Could the Bf 109 E really out-turn the Spitfire Mk I?

[Holtzauge]

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

You can read more about it here:

Korea module data leak statement?

 

[Holtzauge]

S Squish : Yes, when the big "flap battles" raged on the Il2 forum, and people pointed out that flaps were over-modeled, you would still have MP players who downplayed the optimistic flap modeling as unimportant in forums on the grounds that "no one used flaps anyway". But were then caught out having posted multiple YouTube clips where they were engaged in prolonged turn fighting at low speeds with flaps out. And how silly the flight models are at lower speeds can be seen in this YouTube clip here, with the Spitfire even dropping the gear to slow down.


View: https://youtu.be/LY5SuI9CH8Q?t=295

In addition, it's amazing how controllable at stall speeds these planes are in-game: This clip is especially telling since the smoke shows the angle of attack when he is basically cartwheeling: He is controlling and recovering the aircraft even though he is pancaking at 90 degrees angle of attack at one instance in that clip.

Note: While same clip, this is at a different timestamp:


View: https://youtu.be/LY5SuI9CH8Q?t=373

So IMHO, this has very little to do with real air combat and is just players gaming the game. Players who as you say are passionate about this will spend hundreds of hours getting proficient and mastering these in-game exploits.

But: This does not change the fact that flaps CAN and WERE used IRL. But maybe not quite as often and with the same spectacular effects as we see in some modern and "state of the art" flight simulators.

And returning to your analysis of the Spitfire versus the Bf 109 when it comes to turns: I agree with your point about the Spitfire not needing flaps since it performs turns well enough without them, and also with the flap control on the Bf 109 not being very practical to use. And also that the Spitfire as a rule was the better turner. And which was also why I pointed out that the video is about the EXCEPTION to the rule. OTOH I still think it's an interesting question, i.e. just how much CAN the flaps actually compensate for? And what happens at higher altitudes and if the Spitfire has 100 octane fuel?

Finally, thanks for posting those doghouse charts from Warthunder. I did not know about Statshark so it was interesting to see how they've modeled this.

 

[Engineman]

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.

Hartmann did basically write what you say here. He usually operated with at least a wingman to cover him and when he was operating in his Ace way, he was doing his own thing, regularly not entering combat unless easy engagements were presented during the flight. Later in the West, he was downed by aggressive Allied aircraft that found him in a more disadvantaged environment.
I think Marseille also got little in his early days but, when he got mastery of the 109, and in the Western desert scenario, he found he could outfly most of the opponents. It seems he was possibly more aggressive in entering combat than Hartmann and like him, would close to very close range for firing. Again, as I understand it, as an Ace Marseille could pick and chose, with cover always behind him.
You said, "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."
Well, with modern sights we used to count 0.5 sec steady cockpit tracking as a gun kill because the BK 27 has an instantaneous rof of 28 rounds per sec. In fact, that is academic scoring, even 0.25 sec of trigger press, pipper on tgt with both guns was 14 rounds and the pipper sighting was so good, it would get the hits and at 200m co-speed the first rounds had hit before the 0.25 sec burst was finished. Here, the revolver cannon (originally the MG 213) was superb, compared to gattling cannon like the Vulcan which did not get a round out for more than 0.25 sec after trigger press whereas the Mauser has the first round out almost instantaneous from trigger press and achieves full rof straight away.

Eng

 

[Engineman]

S Squish : Yes, when the big "flap battles" raged on the Il2 forum, and people pointed out that flaps were over-modeled, you would still have MP players who downplayed the optimistic flap modeling as unimportant in forums on the grounds that "no one used flaps anyway". But were then caught out having posted multiple YouTube clips where they were engaged in prolonged turn fighting at low speeds with flaps out. And how silly the flight models are at lower speeds can be seen in this YouTube clip here, with the Spitfire even dropping the gear to slow down.


