid the fighter escort. That said LW controllers were successful many times to vector large formations of interceptors to lightly defended boxes. Another point to emphasize in parallel is that the relay system of penetration support, passing on to target and withdrawal support diluted the number of escorts actually attached to the bomber stream. The LW Day fighters often attacked with numerical superiority over the fighter escort.

IIRC the average strength of LuftFlotte Reich was about 500+ operational single engine fighters in 1944, compared to approximately 750 8th AF escorts dispatched on a maximum effort mission. Target escort numbers were greatly reduced for key targets such as Schweinfurt, Merseburg, Berlin, Munich, etc. during the period Feb 1944 through D-Day when most of 8th and 9th AF FGs were still equipped with the P-47.

That reality means that and entire Bomb Division of perhaps 10-12 BGs/3-5 Bomb Wings over a 20-30mile trail, were only escorted by 1-3 FG's composed of P-38J or P-51B. The LW was very successful at probing to launch and intercept, particularly Spring 1944 with much cloud cover, while actually hitting where there was limited to zero local escort cover. The technical feature that was responsible for making fighter escort more effective was the SCR-522 command radio in which the Fighter Commander and Flight leaders were on the same channel as the Bomb Group designated 'call for help' channel. This often meant the difference between massive bomber losses to none or only a few as the escort would throttle up and head for the distressed BG.

The oft repeated claim of 'we were outnumbered 10 to 1' was hyperbole, even when attacking with one flight. SOP for FG commanders were to dispatch flights or sections rather than an entire squadron, retaining the balance for escort. But more often than not the LW controller positioned Gruppe's to entire JGs to a soft spot in the escort coverage with excellent results.

Yes, I have read about the importance of the SCR-522 radio to the control of the escort fighters and bombers.
The Luftwaffe control was vulnerable to screening from Window, Spoofing with false electronic returns, or Radio talk and Jamming of Comms or Radar.
My reading about the Luftwaffe response to the effective escort fighter supported daylight bombing shows that the bomber killer fighters became steadily heavier armed and armoured (usually the Fw 190) to enable engagement of the bomber boxes, while the Luftwaffe fighter escort killing fighters were the lighter armed Bf 109's, their aim being to distract the fighter escort from the bomber killers. There would always be cases where different circumstances would see advantages to different sides and recriminations were often from the school of hard knocks.

Eng

 

[drgondog]

Yes, I have read about the importance of the SCR-522 radio to the control of the escort fighters and bombers.
The Luftwaffe control was vulnerable to screening from Window, Spoofing with false electronic returns, or Radio talk and Jamming of Comms or Radar.
My reading about the Luftwaffe response to the effective escort fighter supported daylight bombing shows that the bomber killer fighters became steadily heavier armed and armoured (usually the Fw 190) to enable engagement of the bomber boxes, while the Luftwaffe fighter escort killing fighters were the lighter armed Bf 109's, their aim being to distract the fighter escort from the bomber killers. There would always be cases where different circumstances would see advantages to different sides and recriminations were often from the school of hard knocks.

Eng

Yes the Bf 109G-6/AS became escort fighter to FW 190A8 and the heavily armed Bf 109G-6/R6 types, probably in the early March 1944 timeframe

 

[Squish]

A few words from a guy who spends too much time playing video games and recognizes certain kinds of posts by people who also do the same thing.

1. When it comes to performing simulations like this it is important to have correct CL/CD curves and have them as a function of speed. This in and of itself can be a process that is very difficult in its own right. Getting the CL/CD curves slightly wrong in either direction will skew a simulation like this.

2. This pre-occupation with the Bf.109 being able to use flaps to turn the tables in a dogfight seems to be something of an obsession amongst the videogame crowd from games like IL-2 and War Thunder.

3. Of the popular video games, War Thunder probably models this interaction the most accurately. Flaps usage on the Bf.109 E-4 will reduce the turning radius and increase the turning rate by about the margins that are presented in the original post here. The difference in overall conclusion though is due to the fact that OP predicts sustained turn rate figures that are slightly more favorable to the Bf.109 E-4 than what is modeled in War Thunder. The difference is about 1 degree per second.

4. The other point of comparison that I can make is with IL-2 Great Battles but there isn't a program to analyze the flight models available for it. My impression of IL-2 after playing if for about a week is that the flight modeling is even more jank than War Thunder and that the margin of advantage for some planes in that game is much larger. I would suspect that the Bf.109 E-4 vs Spitfire I dogfight in that game is a more one sided affair than War Thunder.

