Spitfire Mk V is the MOST maneuverable plane?

[Barnacles]

Very interesting, I’ve tried high speed energy tactics against the Spit Mk V in the FW 190, which is much like the LA-5 but a little better in most respects. I didn’t have a lot of luck. As I understand it the 190 should gain energy over the Spit in a shallow high-speed climb, but I could make no substantial gains. Maybe I’m doing it wrong, I’d love to hear how you did it in the LA-5 in detail.

 

More details: The Devil is in the details..  Full power on the la5, especially in a dive or at high speed, shut the outlet cowls. The plane gets some serious speed.

 

Against a spit the only hard turns I do are at low speed when coming back rond on a spit from high, or at the bottom of a very fast dive to regain closure, everything else I try to do at arm's length form the spit so the slats don't come out, and also with the nose slightly below the horizon. 

 

If you can't maintain seperation from the AI Spit, dive towards it, go under it close and extend. It won't anticipate the requirement for it to turn before you're past and the combined increse in you speed and the speed he'll lose trying to turn to follow should give you enough energy advantage to extend.

Edited December 21, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Which was the engine the Spit used in the test?

[VeryOldMan]

The 190 can ALWAYS  avoid the spitfire as long as youa re over 1200m. Just roll over and make a split S.  Spitfire takes  3 extra seconds to do the same maneuver..  It cannot keep itself on 190 tail.

[Higaluto]

I dunno, I get some good value out of its firepower. The cannons are absolutely deadly, and there's 2 of them, while the machineguns have plenty of ammunition to use them as a way to hurt enemies in situations where you're not too sure of the firing solution.

 

That being said, the machineguns are definitely a "death by a thousand cuts" weapon: only with exceptional skill or luck are you going to get a dramatic kill with them. What you're much more likely to do is inflict damage to the engine that will eventually disable it, but you're not going to blow off wings and elevators with them. In fact, even in CloD that's how it goes, and those Mk Is have 8 machineguns.

You can change the loadout in CLOD to DeWilde and AP ball in every gun, at convergence range is absoulutly devestating. One burst takes out bombers. I have not tried this in in BLITZ but i guess its the same. And its not a very realistic loadout, but we all like a good fireball.

[Barnacles]

Which was the engine the Spit used in the test?

 

The test was in Jul 42 so could have been anything. The test also included a mark IX. Can't find anything about the test, Opcode asked with no response forthcoming.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26113-does-anyone-have-pdf-rae-test-fw-190-313/

 

​The 190 was this one: Werknummer 313 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Faber

[Wulf]

The 190 was better in every way apart from turning circle. I read somewhere that the test was conducted at 9lbs boost 2850 rpm for the spit though.

 

 

Here's some stuff from the AFDU trial:

 

Speed

At 1,000ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spit VB

At 3,000 ft the FW is 30-35 mph faster than the Spit VB

At 5,000 ft the FW is 25 mph faster than the Spit VB

At 9,000 ft the FW is 25-30 mph faster than the Spit VB

At 15,000 ft the FW is 20 mph faster than the Spit VB

At 18,000 ft the FW is 20 mph faster that the Spit VB

At 21,000 the FW is 20-25 mph faster than the Spit VB

 

Climb

Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW is about 450 ft/min better than the Spit VB up to 21,000 feet.

 

Dive

The FW can leave the Spit VB with ease.

 

Manoeuvrability

The manoeuvrability of the FW is better than that of the Spit VB except in turning circles.  The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight.

 

There's no mention made of the Spitfire's boost.  Do you have a reference for the over-boosting of the VB with resultant performance figures??

[Tomsk]

More details: The Devil is in the details..  Full power on the la5, especially in a dive or at high speed, shut the outlet cowls. The plane gets some serious speed.

 

Against a spit the only hard turns I do are at low speed when coming back rond on a spit from high, or at the bottom of a very fast dive to regain closure, everything else I try to do at arm's length form the spit so the slats don't come out, and also with the nose slightly below the horizon. 