View: https://youtu.be/LY5SuI9CH8Q?t=295

In addition, it's amazing how controllable at stall speeds these planes are in-game: This clip is especially telling since the smoke shows the angle of attack when he is basically cartwheeling: He is controlling and recovering the aircraft even though he is pancaking at 90 degrees angle of attack at one instance in that clip.

Note: While same clip, this is at a different timestamp:


View: https://youtu.be/LY5SuI9CH8Q?t=373

So IMHO, this has very little to do with real air combat and is just players gaming the game. Players who as you say are passionate about this will spend hundreds of hours getting proficient and mastering these in-game exploits.

But: This does not change the fact that flaps CAN and WERE used IRL. But maybe not quite as often and with the same spectacular effects as we see in some modern and "state of the art" flight simulators.

And returning to your analysis of the Spitfire versus the Bf 109 when it comes to turns: I agree with your point about the Spitfire not needing flaps since it performs turns well enough without them, and also with the flap control on the Bf 109 not being very practical to use. And also that the Spitfire as a rule was the better turner. And which was also why I pointed out that the video is about the EXCEPTION to the rule. OTOH I still think it's an interesting question, i.e. just how much CAN the flaps actually compensate for? And what happens at higher altitudes and if the Spitfire has 100 octane fuel?

Finally, thanks for posting those doghouse charts from Warthunder. I did not know about Statshark so it was interesting to see how they've modeled this.

There is also the interesting fact that before 1941 no Spitfire could maintain engine power in zero or negative G and some Spitfires were still on old carburettors that cut-out in mid 1942!

Eng

 

[BiffF15]

Hartmann did basically write what you say here. He usually operated with at least a wingman to cover him and when he was operating in his Ace way, he was doing his own thing, regularly not entering combat unless easy engagements were presented during the flight. Later in the West, he was downed by aggressive Allied aircraft that found him in a more disadvantaged environment.
I think Marseille also got little in his early days but, when he got mastery of the 109, and in the Western desert scenario, he found he could outfly most of the opponents. It seems he was possibly more aggressive in entering combat than Hartmann and like him, would close to very close range for firing. Again, as I understand it, as an Ace Marseille could pick and chose, with cover always behind him.
You said, "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."
Well, with modern sights we used to count 0.5 sec steady cockpit tracking as a gun kill because the BK 27 has an instantaneous rof of 28 rounds per sec. In fact, that is academic scoring, even 0.25 sec of trigger press, pipper on tgt with both guns was 14 rounds and the pipper sighting was so good, it would get the hits and at 200m co-speed the first rounds had hit before the 0.25 sec burst was finished. Here, the revolver cannon (originally the MG 213) was superb, compared to gattling cannon like the Vulcan which did not get a round out for more than 0.25 sec after trigger press whereas the Mauser has the first round out almost instantaneous from trigger press and achieves full rof straight away.

Eng

While you don't instantly get a round out of the M61 cannon, you can and we did squeeze the trigger before the pipper was on target. You can see the pipper trending towards the target, squeeze, and continue your pull to get pipper on (with both arriving simultaneously in a perfect world). You also notice after a while that most of your guns tracks occur in two places in the HUD. We called those kill corners, and would pull to place your adversary in it, and squeeze the trigger before he got there. The gun solution usually lagged just a touch as well, but it's better to have lead going downstream than nothing at all. On top of all this we had indications of exactly where our rounds were going at target range. Very accurate it is. My preferred target was the cockpit.

 

[Squish]

S Squish : Yes, when the big "flap battles" raged on the Il2 forum, and people pointed out that flaps were over-modeled, you would still have MP players who downplayed the optimistic flap modeling as unimportant in forums on the grounds that "no one used flaps anyway". But were then caught out having posted multiple YouTube clips where they were engaged in prolonged turn fighting at low speeds with flaps out. And how silly the flight models are at lower speeds can be seen in this YouTube clip here, with the Spitfire even dropping the gear to slow down.


