I just wanted to say that I'm not only impressed with your understanding of this subject matter, but also with how well organized and presented it is. I was an instructor on an FSX naval aviation server for years teaching proper BFM and DACT, and this is all exactly like we taught it. Excellent work!
Thanks, I appreciate it. Creating the excel spreadsheet to generate the charts took a lot of work let alone the actual testing to get the data. I'm hoping to do the same for the Hornet in DCS at some point.
Boyd wrote the book on EM, Requiem brings it to us simmers. Thanks, back in the RoF and introduction of BoS days Requiem was my guiding light, I went away from flight sims for years, back and now he is my first ever Patreon sub, carry on!
Thanks Sandhill, I always enjoy hearing that someone remembers my stuff from Rise of Flight as that feels like a lifetime ago now! Thanks for checking out the Patreon too, any suggestions or feedback feel free to drop me a line :-)
I love the analytical style your videos , as an Engineer this type of format appeals to me and for none technical people you make things easy to comprehend. Keep up the good work
I'm taking an aerodynamics course at the moment, and I found it so cool that half of what you have discussed about such as "excess power" were topics that were discussed off naval training guide that was using the T-6B Awesome video 👍
Excellent analysis, as always. I'm an average fighter pilot, so I need to fly a plane a great deal before learning anything about it and as such I follow the rule; don't engage unless the odds are overwhelmingly in my favour-this makes up somewhat for my mediocre abilities. The trouble is, in game, loads of people don't realise their own limitations and end up blaming the aircraft. Great video.
That's the right way to fly honestly. You want to stack as many variables in your favour as possible. The more advantage you have the less your mistakes can cost you!
Felicitaciones por el video, espero que sigas con la compararacion de prestaciones de cazas de la SGM. I hope you continue with comparison between fighters.
I just want to say this video has really helped me with both of the aircraft in question! I'd be so excited to see one of these involving the D9, as that is one I've always struggled to do well with.
LOVE this and hope you do more of these ! WHY ? This is the really interesting stuff in terms of comparing different fighter aircraft of any era. I love the inclusion of the energy envelopes for each aircraft and ESPECIALLY how you translate and amplify that data into verbal common sense layman's terms to describe how to best employ one aircraft v another that simmers can apply. Bravo Req !!! Please keep this up !! You will never run out of these topics ANYTIME soon !!!
Thanks DG. It took a lot of time to get this video completed. The most tedious part was the flight testing and this took up a lot of my time, but now that I have the method refined I'm going to be asking for volunteers soon to help flight test the airplanes whether so I can create more of these comparisons for you guys. Whether it's in Il-2 or DCS it doesn't matter as the results are likely to be close enough for the same statements to apply. I've compared some preliminary test data for the Spitfire Mk.IX in Il-2 and DCS and the results are actually very close.
I wouldn't sweat too much over it. Don't try and think about this all the time. Just consider the general concepts and apply them while keeping the highlights of your airplane's performance in mind
+RequiemBoS *Thanks for an exact comparison of dissimilar aircraft.* The USN-USMC / McDonnell (USA) F4H-2N (F-4J after 1962) and Viet People's Air Force / OKB Artema Ivanovicha Mikojana (RUS) MiG-21 Perekhvatchik Forsirovann'yj SPS can be similarly graphed, with high Mach favoring the F4H-2N and low Mach the MiG-21PFS.
@@dinkussurrilius2307 its easy, design a fighter jet, do hundreds of hours of wind tunnel testing, and verify it with thousands of hours of flight testing.
