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

[Holtzauge]

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 than a MG15.
Just my view.

Eng

Why even bring up the 4 MG Bf 109 variant? Of course 8 MG are better than 4. And the hitting power of the cannon is or course better IF you manage to land rounds on target. And for shooting down an opponent flying straight ahead unaware that you are there, combined with being a good shot, then sure, cannon is probably preferable. But in a dogfight, if you are only an average shot and only offered fleeting deflection shots? I'm not so sure. And 7 s firing time is awfully short. After that you are dogfighting with 2 versus 8 guns.

 

[Engineman]

Why even bring up the 4 MG Bf 109 variant? Of course 8 MG are better than 4. And the hitting power of the cannon is or course better IF you manage to land rounds on target. And for shooting down an opponent flying straight ahead unaware that you are there, combined with being a good shot, then sure, cannon is probably preferable. But in a dogfight, if you are only an average shot and only offered fleeting deflection shots? I'm not so sure.

Yes, 8x .303 are better than 4x .303, but the 109 did not have the option of 8x anything, it was configured for 4 x guns. The 109's over UK were also on a very short fuel ration/time
so I think wof was important when they had a chance.

Eng

 

[Shortround6]

British did themselves no favors with their poor ammo supply. One 'mix' used the BoB was
3 guns with Ball.
2 guns with AP
2 guns with MK IV incendiary tracer.
1 gun with MK VI incendiary ('De Wilde')

In testing it took an average or 10 rounds of MK IV to set fire to test fuel tank. On average it took 5 rounds of MK VI.
By late 1941 or 1942 a Spitfire V was using two guns loaded with AP and two guns with MK VI for twice the 'fire starting' capabilities of the 8 gun mid 1940 fighter even without the 20mm guns.
Ammo mixes changed during the war and very late in the war bomber turrets got 100% incendiary.

As far as turning goes. Both sides noted that novice pilots rarely turned as tight as they could have.
Not used to G loads?
Afraid of the plane stalling and snapping into an inverted spin? One wing stalls before the other?
Trying to control the rate of turn with elevators varied from plane to plane. Early Spitfires had very light elevators. This was changed fairly soon with springs/bob weights(?) so that the control effort was closer match to the ailerons and rudder. Spitfire stall warning was not pronounced. It might have been easier for Hurricane pilots to push their aircraft harder with less fear of over controlling and stalling. British test pilots loved a Curtiss Hawk 75 they got from the French to it's good control harmony. British were trying to "fix" the Spitfires light elevators in 1939.
Operational training units did not get the newest, best aircraft so pilots getting out of OTUs and going to front line units may get service aircraft that don't handle quite the same.

How many sim pilots are pulling 4-6 Gs in their gaming chairs and using a full length (floor to stomach) control column that they cannot 'tweek' for sensitivity.

 

[Holtzauge]

Yes, 8x .303 are better than 4x .303, but the 109 did not have the option of 8x anything, it was configured for 4 x guns. The 109's over UK were also on a very short fuel ration/time
so I think wof was important when they had a chance.

Eng

Well regarding the Bf 109 E's range during the Battle of Britain, there is a lot of lore about how woefully short this was. But as I outline in my book, I think this is often exaggerated, and while certainly being limited, not quite as bad as the chart below shows. However, that subject, including the effects of drop tanks, cruising speed, altitude, time assumed for combat, reserves etc. is far to complex to cover in a few sentences here, and I invite the interested reader to read more about this in my book.

 

[Holtzauge]

British did themselves no favors with their poor ammo supply. One 'mix' used the BoB was
3 guns with Ball.
2 guns with AP
2 guns with MK IV incendiary tracer.
1 gun with MK VI incendiary ('De Wilde')

In testing it took an average or 10 rounds of MK IV to set fire to test fuel tank. On average it took 5 rounds of MK VI.
By late 1941 or 1942 a Spitfire V was using two guns loaded with AP and two guns with MK VI for twice the 'fire starting' capabilities of the 8 gun mid 1940 fighter even without the 20mm guns.
Ammo mixes changed during the war and very late in the war bomber turrets got 100% incendiary.