View: https://youtu.be/LY5SuI9CH8Q?t=295

In addition, it's amazing how controllable at stall speeds these planes are in-game: This clip is especially telling since the smoke shows the angle of attack when he is basically cartwheeling: He is controlling and recovering the aircraft even though he is pancaking at 90 degrees angle of attack at one instance in that clip.

Note: While same clip, this is at a different timestamp:


View: https://youtu.be/LY5SuI9CH8Q?t=373

So IMHO, this has very little to do with real air combat and is just players gaming the game. Players who as you say are passionate about this will spend hundreds of hours getting proficient and mastering these in-game exploits.

But: This does not change the fact that flaps CAN and WERE used IRL. But maybe not quite as often and with the same spectacular effects as we see in some modern and "state of the art" flight simulators.

And returning to your analysis of the Spitfire versus the Bf 109 when it comes to turns: I agree with your point about the Spitfire not needing flaps since it performs turns well enough without them, and also with the flap control on the Bf 109 not being very practical to use. And also that the Spitfire as a rule was the better turner. And which was also why I pointed out that the video is about the EXCEPTION to the rule. OTOH I still think it's an interesting question, i.e. just how much CAN the flaps actually compensate for? And what happens at higher altitudes and if the Spitfire has 100 octane fuel?

Finally, thanks for posting those doghouse charts from Warthunder. I did not know about Statshark so it was interesting to see how they've modeled this.

It is funny to get involved in the flight-sim elitism discussions because War Thunder is considered the bottom of the barrel because it is much more of a game than a simulator and doesn't have the aesthetics of a simulator for most people, but in a lot of ways it handles some flight mechanics better than Il-2. The biggest thing I have noticed transitioning between the two games is that most of the same tactics that work in WT will also work in Il-2 but the turning fights all just feel like they are in smaller circles.


View: https://youtu.be/1MuEYpVAhiI

My video here I think showcases a little bit about War Thunder flight models and how "flap cycling" is used as a technique to basically make small cuts into dogfighting circles. There is a little more nuance in War Thunder because most flap designs in the game will temporarily increase turn rate while sacrificing speed, until the new lower turning speed is established. It is not quite as black and white as "drop max flaps" and sit there.

Note: It should be noted that in War Thunder, the P-51D-30 turns better than the FW-190 D-9. However the margin in sustained turn rate is about 2 degrees per second advantage in favor of the P-51. The strength of the 190D9 is in terms of energy retention and having flaps that make a greater discrepancy in turn radius; landing flaps can take a big bite out of a trajectory but also kill your speed. Turn radius for both planes is about the same as well for all intents and purposes. Generally speaking this is a fight that the P-51 will win more often than not but the margins are close enough that the line can be blurred.

1. The diving start is a common 1 v 1 setup in both Il-2 and WT. For whatever reasons the person who starts lowest will generally have a positional advantage after the 1st turn. This is something that is not necessarily reflective of real life for WW2 fighters but definitely something I have seen USAF and Navy pilots mention for jets.

2. The way that video game players and pilots look at merge / crossover points are fairly similar with those points being de-facto how you determine whether or not you are winning or losing. The principle is the same even if the mechanics are not. Typically in the video game 1v1 there are two schools of thought; either aggressive trajectory that tries to make attacks as soon as possible and win on angle or forcing opponent to make mistake, and passive trajectory that seeks to avoid short attack window to build larger but safer advantage over time. Good players will generally prefer one or the other but will have knowledge of both and transition between both approaches depending on situation. At very high levels the trajectory becomes much more normalized because both players recognize the attack windows and it basically turns into very long rate fight with eating tiny bites out of even smaller mistakes other guy makes.

3. In the video you can see the flap cycling technique at work and also see how I attempt to build an energy advantage over the P-51 over time. This is a concept that would probably work in real life but also beyond what I have seen in any kind of WW2 flight manual. Ditto for the whole vertical spiral type start. It is definitely a thing for jets but not something I have seen at all for props.