5. Amongst people that do a lot of 1v1 fights in these video games this conversation has come up in the past. One of the things to understand is that the flaps on the Bf.109 are basically on a hand-wheel and they can drop to around 42 degrees. What is being modeled here is the turning radius of the plane with about 60% of its total flaps deployed; this is a fairly slow process and not necessarily something you would want to be vigorously doing in combat. This is one of the things that both of the videogames do not necessarily model well because you can just set flaps to a button and just hold it down.

6. The other issue about the videogame stuff is that there are more people that have some general awareness of energy maneuverability theory in ways that World War II pilots were only vaguely familiar with. There are also just some things that you can do in the videogames that would not necessarily work in real life. It is very easy to fall into this thinking trap that just because it works in real life that it will work in the video game and vice versa. Unfortunately I often times see instances of both when it comes to commonly available content.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The day defence of Germany changed so much in 1944 not sure an average can cover it.

As of January 1944 the Luftflotte 3 fighters were generally trying to defend occupied Western Europe rather than Germany, by the end of the year that role had disappeared.

Mid 1943 Fw190A-6, 2x7.9mm machine guns, 4x20mm high velocity cannon, the final standard firepower upgrade with the A-8 in February 1944 with 13mm replacing the 7.9mm machine guns. February 1943, Bf109G-6, standard firepower 1x20mm cannon and 2x13mm machine guns, already the earlier Bf109F had the option of a pair of underwing 20mm cannon, mostly thanks to the Red Air Force Il-2

The Luftwaffe had a chronic problem keeping aircraft serviceable, start with fewer spare parts = more new production, think of all those potential ground crew put into the Luftwaffe field divisions and then over Germany in 1943/44 a tribute to the bomber gunners, they certainly did not shoot down anywhere what was claimed but they kept putting holes in attacking fighters.

Carrying rockets or underwing cannon imposed a noticeable performance hit on the single seat fighters, the second half of 1943 solution for defending Germany was rebuilding the day twin engine fighter force, from none defending Germany in July to 9 Gruppe in December. A solution that became untenable when all USAAF raids became escorted. The performance of the P-47 and P-51 also made carrying underwing armament dangerous, generally making it hard to take on the USAAF fighters.

Next came the single engine Sturm units, a staffel formed in late 1943 initially with heavier armour rather than more firepower, later came upgunning and expansion to Gruppe strengths. Same result as twin engine type, able to inflict heavy damage on bomber formations, cut to pieces by escorts, escorting the Sturm units was fine in theory, hard in practice. The final Luftwaffe solution was replacing 20mm with 30mm cannon, that did little to performance while being much more effective against bombers.

E R Hooton, Eagle in Flames, single engine fighters
20 January 1943 Luftflotte 3 had 241 on strength, Mitte/Reich 163 on strength, total 404
20 April 1943 Luftflotte 3 had 232 on strength, Mitte/Reich 188 on strength, total 420
20 June 1943 Luftflotte 3 had 353 on strength, Mitte/Reich 343 on strength, total 696
20 September 1943 Luftflotte 3 had 222 on strength, Mitte/Reich 677 on strength, total 899
20 December 1943 Luftflotte 3 had 312 on strength, Mitte/Reich 572 on strength, total 884
31 March 1944 Luftflotte 3 had 166 on strength, Mitte/Reich 853 on strength, total 1,019

Alfred Price strength/serviceable
31 May 1944 Luftflotte 3 had 168/115 on strength, Reich 814/450 on strength, plus 53/37 and 198/82 twin engine fighters.
10 January 1945 Luftflotte 3 had 1,094/770 on strength, Reich 356/153 on strength.

Williamson Murray notes end June 1944, thanks to Overlord, the western front had 425 and Reich 370 single engine fighters, a situation that persisted into July.