As far as turning goes. Both sides noted that novice pilots rarely turned as tight as they could have.
Not used to G loads?
Afraid of the plane stalling and snapping into an inverted spin? One wing stalls before the other?
Trying to control the rate of turn with elevators varied from plane to plane. Early Spitfires had very light elevators. This was changed fairly soon with springs/bob weights(?) so that the control effort was closer match to the ailerons and rudder. Spitfire stall warning was not pronounced. It might have been easier for Hurricane pilots to push their aircraft harder with less fear of over controlling and stalling. British test pilots loved a Curtiss Hawk 75 they got from the French to it's good control harmony. British were trying to "fix" the Spitfires light elevators in 1939.
Operational training units did not get the newest, best aircraft so pilots getting out of OTUs and going to front line units may get service aircraft that don't handle quite the same.

How many sim pilots are pulling 4-6 Gs in their gaming chairs and using a full length (floor to stomach) control column that they cannot 'tweek' for sensitivity.

Yes, it is strange why they used ball in so many guns at the time. But probably due to a shortage of other types of more effective ammunition during BoB.

And about not turning tight enough: This seems to have been a problem on both sides. Even to the point of the British RAE publishing an evaluation report on the Bf 109 in which it was claimed that the Bf 109 turned best without the slates even having come out! And which then basically invalidates that test report on this point, since the slats only start to come out at at a Cl of around 0.8, which is then way lower than the Clmax of circa 1.4.

But even the Germans themselves were not immune, and the German ace Johannes Steinhoff lamented that many German Bf 109 pilots thought they were doing really tight turns, even with the slats still in the in position.

 

[Shortround6]

Even to the point of the British RAE publishing an evaluation report on the bf 109 in which it was claimed that the Bf 109 turned best without the slates even having come out!

since the slats only start to come out at at a Cl of around 0.8, which is then way lower than the Clmax of circa 1.4.

Define "best"?
Least radius,
least time to do 180 degrees or least time to do 360 degrees

Ability to either without losing altitude?
What is the drag coefficient at 0.8 CI and what is the drag coefficient at CImax of 1.4 ?

 

[andy1967]

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.

In the below video they conclude the 8 gun armament was better fighter vs fighter and the 109e3 armament was better against bombers.https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdE6zD5BK8gHtHPd-xh2ssGapweGGPvDC&si=DXV8nWRnPrk25WkF

 

[skyking1]

British did themselves no favors with their poor ammo supply. One 'mix' used the BoB was
3 guns with Ball.
2 guns with AP
2 guns with MK IV incendiary tracer.
1 gun with MK VI incendiary ('De Wilde')

In testing it took an average or 10 rounds of MK IV to set fire to test fuel tank. On average it took 5 rounds of MK VI.
By late 1941 or 1942 a Spitfire V was using two guns loaded with AP and two guns with MK VI for twice the 'fire starting' capabilities of the 8 gun mid 1940 fighter even without the 20mm guns.
Ammo mixes changed during the war and very late in the war bomber turrets got 100% incendiary.

As far as turning goes. Both sides noted that novice pilots rarely turned as tight as they could have.
Not used to G loads?
Afraid of the plane stalling and snapping into an inverted spin? One wing stalls before the other?
Trying to control the rate of turn with elevators varied from plane to plane. Early Spitfires had very light elevators. This was changed fairly soon with springs/bob weights(?) so that the control effort was closer match to the ailerons and rudder. Spitfire stall warning was not pronounced. It might have been easier for Hurricane pilots to push their aircraft harder with less fear of over controlling and stalling. British test pilots loved a Curtiss Hawk 75 they got from the French to it's good control harmony. British were trying to "fix" the Spitfires light elevators in 1939.
Operational training units did not get the newest, best aircraft so pilots getting out of OTUs and going to front line units may get service aircraft that don't handle quite the same.

How many sim pilots are pulling 4-6 Gs in their gaming chairs and using a full length (floor to stomach) control column that they cannot 'tweek' for sensitivity.

The uncoordinated accelerated stall is best experienced at a safe altitude where you have a chance at recovery. Those young pilots may have never really explored the corners of the envelope because there be dragons in there. The ones who found the edges on their own had tremendous advantages, or if they had an effective instructor who took them right there.
Imagine that feeling, thinking you want to be a fighter pilot and then some old (20-something) instructor pilot buries the stick into your crotch and the wings start hammering and all the dust comes up off the floor as it breaks and makes lift. A little off rudder and it snaps smartly.
Either you took to it or you did not. Some embraced it.
Others were like that poor kid in the F4U video with the lazy foot who probably drowned in the Pacific sea up thread. They got through the training but were not close to one with their machine, and how could you be, in a monster with 2000 Hp and a 13+' prop that was just ready to eat you?