4. In random encounters and not 1v1, the biggest determining factor in the outcome for planes that are relatively closely matched is the relative starting position and energy states of both planes. In-game I can keep up with a Spitfire that I start behind in something like a Bf.109 just due to greater experience and fact that he has to basically negotiate from defensive position to neutral to offense. Even when starting from neutral position in random game the experience gap means I can take plane with turn performance disadvantage and "win" even if my plane isn't physically turning better than theirs. This creates situations that makes players mad because "WAAH WAHH P-47 SHOULDN'T OUT TURN YAK-3!"; in reality they just took bad flight path and were punished for it.

5. The other thing you will see in random games is new players turning in one direction and then just immediately reversing the turn at full power. This I think is fairly realistic of WW2 fighter pilots considering I think there have been multiple real period curriculums from the time that basically state "do not reverse your turn in a turning engagement". Ditto for new players tendency to favor lag-pursuit attempts to get directly on the tail of an aircraft. Generally speaking I think most WW2 turning engagements are both planes attempting to lag pursuit the other into favorable position.

 

[Engineman]

While you don't instantly get a round out of the M61 cannon, you can and we did squeeze the trigger before the pipper was on target. You can see the pipper trending towards the target, squeeze, and continue your pull to get pipper on (with both arriving simultaneously in a perfect world). You also notice after a while that most of your guns tracks occur in two places in the HUD. We called those kill corners, and would pull to place your adversary in it, and squeeze the trigger before he got there. The gun solution usually lagged just a touch as well, but it's better to have lead going downstream than nothing at all. On top of all this we had indications of exactly where our rounds were going at target range. Very accurate it is. My preferred target was the cockpit.

Great comment! I pushed the BK 27mm/M61 comparison a little to see if you might shout out! I often wondered if the M61 could have had a sort of first stage trigger press that would run up the gattling barrels to about half speed in preparation and cut the firing delay to a lot less. Maybe that happens these days?
I used to enjoy pressing the 180/0 head-on merges to guns at around 1000kts closing speed, the big 27mm slugs could be fired at quite long range and head-on I always felt that was a good shot to take, better than waving as you flash past! Mind you, practice head-on guns in the air was banned for us eventually, although I don't recall any nasty. Pity, I also felt that it was a valid shot and it prevented the bogey pre-planning the gambit with his choice of offset, just pull hard straight into him when visual Aim, Fire tracking burst ( almost as soon as tracking usually) and then make the opening Yo-Yo part of the breakaway (break-into!) as soon as you see where the separation is going to be! Mind you, I did have a few friends who enjoyed pulling head-to-head-on as well and it was exciting sometimes!

Cheers

Eng

 

[skyking1]

Bong used those long shots to great effect.

 

[Engineman]

Great comment! I pushed the BK 27mm/M61 comparison a little to see if you might shout out! I often wondered if the M61 could have had a sort of first stage trigger press that would run up the gattling barrels to about half speed in preparation and cut the firing delay to a lot less. Maybe that happens these days?
I used to enjoy pressing the 180/0 head-on merges to guns at around 1000kts closing speed, the big 27mm slugs could be fired at quite long range and head-on I always felt that was a good shot to take, better than waving as you flash past! Mind you, practice head-on guns in the air was banned for us eventually, although I don't recall any nasty. Pity, I also felt that it was a valid shot and it prevented the bogey pre-planning the gambit with his choice of offset, just pull hard straight into him when visual Aim, Fire tracking burst ( almost as soon as tracking usually) and then make the opening Yo-Yo part of the breakaway (break-into!) as soon as you see where the separation is going to be! Mind you, I did have a few friends who enjoyed pulling head-to-head-on as well and it was exciting sometimes!

Cheers

Eng

A thing to point out here is, that you cannot just do this sort of combat for real in the air unless you have practiced it. It may be that remote computer drone type engagements can be
trained for and flown but, you can't put a man up there to do it until he has trained in the air and shown the ability in that dynamic environment, IMO.