No more specific break downs by Luftflotte so time for the aggregate figures given by September 1944 the Western Front was the German border, Alfred Price reports as of 31 May 1944 operational unit single engine fighter strength was 1,602/1,063,

RAF figures Luftwaffe operational single seat fighter strength/serviceable
31-May-44 1,683/1,111
10-Jun-44 1,483/1,037
20-Jun-44 1,609/1,067
30-Jun-44 1,523/895
10-Jul-44 1,453/951
20-Jul-44 1,759/992
31-Jul-44 1,937/1,193
10-Aug-44 1,804/1,066
20-Aug-44 1,766/1,156
31-Aug-44 1,610/1,043
10-Sep-44 1,990/1,501
20-Sep-44 1,952/1,377
30-Sep-44 1,984/1,413
10-Oct-44 2,376/1,756
20-Oct-44 2,816/2,081
31-Oct-44 3,055/2,487
10-Nov-44 3,117/2,491
20-Nov-44 3,246/2,401
30-Nov-44 2,998/2,256
10-Dec-44 2,874/2,147
20-Dec-44 2,853/2,166
31-Dec-44 2,260/1,521
10-Jan-45 2,265/1,610
Alfred Price reports as of 10 January 1945 operational unit single engine fighter strength was 1,937/1,427.

The growing numbers, the increased concentration in Germany and the performance upgrades as Bf109G-10, BF109K and Fw190D-9 appeared gave the allied commanders considerable concern, even without the Me262.

Germany had to defend a front of around 400 miles, it meant not all units could be used on a given day nor did all sorties result in encounters, see the Day to Day Diary of Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich by Caldwell. Similarly the escorts were also dispersed along and around the bomber formations, with the usual rule of more bombers than escorts. Talking about odds can either be done for an individual fight or aggregate, the latter is the Luftwaffe defences largely matched numerically the number of long range fighters able to make Germany during the first half of 1944, that shifted significantly by the final quarter of 1944 but most allied fighters present were not doing heavy bomber escort, while the 8th Air Force was flying straight courses to simplify missions and make interception easier given the usual results of air combat.

Mighty Eighth War Diary, escort sorties despatched, generally excluding targets outside Germany, April/May figures include 9th Air Force, smaller escort forces were generally for smaller bomber forces.

date Escort sorties
04-Jan-44 542
07-Jan-44 571
11-Jan-44 593
14-Jan-44 645
21-Jan-44 628
29-Jan-44 632
30-Jan-44 635
03-Feb-44 632
04-Feb-44 637
05-Feb-44 634
06-Feb-44 638
08-Feb-44 553
10-Feb-44 557
11-Feb-44 606
20-Feb-44 835
21-Feb-44 679
22-Feb-44 659
24-Feb-44 767
25-Feb-44 899
29-Feb-44 554
02-Mar-44 770
03-Mar-44 730
04-Mar-44 770
06-Mar-44 801
08-Mar-44 891
09-Mar-44 808
15-Mar-44 588
16-Mar-44 868
18-Mar-44 925
22-Mar-44 817
23-Mar-44 841
24-Mar-44 540
27-Mar-44 960
29-Mar-44 428
01-Apr-44 475
08-Apr-44 780
09-Apr-44 719
11-Apr-44 819
13-Apr-44 871
18-Apr-44 634
19-Apr-44 697
22-Apr-44 859
24-Apr-44 867
25-Apr-44 719
26-Apr-44 554
29-Apr-44 814
07-May-44 843
08-May-44 855
12-May-44 980
13-May-44 1,107
19-May-44 964
22-May-44 568
27-May-44 1,135
28-May-44 1,224
29-May-44 1,265
30-May-44 1,309
31-May-44 1,329
18-Jun-44 817
19-Jun-44 1,111
20-Jun-44 1,219
29-Jun-44 779
06-Jul-44 1,138
07-Jul-44 756
11-Jul-44 795
12-Jul-44 803
13-Jul-44 609
16-Jul-44 712
19-Jul-44 761
20-Jul-44 542
21-Jul-44 795
29-Jul-44 755
31-Jul-44 701
03-Aug-44 726
04-Aug-44 883
05-Aug-44 658
06-Aug-44 740
09-Aug-44 847
11-Aug-44 578
15-Aug-44 478
16-Aug-44 692
24-Aug-44 739
25-Aug-44 916
26-Aug-44 897
27-Aug-44 871
08-Sep-44 653
09-Sep-44 714
10-Sep-44 705
11-Sep-44 440
12-Sep-44 662
13-Sep-44 603
19-Sep-44 528
21-Sep-44 221
22-Sep-44 365
25-Sep-44 622
26-Sep-44 768
27-Sep-44 678
28-Sep-44 724
30-Sep-44 726
02-Oct-44 772
03-Oct-44 753
05-Oct-44 733
06-Oct-44 784
07-Oct-44 900
09-Oct-44 878
12-Oct-44 514
14-Oct-44 749
15-Oct-44 482
17-Oct-44 811
18-Oct-44 604
19-Oct-44 753
22-Oct-44 785
25-Oct-44 522
26-Oct-44 674
28-Oct-44 217
30-Oct-44 976
01-Nov-44 321
02-Nov-44 968
04-Nov-44 890
05-Nov-44 666
06-Nov-44 802
08-Nov-44 890
09-Nov-44 738
10-Nov-44 808
11-Nov-44 367
21-Nov-44 954
25-Nov-44 965
26-Nov-44 732
27-Nov-44 770
29-Nov-44 946
30-Nov-44 972
02-Dec-44 604
04-Dec-44 977
05-Dec-44 901
06-Dec-44 830
09-Dec-44 274
10-Dec-44 690
11-Dec-44 841
12-Dec-44 928
15-Dec-44 434
18-Dec-44 773
23-Dec-44 636
24-Dec-44 853
25-Dec-44 460
26-Dec-44 336
27-Dec-44 390
28-Dec-44 606
29-Dec-44 724
30-Dec-44 572
31-Dec-44 785