 

[Engineman]

In the below video they conclude the 8 gun armament was better fighter vs fighter and the 109e3 armament was better against bombers.https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdE6zD5BK8gHtHPd-xh2ssGapweGGPvDC&si=DXV8nWRnPrk25WkFView attachment 886282

Funny though, that for British bomber defence against fighters they decided that 2x 0.5 was better than 4x 0.303 and 20mm was the best. Anyway, there was no option for
more guns on the 1940 Bf 109E and the Bf 109F went down to 3 guns.

Eng

 

[Shortround6]

The uncoordinated accelerated stall is best experienced at a safe altitude where you have a chance at recovery. Those young pilots may have never really explored the corners of the envelope because there be dragons in there. The ones who found the edges on their own had tremendous advantages, or if they had an effective instructor who took them right there.
Imagine that feeling, thinking you want to be a fighter pilot and then some old (20-something) instructor pilot buries the stick into your crotch and the wings start hammering and all the dust comes up off the floor as it breaks and makes lift. A little off rudder and it snaps smartly.
Either you took to it or you did not. Some embraced it.
Others were like that poor kid in the F4U video with the lazy foot who probably drowned in the Pacific sea up thread. They got through the training but were not close to one with their machine, and how could you be, in a monster with 2000 Hp and a 13+' prop that was just ready to eat you?

I had a good friend whose father was a F4U-1 pilot at the end of the war. According to his stories out of the pilots who were initially posted to the Squadron for training only 2 of them lived to the end of the war. A number of them died in training before they ever got on a carrier. He was with VMF-124 and according to histories they went aboard the Exxex Dec 28th 1944. He never/rarely spoke of the combat missions but rather the training missions. He crashed one plane on a night take-off and was once thought dead when another pilot borrowed his flight jacket and crashed, they identified the body using his name on the jacket and there was quite a commotion when he came back from town alive and they had to figure out who was actually dead.
And this was in 1943 when the US was increasing training.
British in the BoB and the Germans were running out of pilots faster than they were running out of airplanes.
One account claims that new Spitfire pilots lasted, on average, about a 1/2 week longer than new Hurricane pilots. No idea if this was true.
A German Ace may well have out turned 4-6 British pilots. German Pilots that were out turned by Spitfires may not have made it back to France to tell their stories?

 

[Shortround6]

Funny though, that for British bomber defence against fighters they decided that 2x 0.5 was better than 4x 0.303 and 20mm was the best. Anyway, there was no option for
more guns on the 1940 Bf 109E and the Bf 109F went down to 3 guns.

True but fitting two 20mm cannon into a power turret took a bit of doing.
The War was almost 6 years long and the best armament for 1944 was not the best armament for 1940. German fighters got more protection over the years.
And the American .50 cal went through a lot of changes. Using .50 cal Browning's in 1940 for bomber defense in 1940 would have been a disaster.
Even in May/June of 1941 the British Tomahawk squadrons could not get their cowl .50s to work most of the time. AIrcobra squadron could not get their .50s to work in the fall of 1941.
Then there is the rate of fire issue (changed in 1940) and then there is the ammo issue (US beefed up the velocity by over 10%) and then there is the actual bullets (British did not like the original incendiary bullets, neither did the Americans who came up with a combined API round in late 1943).
Yes, 2 x 0.50 cal was better than 4 x .303 in 1944. But in 1940-41?

Sort of the same thing in the 109F. They replaced two 500-530rpm guns with 55-60rpg with a single 700rpm gun with 200 rounds.
The MG 151/15 also had one of the highest velocities of any aircraft gun meaning it had the shortest time of flight and needed the least amount of lead when deflection shooting.
What it did not have was anywhere near as much HE as the old 20mm rounds. The MG 151/20 got the HE contents per shell back up and was around 15% faster in MV than the old 20mm making it easier to hit with.

 

[Holtzauge]

Define "best"?
Least radius,
least time to do 180 degrees or least time to do 360 degrees

Best is all of the above: Least turn radius, and least time to do 180 degrees or least time to do 360 degrees. All of which the Bf 109 does best with the slats out at the altitude at which the RAE conducted the tests.

Ability to either without losing altitude?

Yes. But even if you do a digging turn, the best turn performance will be with the Bf 109's slats out.

What is the drag coefficient at 0.8 CI and what is the drag coefficient at CImax of 1.4 ?

I can get you those. But why are you asking? What do you intend to use them for?

 

[Gilder]

Apologies for being late to this debate and possibly my oversimplistic view on this which is this.