 

If you can't maintain seperation from the AI Spit, dive towards it, go under it close and extend. It won't anticipate the requirement for it to turn before you're past and the combined increse in you speed and the speed he'll lose trying to turn to follow should give you enough energy advantage to extend.

 

Yes avoiding the Spit is the easy part, what I was interested in is how you built energy over it. As I say, steep climbs won't work the Spit climbs better at slow speeds. So I had hoped shallow high-speed climbs would work, after all that is supposed to be an important advantage for the 190: better at high-speed climbs. But when I've tried it, climbing at around 450 kph for a few minutes, I've always turned round to find the Spit reasonably close (no separation gained or lost) and at the same altitude, i.e. no energy gained. I can reverse and go back under again, but it's the same story ... I can escape, but I can't build energy on it.

[Barnacles]

 

There's no mention made of the Spitfire's boost.  Do you have a reference for the over-boosting of the VB with resultant performance figures??

 

Not in relation to that test, im afraid, just an unreferenced comment on the UBI forum that said 9lbs boost and 2850rpm.

 

Here is a test of a mark V with 16lbs boost. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html max rate of climb at 16lbs and 3000 rpm of 3700fpm

 

The RAE test of a 190 A3 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg got a max rate of climb at 1.42 ata and 2700 rpm of 3300fpm.

 

Edit, that's rubbish, the climb test was 1.35ata at 2400rpm, so the max climb rates were probably a lot closer.

Edited December 21, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[MacLeod]

I took you up on your suggestion and flew an LA5 against a vet Spit in QMB, starting head on at 3000m, initially after the merge I decended using a sprial to get the thing off my 6, then found it easy to keep at arms length by keeping at high speed  when merging then using the LA5's speed to extend level. I found it incredibly hard to seal the deal though, as even with high yoyos I found it difficult to get on its 6. This went on for a while and I was thinking it is indeed impossible to beat, then I realised like a noob I had left the supercharger on stage 2. After changing the supercharger, at low alt, it was possible to use the LA5's rate of climb, acceleration and speed gain in a shallow dive to quicky get an energy and positional advantage.

Explain me something, please. Why would you ever have the supercharger stage 2 on if it started at 3000m?

 

As far as I know, stage 1 on the LA-5 goes till 3.5k meters. Or am I wrong?

[Voidhunger]

In SP AI spitfire is deadly even if you have 109 and because the ai sees you every time you cant suprise it like in mp. Its the only plane im afraid of. And if the zero was much more maneuverable than the spit, i dont want to sit in wildcat.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Voidhunger

[Finkeren]

Explain me something, please. Why would you ever have the supercharger stage 2 on if it started at 3000m?

 

As far as I know, stage 1 on the LA-5 goes till 3.5k meters. Or am I wrong?

Yeah I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. The exact altitude at which you should shift gears escape me, but I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between 2300m and 2800m. I usually shift gears around 2500m for both Klimov and Shvetzov engines

[Barnacles]

Yes avoiding the Spit is the easy part, what I was interested in is how you built energy over it. As I say, steep climbs won't work the Spit climbs better at slow speeds. So I had hoped shallow high-speed climbs would work, after all that is supposed to be an important advantage for the 190: better at high-speed climbs. But when I've tried it, climbing at around 450 kph for a few minutes, I've always turned round to find the Spit reasonably close (no separation gained or lost) and at the same altitude, i.e. no energy gained. I can reverse and go back under again, but it's the same story ... I can escape, but I can't build energy on it.

 

That's how I do it, the trick is exectly how shallow and how hard you dive. I found by being more aggressive in the dive I worked up more of an energy advantage. Another side beniefit is the enemy spit has to turn harder and the only hard pull up you need to do is at high speed, where the 190 can pull g a lot better.