 

[Holtzauge]

A few words from a guy who spends too much time playing video games and recognizes certain kinds of posts by people who also do the same thing.

1. When it comes to performing simulations like this it is important to have correct CL/CD curves and have them as a function of speed. This in and of itself can be a process that is very difficult in its own right. Getting the CL/CD curves slightly wrong in either direction will skew a simulation like this.

2. This pre-occupation with the Bf.109 being able to use flaps to turn the tables in a dogfight seems to be something of an obsession amongst the videogame crowd from games like IL-2 and War Thunder.

3. Of the popular video games, War Thunder probably models this interaction the most accurately. Flaps usage on the Bf.109 E-4 will reduce the turning radius and increase the turning rate by about the margins that are presented in the original post here. The difference in overall conclusion though is due to the fact that OP predicts sustained turn rate figures that are slightly more favorable to the Bf.109 E-4 than what is modeled in War Thunder. The difference is about 1 degree per second.View attachment 885933

4. The other point of comparison that I can make is with IL-2 Great Battles but there isn't a program to analyze the flight models available for it. My impression of IL-2 after playing if for about a week is that the flight modeling is even more jank than War Thunder and that the margin of advantage for some planes in that game is much larger. I would suspect that the Bf.109 E-4 vs Spitfire I dogfight in that game is a more one sided affair than War Thunder.

5. Amongst people that do a lot of 1v1 fights in these video games this conversation has come up in the past. One of the things to understand is that the flaps on the Bf.109 are basically on a hand-wheel and they can drop to around 42 degrees. What is being modeled here is the turning radius of the plane with about 60% of its total flaps deployed; this is a fairly slow process and not necessarily something you would want to be vigorously doing in combat. This is one of the things that both of the videogames do not necessarily model well because you can just set flaps to a button and just hold it down.

6. The other issue about the videogame stuff is that there are more people that have some general awareness of energy maneuverability theory in ways that World War II pilots were only vaguely familiar with. There are also just some things that you can do in the videogames that would not necessarily work in real life. It is very easy to fall into this thinking trap that just because it works in real life that it will work in the video game and vice versa. Unfortunately I often times see instances of both when it comes to commonly available content.

1) Absolutely. And in my simulation model, Clmax is a function of Mach, so the faster you go the lower will be the aircraft's Clmax. The same goes for drag: At about M=0.5 you need to take drag creep into account or your results will be too optimistic. Same goes for propeller efficiency, which needs to be modeled due to both blade loading and Mach.

2) Il-2 had a way to optimistic flap model earlier on. Especially Russian fighters were generously modeled. Maybe that is still the case? I don't frequent their forum much though these days. Why (that they had modeled quad drone with RPG Warhead) is clear from my last posts in their old forum which they've now closed down.

3) SEP based climb rate is really only valid for small climb angles, i.e. when the lift vector is almost vertical, which is not the case for WW2 warbirds. Same goes for turn estimates. If you don't take into account that the engines thrust axis is not aligned to the speed axis, yours estimate will be a bit conservative, and which is why my estimates are higher.