Eng

 

[Squish]

Great comment! I pushed the BK 27mm/M61 comparison a little to see if you might shout out! I often wondered if the M61 could have had a sort of first stage trigger press that would run up the gattling barrels to about half speed in preparation and cut the firing delay to a lot less. Maybe that happens these days?
I used to enjoy pressing the 180/0 head-on merges to guns at around 1000kts closing speed, the big 27mm slugs could be fired at quite long range and head-on I always felt that was a good shot to take, better than waving as you flash past! Mind you, practice head-on guns in the air was banned for us eventually, although I don't recall any nasty. Pity, I also felt that it was a valid shot and it prevented the bogey pre-planning the gambit with his choice of offset, just pull hard straight into him when visual Aim, Fire tracking burst ( almost as soon as tracking usually) and then make the opening Yo-Yo part of the breakaway (break-into!) as soon as you see where the separation is going to be! Mind you, I did have a few friends who enjoyed pulling head-to-head-on as well and it was exciting sometimes!

Cheers

Eng

It's funny that you should mention this because this is definitely a dynamic that happens in the video games as well. The second turn head-on is something that players definitely have to plan around and in many cases there response to deny the head-on also surrenders positional advantage. A very common occurrence is for both players to push a head-on once fuel gets low or someone creates too much separation.

The AI dogfight programs developed by DARPA are very good at pushing these kinds of what would normally be marginal shots for a human pilot to extreme accuracy. At least when it has all of the information required; i.e testing environment game where it knows speed and position of other plane etc.

 

[BiffF15]

Front aspect shots become more dangerous the closer to your opponent's nose you get. In training we were not allowed gun shots inside (or at greater than 13 aspect) due to closure rates and the high probability of a collision. We had dome sims back in the day where you could "practice" taking those shots. In real life I had only one guy ever take a gun shot on me at greater than a 13 aspect (training rule violation) but we were both slow and he had an out (escape option). It was debriefed. In the domes we would do BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers) AKA dogfighting with guns only. This usually involved jettisoning everything on the plane and quickly pulling him in for a front aspect gun shot. We had a plus sign in the hud that showed where the gun was pointed (where the bullets would go) at about 2000'. Basically you cleaned off the jet while pulling the plus sign to him, squeezing the trigger then avoiding the collision. After a time or two you got the hang of it.

Your point about risk in the game vice risk in real life is correct. Everyone is brave in the sim, but when you can actually die (in the jet) your fangs retract a bit and self preservation gets a much needed bump.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Engineman]

Front aspect shots become more dangerous the closer to your opponent's nose you get. In training we were not allowed gun shots inside (or at greater than 13 aspect) due to closure rates and the high probability of a collision. We had dome sims back in the day where you could "practice" taking those shots. In real life I had only one guy ever take a gun shot on me at greater than a 13 aspect (training rule violation) but we were both slow and he had an out (escape option). It was debriefed. In the domes we would do BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers) AKA dogfighting with guns only. This usually involved jettisoning everything on the plane and quickly pulling him in for a front aspect gun shot. We had a plus sign in the hud that showed where the gun was pointed (where the bullets would go) at about 2000'. Basically you cleaned off the jet while pulling the plus sign to him, squeezing the trigger then avoiding the collision. After a time or two you got the hang of it.

Your point about risk in the game vice risk in real life is correct. Everyone is brave in the sim, but when you can actually die (in the jet) your fangs retract a bit and self preservation gets a much needed bump.

Cheers,
Biff

The face shots were usually conversions from front aspect IR missile shots on 1v1 head-on merge set-ups. We were fortunate to have the opportunity to try these things but eventually we were banned from the front aspect guns tracking and limited to the missile shot and a 1000 foot bubble at the front aspect merge and I think, a 500 foot bubble for rear aspect tracking. These more defined limitations came in with ACMI participation. Yes, we usually had more latitude in the combat simulator, but it is not the same, although very useful for training, and cheaper!