 

Enable icons in QMB so you can get a real sense of closure/opening rates, so with the shallow climb, manage you speed to keep the distance ticking up at a good rate. When you feel comfortable, steepen the climb and concentrate on a smooth turn back towards, transitioning to a steepish dive that hooks around the spit, keeping it turning. 

Explain me something, please. Why would you ever have the supercharger stage 2 on if it started at 3000m?

 

As far as I know, stage 1 on the LA-5 goes till 3.5k meters. Or am I wrong?

 

If you start at 3k in a QMB in the LA5 it starts at stage 2, for some reason. This surpised me as much as it did you, as even the in game specifications page states 3.5k for stage 2.

[Tomsk]

That's how I do it, the trick is exectly how shallow and how hard you dive. I found by being more aggressive in the dive I worked up more of an energy advantage. Another side beniefit is the enemy spit has to turn harder and the only hard pull up you need to do is at high speed, where the 190 can pull g a lot better.

 

Ah so you're sucking the Spitfire into a high-speed dive. Okay, I guess the idea here is the Spit is a lot worse at retaining excess speed compared to the 190, so that dive bleeds a lot more energy from the Spit than the 190. Then when you high-speed climb out of it you're converting that speed advantage back into an altitude advantage.

 

Personally I still think the Spit must be somewhat over modelled. If cranking up the boost solved the problem why didn't the British just do that, rather than being as desperate as they were to make the Mk IX? In BoK it seems the Spit holds turn and climb advantages, and the 190 holds top-speed and high-speed handling: which is reasonably balanced. If the 190 held the climb advantage as well (as the British themselves said it did) then it would indeed start to dominate the Spit V. Seems like our Spit is more of an early Mk IX than a Mk V ...

[Dakpilot]

As far as I remember the first Mk IX's series deployed to counter the FW-190 was simply a MkV with different engine, it was a stop gap while more developed Mk VIII was still unavailable

 

The naming is a bit confusing,

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dr_Molem]

Ah so you're sucking the Spitfire into a high-speed dive. Okay, I guess the idea here is the Spit is a lot worse at retaining excess speed compared to the 190, so that dive bleeds a lot more energy from the Spit than the 190. Then when you high-speed climb out of it you're converting that speed advantage back into an altitude advantage.

 

Personally I still think the Spit must be somewhat over modelled. If cranking up the boost solved the problem why didn't the British just do that, rather than being as desperate as they were to make the Mk IX? In BoK it seems the Spit holds turn and climb advantages, and the 190 holds top-speed and high-speed handling: which is reasonably balanced. If the 190 held the climb advantage as well (as the British themselves said it did) then it would indeed start to dominate the Spit V. Seems like our Spit is more of an early Mk IX than a Mk V ...

 

Don't know if that has been said but the Spit V ingame is different from Spit Vs that were fighting 190s in late 41 (it has a higher boost), so yes it is better, but still far behind any 190 in my opinion...

[Barnacles]

Okay, I guess the idea here is the Spit is a lot worse at retaining excess speed compared to the 190, so that dive bleeds a lot more energy from the Spit than the 190. Then when you high-speed climb out of it you're converting that speed advantage back into an altitude advantage.

..

 

Yes spot on, keep the speeds between 400-600 and the 190 shines. Once you get fast you often don't need to bother climbing again as another bonus is the spit starts to lock up earlier so a rolling scissors will get you on it's six too.

[Wulf]

Not in relation to that test, im afraid, just an unreferenced comment on the UBI forum that said 9lbs boost and 2850rpm.

 

Here is a test of a mark V with 16lbs boost. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html max rate of climb at 16lbs and 3000 rpm of 3700fpm

 

The RAE test of a 190 A3 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg got a max rate of climb at 1.42 ata and 2700 rpm of 3300fpm.

 

Edit, that's rubbish, the climb test was 1.35ata at 2400rpm, so the max climb rates were probably a lot closer.