Very nice presentation. Having this kind of data available for WWII aircraft would be very helpful, so thank you for making this effort. I hope you don't mind but I do have a few suggestions. 1. When introducing the concept of energy you might show a chart with lines of constant energy. This shows all points in the envelope where an airplane has the same energy level, and succinctly illustrates the interchangeability between airspeed an altitude. 2. You correctly show a that a constant speed climb gains energy. You then indicate that sacrificing altitude loses energy, but this is not necessarily the case if you exchange that altitude for a sufficient increase in airspeed. What you meant to say is that descent at a constant speed loses energy. Again, the lines of constant energy help illustrate this, as well as the corollary that you can convert excess speed from a dive back into energy by zooming. 3. I understand that it's hard to find load factor limits for WWII airplanes, but I do not think using an arbitrary 6 G pilot imposed limit is useful in comparing aircraft. Yes, sustaining more than 6 G indefinitely is tough, but a pilot can sustain more than 6 for long enough to make use of it ( certainly longer than these aircraft could sustain it in anything near level flight). Furthermore, you are factoring out the ability to compare the instantaneous turn performance of the aircraft, which a pilot could certainly employ even if he might have trouble sustaining 6 G. Pilot G tolerance is variable even for the same pilot on different days, while the airplane limit is a design constant. Therefore my preference would be to use an educated guess on the airframe limit rather than an arbitrarily low pilot limit, allowing comparison of the instantaneous as well as sustained turn capabilities of the aircraft. Corner velocity by definition is based on the airframe load limit, not pilot G tolerance. Thanks for listening. Please keep up the good work.
Thanks Gort, I appreciate your feedback on this one as I'm just a pilot without an engineering background. I understand what you mean about the pilot limit vs a structural limit, but the reason I went with 6G is because these graphs are done using Il-2 and both pilots here do not have a G-suit so their max is supposedly 6.5G. However in a P-51 for example there is a G-suit so that limit is 7.5G as the max is increased to 8G apparently. If all I did was consider a structural limit it would be harder to visualise the advantage the G suit gives. Send me an email or get in touch with me on my Discord channel, so that way when I do some future diagrams using DCS aircraft you can have review them if you like
@@RequiemsACTL Thanks, I may drop you a line sometime. Just as additional info for the audience, I think one should consider what actually happens at the pilot's G 'limit', which is not a binary on/off switch with the pilot suddenly incapacitated. Vison is gradually affected, going gray and dim, tunnel vison, and eventually getting to none. But the pilot is still flying even with reduced or no vision. It is perfectly feasible for a pilot to pull a limited duration max G turn that exceeds his sustainable tolerance. The Red Bull Air Race pilots must be feeling at least 8 G during their "vertical turn maneuvers". (This is why I hate the way DCS simulates G effects -- it treats blackout as a loss of consciousness, and it is not.)
Jets and markers, boy how do times change. 😂 I find it was a good idea to include a modern sight with the f-18, it's a great way to portray how these facts don't only apply to props. Great content as always and really enjoyed the new format!
Thanks Kevin. I think that's a hang up people can get when they see what I demonstrate...because its not using their particular sim it may not seem as valid to them. I'm going to be making content using other sims so hopefully that will broaden my audience a little bit.
It's really helpful to have someone put videos like these on youtube! But I've got a question: is there any site to find these em graphs, or do I have to make them?
How can i compare other planes with the same method ? For example the yak 1b vs bf 109 g2 ? The la5fn vs 190 a6 ? And other planes ............................
Requiem, you didn't mention climb rates, dive rates or acceleration (level or diving). Could you discuss these, either in conjunction with E or in addition to? I suspect from experience that both climb rate and acceleration also favor the 109 in most circumstances, but am unclear where these are true/not true, and the answer is essential when repeatedly converting/recovering E from an altitude advantage.
Yeah I didn't get to that Scott, it was a little out of scope for what I wanted to make in this video and it was getting pretty long already. I'll keep them in mind for a future one though.
Those are things teached in "Flight mechanics" in Aerospace Engineering. It's very impressive how far you go with these videos. Just wandering if you are an actual Aeronautic Engineer.
So basically as Bf-109, if we meet neutral I should keep my distance and in shallow turns over 500 Kph and slowly gain altitude/energy advantage to later exploit?
All well and good, but in the K-4 vs the Spit9e you're fkd without a big starting advantage. I mean, how often and for how long can you keep a 470+ km/h speed in a dogfight? 1v1 nightmare, BnZ vs a turn fighter that are so close performance wise.
In this case in the k-4It's all a game of "don't let the instinct of chasing the spit at every turn blurr your mind"...nerves of steel which i usually don't have myself and so guess who's in the ball of fire at the end of the dogfight :D
This is all true in horizontal pane, correct? This consideration doesn’t take into accout climb rates which are in favour of K-4 even below 480km/h. In other words 109 gains energy faster by climbing then Spit even at low speeds.