4) Yes, the turn rate accuracy in IL-2 varies: Years ago we were a few people who spent time painstakingly logging in game turn times. For example, the Bf 109 G2 there is quite conservatively modeled while the Yak-1 is either spot on or a a bit on the optimistic side. In addition, the turn times at higher altitudes in IL-2 for German fighters was far worse than physics would indicate.

5) Yes and no: When entering a turn fight you would probably extend the flaps only gradually anyway as the speed wound down, so if it took a bit of time was probably not an issue. However, sure, after you succeeded in out-turning your opponent, it would take time to extract them. But still, Marseille used flaps, so it was done.

6) Yes, some virtual pilots have amassed thousands of hours expending countless virtual lives to figure out what works and what doesn't. In addition, some games flight models at lower speeds are ludicrous with all manner of maneuvering with full flaps and gear out being done in a post stall environment. In addition, people complain that guns are too accurate. But in general they are not. The problem is that with thousands of hours deflection shooting in game, you have an experience base IRL pilots can only dream off.

 

[Engineman]

The Bf 109 F/G/K manual flaps are hard work to use in a turning fight, but at least they are only required at lower speeds. However, if you chose too or are trapped into a slow turning fight, you would gladly wind them in and out all day just to pull lead on your enemy or to keep your arse from being filled with 0.5" rounds, the approaching death reality of real Combat.
OTOH, my perception is that perhaps in most "combat" kills, the victim was never aware of the aircraft that shot him and also, many combat events were decided by either, the relative numbers, the relative skills, the relative performance if either side was correctly using their aircraft advantage and most importantly, the luck of the merge. Nobody in their right mind would fly into a fight in a fighter from a losing position at the start.

Eng

 

[skyking1]

While flaps to increase workable angle of attack sounds plausible, the reality is anything that takes you that slow makes you a beachball target of opportunity for potshotting from another aircraft. it is often not 1v1 in that strictest sense.
Recovering back to a safer speed takes precious time after spending your energy that way.

 

[Engineman]

The day defence of Germany changed so much in 1944 not sure an average can cover it.



Carrying rockets or underwing cannon imposed a noticeable performance hit on the single seat fighters, the second half of 1943 solution for defending Germany was rebuilding the day twin engine fighter force, from none defending Germany in July to 9 Gruppe in December. A solution that became untenable when all USAAF raids became escorted. The performance of the P-47 and P-51 also made carrying underwing armament dangerous, generally making it hard to take on the USAAF fighters.

Next came the single engine Sturm units, a staffel formed in late 1943 initially with heavier armour rather than more firepower, later came upgunning and expansion to Gruppe strengths. Same result as twin engine type, able to inflict heavy damage on bomber formations, cut to pieces by escorts, escorting the Sturm units was fine in theory, hard in practice. The final Luftwaffe solution was replacing 20mm with 30mm cannon, that did little to performance while being much more effective against bombers.

The underwing cannon armament on the Bf 109 was so bad to the manoeuverability and performance that it would only normally be considered against bombers, not for fighting fighters. The W.Gr rocket grenades were specific for bomber formation engagement.
You could argue that the 30mm MK 108 used in the Bf 109 G /U4 and the Bf 109 K-4 was better at killing bombers than the 20mm MG 151, but the Fw 190 with 4x20mm and 2x13mm was still a better bet.
The Me 262 with great speed and 4x30mm MK 108 was a great bomber killer when used correctly.

Eng

 

[Engineman]

While flaps to increase workable angle of attack sounds plausible, the reality is anything that takes you that slow makes you a beachball target of opportunity for potshotting from another aircraft. it is often not 1v1 in that strictest sense.
Recovering back to a safer speed takes precious time after spending your energy that way.

That is basic.
We had another poster postulating fighting at low speed/power as a choice recently.

Eng

 

[skyking1]

That is basic.
We had another poster postulating fighting at low speed/power as a choice recently.

Eng

Just a pilot's opinion of what it is like when you spend the energy credit and try to earn it back. It is a real bugger. I'd feel pretty thin skinned at that point. Just pitching out of a pull is one thing, but when you are working the flaps back out and trying to *not stall*, it takes forever it seems.