 

 

According to the information supplied, the 16 lb boost modification to the Merlin 45 powered Mk V did improve performance somewhat, however, the increased boost (to 16 lbs) was only permitted for 3 minutes. 

[Jizzo]

 

 

According to the information supplied, the 16 lb boost modification to the Merlin 45 powered Mk V did improve performance somewhat, however, the increased boost (to 16 lbs) was only permitted for 3 minutes. 

 

Exactly what we have available in the sim.

[Barnacles]

Exactly what we have available in the sim.

It definitely blows after 3, I checked.

[Herne]

According to the information supplied, the 16 lb boost modification to the Merlin 45 powered Mk V did improve performance somewhat, however, the increased boost (to 16 lbs) was only permitted for 3 minutes.

 

Also modelled in game. 1cgs did their research, part of the reason for the delay for the Pacific is that they are not confident that they can gather and interpret performance and operations manuals for the Japanese birds within the next dev cycle. They are not going to do best guess, they want to get it right, just as they have tried with all the birds we have up until now.

 

If you think the spit is over modelled take it to berloga server and try and shake something that is on your six. When you die take a 190 or 109 and do the same. It's not as over powered as many of you make out, but it remains a very viable option. One of my favourites for sure.

[MacLeod]

Yeah I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. The exact altitude at which you should shift gears escape me, but I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between 2300m and 2800m. I usually shift gears around 2500m for both Klimov and Shvetzov engines

Klimov yes, 2.3k, shvetsov is more like 3.3, 3.5, after that it seems to me that it just dies.

 

That's how I do it, the trick is exectly how shallow and how hard you dive. I found by being more aggressive in the dive I worked up more of an energy advantage. Another side beniefit is the enemy spit has to turn harder and the only hard pull up you need to do is at high speed, where the 190 can pull g a lot better.

 

Enable icons in QMB so you can get a real sense of closure/opening rates, so with the shallow climb, manage you speed to keep the distance ticking up at a good rate. When you feel comfortable, steepen the climb and concentrate on a smooth turn back towards, transitioning to a steepish dive that hooks around the spit, keeping it turning. 

 

If you start at 3k in a QMB in the LA5 it starts at stage 2, for some reason. This surpised me as much as it did you, as even the in game specifications page states 3.5k for stage 2.

Oh, that's the reason! thanks

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

To get back to the op, somethingbto consider when questioning the FM is that there are very sensibel people on this comunity, it may backfire for you.

 

Second, don't know what your understanding of the (early) La5F is but the perception of it outturning the Spitfire is nonsense. The early La5F is equal to the early La5 model but has an increased boost time limit. That does not mean its a turnfighter, it's wing loading is higher and it's heavier than the Spitfire.

 

The next thing is the term manouvrebility. This defines you ability to chabge your heading and/or attitide quickly. Having said that the La5F can outmanouver a Spit, which does not equal outturn. Instead you have to utilize ot's superiour roll rate to fight vertically or apply scissor manouvers.

 

Most important though, to get most performencevoutbof it everthing on the La5 has to be managed manually. Mixture, radiators (outlet, oil inlet), supercharger gear, RPM and engine boost. You can't rely on auto management to give you the desired performence.

[Max_Damage]

Explain me something, please. Why would you ever have the supercharger stage 2 on if it started at 3000m?

 

As far as I know, stage 1 on the LA-5 goes till 3.5k meters. Or am I wrong?

1st stage up until 3500m at climbing speed. If you are at ~ max speed you can keep using stage 1 up until ~4500.

In SP AI spitfire is deadly even if you have 109 and because the ai sees you every time you cant suprise it like in mp. Its the only plane im afraid of. And if the zero was much more maneuverable than the spit, i dont want to sit in wildcat.

nah with 109 it becomes easy. its just too good at verticals and the gap is too large. Btw this test is a nice setup to compare vertical abilities of diffirent planes. Take spitfire 46 veteran.