Cheers

Eng

 

[Holtzauge]

There is also the interesting fact that before 1941 no Spitfire could maintain engine power in zero or negative G and some Spitfires were still on old carburettors that cut-out in mid 1942!

Eng

Yes, and IIRC then one of Hartmann's defensive manoeuvers was to push the stick forward and to the side, thus resulting in both negative g's and a rolling motion. Of course impossible to follow unless you had fuel injection or a pressure carburetor. But even if you did, hanging in your straps surrounded by all the stuff that leaves your cockpit floor and sticks to your canopy under negative g's hardly seems conducive to accurate aiming.

 

[Holtzauge]

It is funny to get involved in the flight-sim elitism discussions because War Thunder is considered the bottom of the barrel because it is much more of a game than a simulator and doesn't have the aesthetics of a simulator for most people, but in a lot of ways it handles some flight mechanics better than Il-2. The biggest thing I have noticed transitioning between the two games is that most of the same tactics that work in WT will also work in Il-2 but the turning fights all just feel like they are in smaller circles.


View: https://youtu.be/1MuEYpVAhiI

My video here I think showcases a little bit about War Thunder flight models and how "flap cycling" is used as a technique to basically make small cuts into dogfighting circles. There is a little more nuance in War Thunder because most flap designs in the game will temporarily increase turn rate while sacrificing speed, until the new lower turning speed is established. It is not quite as black and white as "drop max flaps" and sit there.

Note: It should be noted that in War Thunder, the P-51D-30 turns better than the FW-190 D-9. However the margin in sustained turn rate is about 2 degrees per second advantage in favor of the P-51. The strength of the 190D9 is in terms of energy retention and having flaps that make a greater discrepancy in turn radius; landing flaps can take a big bite out of a trajectory but also kill your speed. Turn radius for both planes is about the same as well for all intents and purposes. Generally speaking this is a fight that the P-51 will win more often than not but the margins are close enough that the line can be blurred.

1. The diving start is a common 1 v 1 setup in both Il-2 and WT. For whatever reasons the person who starts lowest will generally have a positional advantage after the 1st turn. This is something that is not necessarily reflective of real life for WW2 fighters but definitely something I have seen USAF and Navy pilots mention for jets.

2. The way that video game players and pilots look at merge / crossover points are fairly similar with those points being de-facto how you determine whether or not you are winning or losing. The principle is the same even if the mechanics are not. Typically in the video game 1v1 there are two schools of thought; either aggressive trajectory that tries to make attacks as soon as possible and win on angle or forcing opponent to make mistake, and passive trajectory that seeks to avoid short attack window to build larger but safer advantage over time. Good players will generally prefer one or the other but will have knowledge of both and transition between both approaches depending on situation. At very high levels the trajectory becomes much more normalized because both players recognize the attack windows and it basically turns into very long rate fight with eating tiny bites out of even smaller mistakes other guy makes.

3. In the video you can see the flap cycling technique at work and also see how I attempt to build an energy advantage over the P-51 over time. This is a concept that would probably work in real life but also beyond what I have seen in any kind of WW2 flight manual. Ditto for the whole vertical spiral type start. It is definitely a thing for jets but not something I have seen at all for props.

4. In random encounters and not 1v1, the biggest determining factor in the outcome for planes that are relatively closely matched is the relative starting position and energy states of both planes. In-game I can keep up with a Spitfire that I start behind in something like a Bf.109 just due to greater experience and fact that he has to basically negotiate from defensive position to neutral to offense. Even when starting from neutral position in random game the experience gap means I can take plane with turn performance disadvantage and "win" even if my plane isn't physically turning better than theirs. This creates situations that makes players mad because "WAAH WAHH P-47 SHOULDN'T OUT TURN YAK-3!"; in reality they just took bad flight path and were punished for it.