 

[Squish]

2) Il-2 had a way to optimistic flap model earlier on. Especially Russian fighters were generously modeled. Maybe that is still the case? I don't frequent their forum much though these days. Why (that they had modeled quad drone with RPG Warhead) is clear from my last posts in their old forum which they've now closed down.

Il-2 treats flaps a little more optimistically than War Thunder in my limited experience; specifically in Il-2 the flaps on planes like Yak-3 will reduce the turn radius and increase the turn rate. The SOP for many in Il-2 for Yak seems to be drop full flaps immediately in a turn fight and keep them there.

In War Thunder the only flaps that are useful for increasing sustained turn rate are limited to a few airplanes normally with fowler flaps or planes with split flaps like FW-190 and that is only for takeoff deployment position.

This means in WarThunder the Yak-3 is still a good dogfighter but in a pure 1 v 1 sense it is largely a rate + energy fight and the planes turning radius is not exceptional.

Stall control in both games is probably optimistic but it's a lot more optimistic in Il-2. The radius that planes can rotate at low speeds, especially with flaps, feels much smaller in Il-2.

3) SEP based climb rate is really only valid for small climb angles, i.e. when the lift vector is almost vertical, which is not the case for WW2 warbirds. Same goes for turn estimates. If you don't take into account that the engines thrust axis is not aligned to the speed axis, yours estimate will be a bit conservative, and which is why my estimates are higher.

The chart that I posted is modeled from Statshark.net and it is not a historical research tool; it's simply a tool for analyzing flight models in War Thunder based on the WarThunder files and how they handle flight modeling.

These aren't predictions; they are reflections of how the planes behave in the game. It is likely the WarThunder devs are using slightly different performance predictions to which the planes are indexed.

6) Yes, some virtual pilots have amassed thousands of hours expending countless virtual lives to figure out what works and what doesn't. In addition, some games flight models at lower speeds are ludicrous with all manner of maneuvering with full flaps and gear out being done in a post stall environment. In addition, people complain that guns are too accurate. But in general they are not. The problem is that with thousands of hours deflection shooting in game, you have an experience base IRL pilots can only dream off.

This depends on level of proficiency in these games and the player. Often times people will attempt to take some kind of real life lesson and relate it to the game or vice versa.

This ends up being something of an odd archetype associated with these games with people wanting to thought experiment themselves into situations where they always win the hypothetical engagement based on some kind of esoteric knowledge they think they only understand. It happens quite often that people will look at EM diagram and make claim that "X plane will win because of Y performance metric".

This sometimes is the case but more often than not the actual truth is something that cannot be divined purely by the EM diagram.

The players that are really passionate about 1v1 spend a lot more time than even the average enthusiasts practicing them and that interest is usually independent of the video game or historically driven.

For instance when discussing the realism of our fuel tactics with Russian friends we basically concluded that the way we used flaps in and of itself wasn't necessarily unrealistic but the frequency and aggression with which we were able to use them wasn't. Basically because the flap wheel is not convenient to adjust in the middle of a fight, the way that it was typically used was to increase turning performance when near the end phase / low speed portion of an engagement and pilots were not deploying them all the way to maximum configuration.

To address your 5th point since I didn't quote it; one has to consider that you have to also be able to put away the flaps quickly because they rob the aircraft of acceleration.

So you have an ideal turning configuration that is slow to enter and also slow to exit in the Bf.109E to match the Spitfire. The Spitfire on the other hand doesn't have to make any changes to airframe configuration and has immediate access to the turning potential. This means very early in a turning fight the Spitfire would gain a lot of ground on the Bf.109 anyways if both are starting from neutral positions and energy states with similarly skilled pilots.

Marsailles is not the only pilot to use flaps; but also it is important to consider when where and how he used flaps. There is a huge difference between using some flaps at the end of a fight to secure a kill from a favorable starting position and from using them from the very start of the engagement to maneuver into the favorable position. I suspect the former is a lot more frequent than the later.

 

[Dimlee]

Why (that they had modeled quad drone with RPG Warhead) is clear from my last posts in their old forum which they've now closed down.

Off-topic, certainly. But can you elaborate? Who modelled a drone?

 

[Engineman]

1) Absolutely. And in my simulation model, Clmax is a function of Mach, so the faster you go the lower will be the aircraft's Clmax. The same goes for drag: At about M=0.5 you need to take drag creep into account or your results will be too optimistic. Same goes for propeller efficiency, which needs to be modeled due to both blade loading and Mach.