[Tomsk]

Yes spot on, keep the speeds between 400-600 and the 190 shines. Once you get fast you often don't need to bother climbing again as another bonus is the spit starts to lock up earlier so a rolling scissors will get you on it's six too.

 

 

So this I am familiar with, for an enemy that is in your close six, although it has been my experience you need to seal the deal or disengage fairly quickly. Scissors burns energy like crazy and eventually you’ll run out of energy at which time the 190 has few tricks left. What’s interesting is your technique for dealing with a Spit on long six, will have to try that

 

 

If you think the spit is over modelled take it to berloga server and try and shake something that is on your six. When you die take a 190 or 109 and do the same. It's not as over powered as many of you make out, but it remains a very viable option. One of my favourites for sure.

The only reason I suggest it was possibly over modelled is that seems to out climb the 190, which the British said it could not. It is clearly inferior in speed, which IMO is the most important quality of a combat aircraft

[=GM=GJL2]

Bf109E7 is also a maneuverable dogfight killer, better than F4F2, I did a dogfight MP kill match with 10 victories in 45 minutes.

[LColony_Kong]

Spit V in game is the king of turn period. It has a sustained turn at full point of 16 seconds. The Yak is about 18 seconds, 109 18./19. 

[Finkeren]

I want to zoom out for a bit and look at the bigger picture.

 

When we consider these fighter models’ capabilities, we have to keep in mind, that even though they might sometimes have been tested against potential opponents in 1-on-1 trials, they were never meant to be used as single aircraft fighting single opponents. 1-on-1 situations, as common as they are in MP, were incredibly rare in WW2.

 

Being part of a cohesive unit fighting another cohesive unit drastically alters the impact a certain aircraft’s strengths and weaknesses has on the fight.

 

Try pitting a full flight of four Fw 190s working as a team against a flight of four Spitfires doing likewise, and I guarantee you, the dynamics of the fight will be radically different from a 1-on-1 situation (obviously you can’t use the AI for this, it would have to be 8 human pilots of comparable skill, situational awareness and familiarity with their aircraft)

[LColony_Kong]

I want to zoom out for a bit and look at the bigger picture.

 

When we consider these fighter models’ capabilities, we have to keep in mind, that even though they might sometimes have been tested against potential opponents in 1-on-1 trials, they were never meant to be used as single aircraft fighting single opponents. 1-on-1 situations, as common as they are in MP, were incredibly rare in WW2.

 

Being part of a cohesive unit fighting another cohesive unit drastically alters the impact a certain aircraft’s strengths and weaknesses has on the fight.

 

Try pitting a full flight of four Fw 190s working as a team against a flight of four Spitfires doing likewise, and I guarantee you, the dynamics of the fight will be radically different from a 1-on-1 situation (obviously you can’t use the AI for this, it would have to be 8 human pilots of comparable skill, situational awareness and familiarity with their aircraft)

This is absolutely correct, and one of the things that most people get wrong. Most people assume that if a plane is better 1v1, its better many vs many. 

 

The truth of the matter is that faster planes tend to be better in many vs many even in Co-Alt situations. This is because the faster aircraft can always catch up to their wingman and clear their six, while the other bandit cannot do the same. In other words, the faster planes can always guarantee a 2v1, while the slower planes can never force this. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Personally I still think the Spit must be somewhat over modelled. If cranking up the boost solved the problem why didn't the British just do that, rather than being as desperate as they were to make the Mk IX? In BoK it seems the Spit holds turn and climb advantages, and the 190 holds top-speed and high-speed handling: which is reasonably balanced. If the 190 held the climb advantage as well (as the British themselves said it did) then it would indeed start to dominate the Spit V. Seems like our Spit is more of an early Mk IX than a Mk V ...

 

They did, but they took it some time to do it. If i'm correct the +16 boost clearance for the Mk V was in late 1942, when the Mk IX was already in service, and the AI does use it to good effect.