5. The other thing you will see in random games is new players turning in one direction and then just immediately reversing the turn at full power. This I think is fairly realistic of WW2 fighter pilots considering I think there have been multiple real period curriculums from the time that basically state "do not reverse your turn in a turning engagement". Ditto for new players tendency to favor lag-pursuit attempts to get directly on the tail of an aircraft. Generally speaking I think most WW2 turning engagements are both planes attempting to lag pursuit the other into favorable position.

Interesting info about Warthunder handling some aspects of flight mechanics better. I did not know that. And since I care more about FM's than if the graphics models are in 4K, and if all the rivets are in the right place, maybe I should check it out. Because unfortunately, some of the other flight sims seem more concerned with engine starting sequences, or liveries etc. rather than first order flight model effects like getting speed, climb and turn rates correct.

Another problem is that the flight models in all of the current flight simulators I've flown so far are all far too wobbly and oscillate all over the place. I've flown both the two-seat Spitfire Mk IX and P-51 D Mustang at Sywell, and both are rock solid. The aircraft's movement IRL is crisp and precise. And the aircraft moves and stops in conjunction with stick movement. There is no lag, oscillations or wobbliness whatsoever. Even on the Spitfire. So paradoxically, the old often derided "on rails" flight models are actually much more realistic. But I suspect such a change back to a more realistic FM would not go down with some flight sim "purists", some of whom seem to equate difficulty to control and lag and wobbliness with realism. The DCS Spitfire Mk IX being a prime example.

Interesting video with the P-51 and Fw 190 turn fight in Warthunder you posted. And even without having seen any "telemetry" data from how speed and altitude varies in that fight, to me it still seems much more believable that you cycle the flaps and don't just keep them out all the time IL-2 style. And in my simulation they are even closer in performance: Only slightly less than 2 deg/s advantage to the P-51 D at 75" boost. And that's with the caveat that the P-51 D has only the same fuel load as the Fw 190 D-9. So a P-51D with more fuel in its tanks will have a hard time out-turning a Fw 190 D-9 at Erhörte Notleistung.

An interesting point about flaps is that while one would guess that split flaps are pretty bad from a drag standpoint, there is actually very little to choose between the type of plain flaps found on the P-51 and Bf 109, and the split flaps on the Spitfire, when you get flap deflections above around 20-30 degrees. Below that then the plain flaps are slightly better, but paradoxically, above that then split flaps produce more lift with less drag! And at flap angles of 25 deg like in my video, then if the Spitfire could have deployed them to this angle as well, they would actually have done a better job than on the Bf 109!

So had the Spitfire Mk I had the possibility to drop its flaps (even though they were of the split type) either in steps or seamlessly like on the Bf 109 E, then there would have been no material for me on which to do the video, since the Spitfire would have been superior in all aspects of turns. However, as it was, due to the two-position nature of the flap control on the Spitfire, the Bf 109 actually had this one ace up its sleeve.

 

[Engineman]

Yes, and IIRC then one of Hartmann's defensive manoeuvers was to push the stick forward and to the side, thus resulting in both negative g's and a rolling motion. Of course impossible to follow unless you had fuel injection or a pressure carburetor. But even if you did, hanging in your straps surrounded by all the stuff that leaves your cockpit floor and sticks to your canopy under negative g's hardly seems conducive to accurate aiming.

It certainly isn't very pleasant pushing negative G, but it can be a good escape manoeuvre, especially in gun fighting and if your enemy has an engine that cuts-out at zero G.
The 109 could push negative G with power for about 10 sec before it needed to get back to positive G for fuel delivery and oil system limits. In theory, a following float carb Spitfire could roll and pull to keep positive G, but that requires time to think and act, and if the 109 just pushes hard to start, then relaxes to zero G, the action of rolling and then not pulling will cause a similar problem for the float carb Spitfire. In fact, the RR diaphragm carb that was trialled in 1941 failed because it did not function at zero G and so was useless in unloaded manoeuvres.