2) Il-2 had a way to optimistic flap model earlier on. Especially Russian fighters were generously modeled. Maybe that is still the case? I don't frequent their forum much though these days. Why (that they had modeled quad drone with RPG Warhead) is clear from my last posts in their old forum which they've now closed down.

3) SEP based climb rate is really only valid for small climb angles, i.e. when the lift vector is almost vertical, which is not the case for WW2 warbirds. Same goes for turn estimates. If you don't take into account that the engines thrust axis is not aligned to the speed axis, yours estimate will be a bit conservative, and which is why my estimates are higher.

4) Yes, the turn rate accuracy in IL-2 varies: Years ago we were a few people who spent time painstakingly logging in game turn times. For example, the Bf 109 G2 there is quite conservatively modeled while the Yak-1 is either spot on or a a bit on the optimistic side. In addition, the turn times at higher altitudes in IL-2 for German fighters was far worse than physics would indicate.

5) Yes and no: When entering a turn fight you would probably extend the flaps only gradually anyway as the speed wound down, so if it took a bit of time was probably not an issue. However, sure, after you succeeded in out-turning your opponent, it would take time to extract them. But still, Marseille used flaps, so it was done.

6) Yes, some virtual pilots have amassed thousands of hours expending countless virtual lives to figure out what works and what doesn't. In addition, some games flight models at lower speeds are ludicrous with all manner of maneuvering with full flaps and gear out being done in a post stall environment. In addition, people complain that guns are too accurate. But in general they are not. The problem is that with thousands of hours deflection shooting in game, you have an experience base IRL pilots can only dream off.

With the 109 in point 5), For sure, unless "entering" a fight at slow speed (which might happen, but NOT a good thing unless you are talking WW1 Biplanes and Triplanes) the 109 would usually be entering fast and clean, maybe even with the cooling flaps closed-up in manual for less drag. As you say, a turning fight will slow down and the 109 slats will start to deploy as the alpha increases into their operating range. This is almost an alpha indicator and it possibly also shows a point where the 109 will benefit more with starting to deploy flap in the efficient low amounts.

In point 6), "The problem is that with thousands of hours deflection shooting in game, you have an experience base IRL pilots can only dream off." IRL, modern gun-fighting pilots do not need to dream of deflection shooting, they have synthetic training to standards and real combat practice with video and data linked replay of the whole fight. In my day, we also shot live Air to Air on targets. Modern Air to Air gunsights are extremely accurate without manual or mental dexterity.
If you mean IRL WW2 pilots, then yes, probably many pilots lacked extensive training or experience of deflection shooting and may well have benefitted from modern synthetic game deflection shooting experience. Mind you, if you put most flightsim aces into a real WW2 fighter with live guns and a fight to the death under Orders, with no computer etc, then they would find it interesting.

Eng

 

[Holtzauge]

E Engineman and skyking1 : I agree that most people who were shot down probably never knew what hit them, and that maintaining energy in the form of altitude or speed is probably what most pilots strive for. And AFAK, this was also the top scorer of all times, Eric Hartmann's tactic as well: Stay high, select an unsuspecting victim, swoop down and fire a quick burst, use excess speed to regain altitude and assess what happened. High gain, low risk approach. And this seems to have been the favoured tactic for most Luftwaffe Bf 109 pilots as well.

But then we have Helmut Lipfert: Who by his own admission tried this but could not get the hang of it, and became a turn fighter instead. His memoirs are full of low level turn fights with Russian fighters. And, at the risk of repeating myself yet again: We have Marseille in North Africa turn fighting as well, supposedly also dropping flaps sometimes.

So turn fighting was done. And even if it was the exception to the rule, I still find it quite fascinating that the Bf 109 COULD actually out-turn a Spitfire under certain circumstances IF the pilot decided to do it. However, that does not mean that my video should be interpreted as me suggesting that the Bf 109 SHOULD engage in turn fights. Only that it could under certain narrow conditions.

And then about deflection shooting: Yes, I was referring to WW2 and non-computing sights where you have to calculate lead mentally. With modern radar supported sights it is of course totally different, and as long as you have a few seconds steady tracking you usually score hits. But when it comes to the former, then the type of mass-training on deflection shooting you can achieve in a simulator would have been a Godsend to the pilots of the day.