Correct, this is only under those sets of conditions. Part of creating these can include Ps = 0 lines at various climbrates /descent rates as well but I chose not to include that because I only wanted to focus on this core concept atm. It's a pretty tough topic to cover well in a reasonable timeframe
@@slegawsky3292 I'mnot so sure I agree wholly. What torque would you want? P-Factor? They've got the left turning (choose your direction for your country) tendencies modeled in IL2 correctly. You have to manage your rpm/manifold to not overspeeed/overtorque. What else would have material impact?
I plan on making these for DCS too. The F/A-18 or F-5 will be the first jet I do for it. It would be interesting to compare the MkIX and K4 in DCS against their counterparts in Il-2 as well. It's just that I have the process for making them using Il-2 more refined which is why I made them in Il-2 first
Thanks Cliff, a friend of mine called Floppysock created a program which pulls performance data from Il-2 while flying which allows for gathering of test data. I take the data and input it into an excel spreadsheet I created (which took forever) and this is what creates the EM charts you see.
@3:34 You say that Ps = 0 line shows a state where you are at a constant G, but that is incorrect. The G changes at various speeds along the Ps curve. Great video though and thanks for making this content.
Interesting that he was not maintaining the Ps=0 curve, but was maintaining a constant 3 G, using that to show that slowing to deeper beneath the Ps=0 curve allows use of excess power to climb or accelerate. While that is correct, I was also surprised he did not show using the power to increase the G and turn rate, which is why most people use these charts, to find the speed for best sustained turn rate. So he was not incorrect, but he was answering a different question than I would ask. Also, folks who fly jets rather than props should remember that the Ps=0 curves for these prop planes are quite different than those for jets, which usually have a peak much further to the right rather than to the left near the lift limit.
You're right that G changes along that line, but in this context he has specified the case that the aircraft is maintaining constant speed, which restricts you to a point on the line. At any given point on that line you are maintaining constant speed and G force.
@@funkyschnitzel We must be seeing different parts of the video. What I saw starting at about 4:40 was continuously pulling 3 G with the airspeed varying.
@@gort8203 same part of the video. So any point on that line describes a situation where you will have a fixed airspeed and G. What he does in this video is show that if you start with a speed which is too high or too low, then pull that specific G force, the plane's speed will settle at that point. For the case of 3g, the specific speed is about 317mph (for this aircraft). So when he starts faster that that and pulls 3g, he loses energy until he reaches that fixed point, at which stage both numbers will stay the same.
@@funkyschnitzel I understand your point, but in a dogfight, you don't watch your Gs and maintain a constant G through the turn. You should be watching speed and pulling or releasing the stick to reach the maximum sustained turn rate speed. You also can't realistically maintain constant Gs and will use varying Gs to maintain constant speed. Lastly, you should be full throttle to convert chemical energy into max turn performance instead of adjusting speed down to maintain Gs.
Do you have an easy source link for the EM diagram for all planes in IL2? Think it would be good to sticky on the forum under the guides/tips/tricks section.
No I don't. I've tested other airplanes in addition to these 2, at sea level / 15,000ft / 25,000 ft but nothing is public yet. I'm planning on making a post asking for assistance with testing as it's very time consuming
It could be the G-limit. It's really easy to overstress the pilot in the Spitfire, to a point in which in the later stages of your flight you can't match the Gs of your opponents. It is without a doubt the achilles heel. I'd also mention the flaps, 109s/190s can drop their flaps at low airspeeds and force an overshoot as was mentioned in the video. The only counter the Spit has is to quickly bleed speed (I usually go into the vertical a bit). On the plus side though, if their maneuver doesn't work, your energy states will be so low that a kill is almost guaranteed. Flying the spitfire in multiplayer against experienced German pilots is a very challenging experience.
Very good your friendlier theory unfortunately games are different from reality the game has nothing to do with the reality distorted by ipocrites who made this game score zero for those developers who unfortunately removed the true potential of the planes tunes the game is made by the russians score zero to them.