 

For a more accurate comparison in a late 1941 scenario, it would have to be between two players, respecting the boost limitation each plane had in that time. If i'm correct the Fw 190 also was limited to 1.35 ata as max throttle. Now i'm not sure if then the max boost used was +9 or +12 at 3000 rpm.

[Herne]

 

 

 

The only reason I suggest it was possibly over modelled is that seems to out climb the 190, which the British said it could not. It is clearly inferior in speed, which IMO is the most important quality of a combat aircraft

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html

 

that may have been true in 1941, but by 1943 the merlin 45 was cleared for +16 boost giving it a very respectable climb rate at lower altitudes.

[Finkeren]

This is absolutely correct, and one of the things that most people get wrong. Most people assume that if a plane is better 1v1, its better many vs many.

 

The truth of the matter is that faster planes tend to be better in many vs many even in Co-Alt situations. This is because the faster aircraft can always catch up to their wingman and clear their six, while the other bandit cannot do the same. In other words, the faster planes can always guarantee a 2v1, while the slower planes can never force this.

In my experience with multiple fighters on both sides, the advantage is on the fighter that is faster, better armed and to a lesser the one with the greater climb rate.

[CIA_Yankee_]

In my experience with multiple fighters on both sides, the advantage is on the fighter that is faster, better armed and to a lesser the one with the greater climb rate.

 

Aye... and this is generally how it bore out historically, and can do so 1 on 1 too... and the reason, to boil it down to the very basics, is that the faster/better climbing aircraft can dictate the fight. They can decide when and how to engage or disengage.

 

There's a reason the western front in the air (until June '44, at least) turned into a competition on who performs best at the highest altitudes. This also led to interesting impacts on the eastern front, where the war was tactical and generally stayed low, and so you see the axis designers engaged in a competition with the west to design aircraft that didn't quite get to fully use their main capabilities on the eastern front. This is how you get things like the P-39 being beloved by the VVS, and yet rejected in western Europe.

 

But anyway, to use a naval analogy, you can think of the faster/higher aircraft as having the "weather gauge". Thus why speed and climb are generally the most desired attributes. It's why everyone switched to monoplanes, even though biplanes clearly could turn better.

[Tomsk]

In my experience with multiple fighters on both sides, the advantage is on the fighter that is faster, better armed and to a lesser the one with the greater climb rate.

 

Agree completely, it's why I like fast, well-armed planes :-)

 

 

that may have been true in 1941, but by 1943 the merlin 45 was cleared for +16 boost giving it a very respectable climb rate at lower altitudes.

 

Ah okay that's fair enough. Yes which suggests for sustained climbing the advantage maybe still goes to the 190, given the Spitfire only had 3 minutes of +16 boost available? As I understand it the RAF were fairly desperate, so I'm surprised they didn't clear it for the higher boost earlier ... perhaps the higher boost required higher octane fuel or some such? 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Tomsk

[battlefield_2016]

Folks, I'm very grateful to you all participating in this discussion.

 

Flying warbirds in IL-2 help us understand the history better, the practical side of it. Also, it is very exciting that there is a possibility of cross checking a variety of pure theoretical things, like testing out La-5 vs the Spitfire (or any other plane with one or several strengths, like short turning radius, etc.). 

 

As I mentioned in the beginning, I was wondering IF La-5 was that mediocre plane and IF the Spitfire Mk V was that good in terms of low altitude maneuvering using sharp turns. Now, thanks to many of you we also brought Fw-190 in the picture which even raised more further questions. 

 

To sum up, it doesn't matter what set of plane we test and cross check, as long as they are what they were during the WW2. And ultimately, modelling a variety of situations like 1-on-1 etc. we can understand better. Bottom line, any practical and relevant findings may contribute to possible FM tweaks and improvements, if there are any to make.