Given pilots of equal skill and no real tactical advantage, the Hurricane and the Spitfire would turn better than the Me109E. Part of the reason was that the flaps on the 109E were automatic and this could cause one wing to stall before the other which I promise, would really ruin your day.
The other reason was that the Spitfire in particular gave good warning that it was about to stall and therefore was easier to fly on the edge. You could trust this and if practised / skilled enough to not be afraid of it, make the most of it.
Where confusion comes into it is if you are a more experienced / skilled pilot in a 109E and came across an RAF fighter pilot who was afraid of flying to the edge then you had a decent chance of turning inside him.

Regarding weapons. There can be little doubt that the 20mm was better than 8 x LMG. There is a reason why practically every Airforce ended up, sooner rather than later with 20mm weapons. The vast majority of Spit V' were not of the Va with 8 x LMG.
When the Spitfires arrived with the 20mm cannons, there are a number of quotes from German pilots about how impressed they were with the increased firepower. By te time the BOB took place Germany had significantly increased the protection given to their aircraft, both bombers and fighters, as had the British and the LMG didn't really cut it.

The comments about the amount of ammunition I can understand but I don't think are really relevant as most pilots, in particular new pilots were lucky to have one shot in combat.

Again a personal view of the Me109F. The initial version with the 15mm was a serious step back. The first 109F captured by the RAF was flown by a senior pilot who had switched it back to a 20mm FF. Also Galland, one of the finest shots in any airforce, had additional guns fitted to his 109F, and this he would not have done without good reason.

 

[Squish]

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.

I have all 3 of the major combat flight sims. WarThunder is the one that is mostly a game and not trying to capture the aesthetics of historical combat. A lot of people that are historically inclined find this jarring; for instance planes are balanced based on basically the average player capability in them and not based on year of introduction or anything like that. A very long time ago they had more historically based events but typically people would congregate to whatever side had the best stuff and was likely to win.

Flight model wise between Il-2 (which I have played a lot of recently) and WarThunder, I think that War Thunder overall has better flight modeling in regards to low speed flight control and how turning is modeling. There is some stuff that you can do on Il-2 at very low speed with full flaps and rudder deflection that just doesn't seem realistic like being able to do controlled tail slide in P-38 from pure vertical.

There are other aspects that WarThunder doesn't model the same. G limitations and G forces are more like G suggestions for the pilot. This only really has an affect on early part of a fight and doesn't really change anything compared to Il-2 IMO. Roll rate compression in WarThunder is also significantly less than most people think it should be; especially for Japanese planes. However those tests cited are usually limited to 50lb stick force and full fuel.

However the way that G limits are modeled means stuff like A6M2 and Swedish Buffalo can pull 12-14g turn at high speed. So there is no free lunch here.

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.

The Spitfire in War Thunder is modeled to be somewhat unstable. Basically the developers have tried to duplicate the idea that you use the stick to set the angle of attack and then neutralize it for the Spitfire. This causes a lot of issues for people because you basically have far more stick movement available than what you want at most speeds.

There's some nuance because generally speaking I think Il-2 and DCS are really mushy at low stick deflections whereas the WarThunder Spitfire is just very sensitive but responsive. It's more common to see people get to aggressive in the Spitfire and spin it in War Thunder than Il-2. Same goes for the FW-190.

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.

Flaps in WarThunder differ based on the plane and flaps on the Spitfire will increase the turn rate when fully deployed but they also rip off at very low speeds; so the limits of using them is basically getting over the top of a loop at very low speed or in stalls.

FW-190 flaps will increase sustained turn rate by a bit and reduce the turning speed in the takeoff position. In the landing position they will reduce radius by a lot while lowering the turn rate by a slight amount. However during the transition between the high turning speed and the lower turning speed it will turn better; so the advantage to landing flaps is much better turn rate for a short timespan and then the new lower speed actually hurts you.


View: https://youtu.be/1Eim1oDKB_M

This is an older video of mine that compares the maneuvering characteristics of the P-51D-30 (75") vs Bf.109 G-6 (1.8 ATA) and showcases how close this match up is in the game. This matchup though ends up being very similar in Il-2 with the caveat that Il-2s flight modeling makes longer term energy type tactic in turn less viable since it is easier to stand on the landing flaps.

 

[Squish]

View: https://www.youtube.com/live/8ECkogDYirk?t=2466&is=503DGx9cqfBqjoUF

Hopefully I have copied the correct link to start that the correct timestamp but this discussion is one of the things that I was talking about earlier of how video games end up influencing opinions of air combat etc.