I just wanted to say that I'm not only impressed with your understanding of this subject matter, but also with how well organized and presented it is. I was an instructor on an FSX naval aviation server for years teaching proper BFM and DACT, and this is all exactly like we taught it. Excellent work!
Thanks, I appreciate it. Creating the excel spreadsheet to generate the charts took a lot of work let alone the actual testing to get the data. I'm hoping to do the same for the Hornet in DCS at some point.
I can't wait to watch this, but I'm saving it for tomorrow when I'm traveling. It makes my plane ride something to look forward too.
Have a good flight mate, I'm going home tomorrow myself :-)
Travelling not traveling...sorry tongue in cheek comment after others posted below😁
The life of a commuter ;)
Boyd wrote the book on EM, Requiem brings it to us simmers. Thanks, back in the RoF and introduction of BoS days Requiem was my guiding light, I went away from flight sims for years, back and now he is my first ever Patreon sub, carry on!
Thanks Sandhill, I always enjoy hearing that someone remembers my stuff from Rise of Flight as that feels like a lifetime ago now! Thanks for checking out the Patreon too, any suggestions or feedback feel free to drop me a line :-)
I love the analytical style your videos , as an Engineer this type of format appeals to me and for none technical people you make things easy to comprehend. Keep up the good work
Thanks Leigh, I appreciate that as I'm not an engineer...just a pilot LOL So I've tried to have it make sense from my mere mortal point of view
I'm taking an aerodynamics course at the moment, and I found it so cool that half of what you have discussed about such as "excess power" were topics that were discussed off naval training guide that was using the T-6B
Awesome video 👍
Excellent analysis, as always. I'm an average fighter pilot, so I need to fly a plane a great deal before learning anything about it and as such I follow the rule; don't engage unless the odds are overwhelmingly in my favour-this makes up somewhat for my mediocre abilities. The trouble is, in game, loads of people don't realise their own limitations and end up blaming the aircraft. Great video.
That's the right way to fly honestly. You want to stack as many variables in your favour as possible. The more advantage you have the less your mistakes can cost you!
Great job I have to admit. Very informative and easy to understand at the same time. Waiting for other planes.
Appreciate that Błażej, thanks!
Felicitaciones por el video, espero que sigas con la compararacion de prestaciones de cazas de la SGM. I hope you continue with comparison between fighters.
I just want to say this video has really helped me with both of the aircraft in question! I'd be so excited to see one of these involving the D9, as that is one I've always struggled to do well with.
Thanks Hex, the D-9 is one of the ones I'm working on data for at the moment
LOVE this and hope you do more of these ! WHY ? This is the really interesting stuff in terms of comparing different fighter aircraft of any era. I love the inclusion of the energy envelopes for each aircraft and ESPECIALLY how you translate and amplify that data into verbal common sense layman's terms to describe how to best employ one aircraft v another that simmers can apply. Bravo Req !!! Please keep this up !! You will never run out of these topics ANYTIME soon !!!
Thanks DG. It took a lot of time to get this video completed. The most tedious part was the flight testing and this took up a lot of my time, but now that I have the method refined I'm going to be asking for volunteers soon to help flight test the airplanes whether so I can create more of these comparisons for you guys. Whether it's in Il-2 or DCS it doesn't matter as the results are likely to be close enough for the same statements to apply. I've compared some preliminary test data for the Spitfire Mk.IX in Il-2 and DCS and the results are actually very close.
great video. thats a lot to have to remember during a fight. lol. looks like i still have a lot to learn about air combat.
I wouldn't sweat too much over it. Don't try and think about this all the time. Just consider the general concepts and apply them while keeping the highlights of your airplane's performance in mind
Really liked that format, great video!
+RequiemBoS *Thanks for an exact comparison of dissimilar aircraft.* The USN-USMC / McDonnell (USA) F4H-2N (F-4J after 1962) and Viet People's Air Force / OKB Artema Ivanovicha Mikojana (RUS) MiG-21 Perekhvatchik Forsirovann'yj SPS can be similarly graphed, with high Mach favoring the F4H-2N and low Mach the MiG-21PFS.