Edited December 21, 2017 by battlefield_2016

[Stig]

As I understand it the RAF were fairly desperate, so I'm surprised they didn't clear it for the higher boost earlier

 

 

It was more complicated, as such. Fighter Command were taking a beating over France in mid '41, before the Fw 190 got in on the act; but the RAF were slow realising it, due mainly to the exaggerated claims of their pilots. By the time they did catch on, the Fw 190 had just about replaced the Bf 109's and Faber's 190 had been captured and tested. The blame for FC's travails was put on the superiority of the Fw vs the Spit MkV; but superb as Tank's design was, it was not the sole cause. 

[CIA_Yankee_]

It was more complicated, as such. Fighter Command were taking a beating over France in mid '41, before the Fw 190 got in on the act; but the RAF were slow realising it, due mainly to the exaggerated claims of their pilots. By the time they did catch on, the Fw 190 had just about replaced the Bf 109's and Faber's 190 had been captured and tested. The blame for FC's travails was put on the superiority of the Fw vs the Spit MkV; but superb as Tank's design was, it was not the sole cause. 

 

Aye... in effect, the RAF was suffering from the same problems the LW had suffered over England during the BoB. Going for a romp over enemy territory, when that enemy has an effective fighter cover system in place (radar, a good C&C process, and so on), is generally a dicey proposition.

[rolikiraly]

The FW-190 vs. Spit topic is really interesting, wish i had the time to read all the stuff you posted.

 

Another interesting point is the Macchi vs. Spit. The Folgore was mentioned in the opening post so i hope it won't count as offtopic 

 

These 2 planes fought each other on numerous occasions during the war (not on the Eastern front though). I've read somewhere that they were considered more or less equal oppenents, excluding the obvious difference in armament. Do your sources generally say the same?

Also how is it in BOS? How good is the Folgore in the game regarding performance and maneuverability? I guess it is mostly inferior to the F4 but maybe it has better high speed handling? I'm asking cause I don't have any of these 2 but might get them later on.

 

PS: I could browse the performance tables, but the different power settings make it difficult to get a realistic conclusion, and it's always better to hear it from those who can actually try them. 

[battlefield_2016]

I want to zoom out for a bit and look at the bigger picture.

 

When we consider these fighter models’ capabilities, we have to keep in mind, that even though they might sometimes have been tested against potential opponents in 1-on-1 trials, they were never meant to be used as single aircraft fighting single opponents. 1-on-1 situations, as common as they are in MP, were incredibly rare in WW2.

 

Being part of a cohesive unit fighting another cohesive unit drastically alters the impact a certain aircraft’s strengths and weaknesses has on the fight.

 

Try pitting a full flight of four Fw 190s working as a team against a flight of four Spitfires doing likewise, and I guarantee you, the dynamics of the fight will be radically different from a 1-on-1 situation (obviously you can’t use the AI for this, it would have to be 8 human pilots of comparable skill, situational awareness and familiarity with their aircraft)

I tried different scenarios recently, and it appears to me that in the sim, a human pilot flying with a unit of inferior planes may have better chances against AI flying multiple superior planes, say 3-on-3. And in 1-on-1 situation, the AI is focused on you solely which makes it harder to win using an inferior plane.

Edited December 21, 2017 by battlefield_2016

[RAY-EU]

Spitfire Mk V specificatons:

 

http://www.sepsy.de/raf-spit-mk-5.htm

[Voidhunger]

1st stage up until 3500m at climbing speed. If you are at ~ max speed you can keep using stage 1 up until ~4500.

 

nah with 109 it becomes easy. its just too good at verticals and the gap is too large. Btw this test is a nice setup to compare vertical abilities of diffirent planes. Take spitfire 46 veteran.

Try 3 veteran bf109g4 against 4 veteran spits with 45 engine at 2500 alt. How long will take you to shot them down?

Edited December 21, 2017 by Voidhunger