 

[Greg Boeser]

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.

This could be why the E-1s remained on strength for so long. Four mgs are better than two once the cannon go dry.

 

[Dimlee]

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 made sense, but probably didn't apply to most Hartmann's opponents since he entered combat when VVS largely transferred to newer equipment.

Edit: I was wrong. Quickly checked - there were many early Yaks and LaGG-3s in his early records. M-105 engine with a float carburettor.

 

[Holtzauge]

Apologies for being late to this debate and possibly my oversimplistic view on this which is this.

Given pilots of equal skill and no real tactical advantage, the Hurricane and the Spitfire would turn better than the Me109E. Part of the reason was that the flaps on the 109E were automatic and this could cause one wing to stall before the other which I promise, would really ruin your day.
The other reason was that the Spitfire in particular gave good warning that it was about to stall and therefore was easier to fly on the edge. You could trust this and if practised / skilled enough to not be afraid of it, make the most of it.
Where confusion comes into it is if you are a more experienced / skilled pilot in a 109E and came across an RAF fighter pilot who was afraid of flying to the edge then you had a decent chance of turning inside him.

Regarding weapons. There can be little doubt that the 20mm was better than 8 x LMG. There is a reason why practically every Airforce ended up, sooner rather than later with 20mm weapons. The vast majority of Spit V' were not of the Va with 8 x LMG.
When the Spitfires arrived with the 20mm cannons, there are a number of quotes from German pilots about how impressed they were with the increased firepower. By te time the BOB took place Germany had significantly increased the protection given to their aircraft, both bombers and fighters, as had the British and the LMG didn't really cut it.

The comments about the amount of ammunition I can understand but I don't think are really relevant as most pilots, in particular new pilots were lucky to have one shot in combat.

Again a personal view of the Me109F. The initial version with the 15mm was a serious step back. The first 109F captured by the RAF was flown by a senior pilot who had switched it back to a 20mm FF. Also Galland, one of the finest shots in any airforce, had additional guns fitted to his 109F, and this he would not have done without good reason.

When you mention automatic flaps on the Bf 109 E, I'm assuming you mean slats right? First of all properly adjusted slats come out gradually (the slat control risers are aligned so that they do this) and are hardly perceptible for the pilot. I am familiar with what Eric Brown said about them, and that they came out with a "bang", but those were most likely poorly adjusted and maintained. In fact, this is also described in German literature: Gaps and linkage/rollers need to be properly adjusted or they do not function as intended. In addition, I've seen a 360 deg cockpit video of Sywell's Buchon, and in which you can study both the stick and slats, and there is basically no impact at all on the stick when they come out.

Then about the stall properties of the Bf 109 E as compared to the Spitfire: Different sources say different things about this, but the slats were a definite advantage in roll control at and post stall in the Bf 109. Finally, yes, as a rule, the Spitfire and Hurricane Mk I's turned much better than the Bf 109 E. And which is why I point out that my video is about the exception to the rule.

About which armament is best I'll take a pass on that. And I think that such a complex analysis warrants a thread on its own actually.

 

[Holtzauge]

View: https://www.youtube.com/live/8ECkogDYirk?t=2466&is=503DGx9cqfBqjoUF

Hopefully I have copied the correct link to start that the correct timestamp but this discussion is one of the things that I was talking about earlier of how video games end up influencing opinions of air combat etc.

About how gaming affects people's perceptions of real air combat: I think Christoph Bergs' comment about how many flight simmers probably have more trigger time in hours, than pilots IRL had flight hours was a good point. Maybe this can explain why some people think it's too easy to shoot other aircraft down in sims? Because after hundreds of hours of trigger time in-game it probably is.

 

[Holtzauge]

S Squish : While interesting to watch, the Warthunder clips you posted are a bit optimistic as well aren't they? While in IL-2 the low speed handling with flaps out may be a bit optimistic, I would suspect that that half loop ( 7-10 g's?) you started off with from about 700 km/h on the deck and which took just a couple of seconds is not what most WW2 pilots would have done either.

But other than that, it is difficult to judge how well the energy retention and speed loss in the turns you both do in those clips is modeled. But that I think is key: This needs to be close in a simulator, or else you are just playing a game.

I attach an instantaneous turn history that I used myself for validation of my simulation model.

Could you perhaps do tests flights in-game in Warthunder and see how well it replicates?

Since this particular scenario is something Messerschmitt themselves assumed, it would be interesting to see how well it replicates in Il-2 and Warthunder (and DCS for that matter).