Eng

 

[Engineman]

So had the Spitfire Mk I had the possibility to drop its flaps (even though they were of the split type) either in steps or seamlessly like on the Bf 109 E, then there would have been no material for me on which to do the video, since the Spitfire would have been superior in all aspects of turns. However, as it was, due to the two-position nature of the flap control on the Spitfire, the Bf 109 actually had this one ace up its sleeve.

The 109 also had the fuel injection for negative G and cannon armament.

Eng

 

[Holtzauge]

It certainly isn't very pleasant pushing negative G, but it can be a good escape manoeuvre, especially in gun fighting and if your enemy has an engine that cuts-out at zero G.
The 109 could push negative G with power for about 10 sec before it needed to get back to positive G for fuel delivery and oil system limits. In theory, a following float carb Spitfire could roll and pull to keep positive G, but that requires time to think and act, and if the 109 just pushes hard to start, then relaxes to zero G, the action of rolling and then not pulling will cause a similar problem for the float carb Spitfire. In fact, the RR diaphragm carb that was trialled in 1941 failed because it did not function at zero G and so was useless in unloaded manoeuvres.

Eng

Absolutely. As a means of escape negative g's would be quite good. Especially given it does not require skills to execute like a tight turn close to stall: All you have to do is push the nose over basically. Interestingly though, and as I write in my book, there seems to have been little to choose between the Spitfire Mk I and Bf 109 E once established in the dive. So had the Spitfire had a pressure carburetor a bit earlier, diving would not have been the "get out of jail free card" it seems to have been for the Bf 109s during the Battle of Britain. And even some time after that of course, until the pressure carburetors entered the scene.

 

[Holtzauge]

The 109 also had the fuel injection for negative G and cannon armament.

Eng

To be honest, since the Bf 109s were mostly engaging other fighters, and that the Battle of Britain was before armour started making rifle caliber ammunition less effective, I'm not so sure that 8 MG's were so bad at that time in the war. In fact, in my book, I actually argue the case that a mirrored armament would have been better for both parties, since the British were trying to knock down bombers flying more or less straight, while the Bf 109s were probably often only offered fleeting deflections shots on other fighters, and in which case it was far more likely to land hits with the 8 gun armament than with rather slow firing cannon, and which only had a firing time of about 7 s in total.

 

[Engineman]

Absolutely. As a means of escape negative g's would be quite good. Especially given it does not require skills to execute like a tight turn close to stall: All you have to do is push the nose over basically. Interestingly though, and as I write in my book, there seems to have been little to choose between the Spitfire Mk I and Bf 109 E once established in the dive. So had the Spitfire had a pressure carburetor a bit earlier, diving would not have been the "get out of jail free card" it seems to have been for the Bf 109s during the Battle of Britain. And even some time after that of course, until the pressure carburetors entered the scene.

Yes, not having a negative G capable engine was possibly the biggest weakness of the 1939-1941 Spitfire.

Eng

 

[Engineman]

To be honest, since the Bf 109s were mostly engaging other fighters, and that the Battle of Britain was before armour started making rifle caliber ammunition less effective, I'm not so sure that 8 MG's were so bad at that time in the war. In fact, in my book, I actually argue the case that a mirrored armament would have been better for both parties, since the British were trying to knock down bombers flying more or less straight, while the Bf 109s were probably often only offered fleeting deflections shots on other fighters, and in which case it was far more likely to land hits with the 8 gun armament than with rather slow firing cannon, and which only had a firing time of about 7 s in total.

No, I am not there for the 109 point. Taking the 109 as it was, for the BoB (no motor gun), it either would have had 4x7.9 or the 2x7.9 and 2x20mm. I think the 2x cannon were preferable to 2x MG, even given the reduced number of rounds. I wouldn't criticise the cannon too much as being slow firing or slow velocity, it was many times better to have than a MG15.
Just my view.

Eng