Will you go into details how you made these graphs?
ill be happy in anyone can send me anything, on how to make one. this can be useful to make
@@dinkussurrilius2307 its easy, design a fighter jet, do hundreds of hours of wind tunnel testing, and verify it with thousands of hours of flight testing.
Best! BFM base in whole YT...
Another Great Video Req!!! Thanks for these great tutorials!!!!
Really exciting. Thank you very much.
No worries!
This was amazingly helpful! Thank you very much!
Very nice presentation. Having this kind of data available for WWII aircraft would be very helpful, so thank you for making this effort. I hope you don't mind but I do have a few suggestions.
1. When introducing the concept of energy you might show a chart with lines of constant energy. This shows all points in the envelope where an airplane has the same energy level, and succinctly illustrates the interchangeability between airspeed an altitude.
2. You correctly show a that a constant speed climb gains energy. You then indicate that sacrificing altitude loses energy, but this is not necessarily the case if you exchange that altitude for a sufficient increase in airspeed. What you meant to say is that descent at a constant speed loses energy. Again, the lines of constant energy help illustrate this, as well as the corollary that you can convert excess speed from a dive back into energy by zooming.
3. I understand that it's hard to find load factor limits for WWII airplanes, but I do not think using an arbitrary 6 G pilot imposed limit is useful in comparing aircraft. Yes, sustaining more than 6 G indefinitely is tough, but a pilot can sustain more than 6 for long enough to make use of it ( certainly longer than these aircraft could sustain it in anything near level flight). Furthermore, you are factoring out the ability to compare the instantaneous turn performance of the aircraft, which a pilot could certainly employ even if he might have trouble sustaining 6 G. Pilot G tolerance is variable even for the same pilot on different days, while the airplane limit is a design constant. Therefore my preference would be to use an educated guess on the airframe limit rather than an arbitrarily low pilot limit, allowing comparison of the instantaneous as well as sustained turn capabilities of the aircraft. Corner velocity by definition is based on the airframe load limit, not pilot G tolerance.
Thanks for listening. Please keep up the good work.
Thanks Gort, I appreciate your feedback on this one as I'm just a pilot without an engineering background. I understand what you mean about the pilot limit vs a structural limit, but the reason I went with 6G is because these graphs are done using Il-2 and both pilots here do not have a G-suit so their max is supposedly 6.5G. However in a P-51 for example there is a G-suit so that limit is 7.5G as the max is increased to 8G apparently. If all I did was consider a structural limit it would be harder to visualise the advantage the G suit gives. Send me an email or get in touch with me on my Discord channel, so that way when I do some future diagrams using DCS aircraft you can have review them if you like
@@RequiemsACTL
Thanks, I may drop you a line sometime.
Just as additional info for the audience, I think one should consider what actually happens at the pilot's G 'limit', which is not a binary on/off switch with the pilot suddenly incapacitated. Vison is gradually affected, going gray and dim, tunnel vison, and eventually getting to none. But the pilot is still flying even with reduced or no vision. It is perfectly feasible for a pilot to pull a limited duration max G turn that exceeds his sustainable tolerance. The Red Bull Air Race pilots must be feeling at least 8 G during their "vertical turn maneuvers". (This is why I hate the way DCS simulates G effects -- it treats blackout as a loss of consciousness, and it is not.)
Wow this was comprehensive to say the least
I could have made it longer but you end up with diminishing returns learning this stuff where your eyes glaze over and you start drooling
Jets and markers, boy how do times change. 😂
I find it was a good idea to include a modern sight with the f-18, it's a great way to portray how these facts don't only apply to props.
Great content as always and really enjoyed the new format!
Thanks Kevin. I think that's a hang up people can get when they see what I demonstrate...because its not using their particular sim it may not seem as valid to them. I'm going to be making content using other sims so hopefully that will broaden my audience a little bit.
Where can we find these EM diagrams for various planes? Your analysis and walkthrough on how to read them is excellent.
Hey Phillip, not anywhere other than the videos yet. I need to compile more of them together into a document.
Excellent Vid.
Good video!!!
good job man
It's really helpful to have someone put videos like these on youtube! But I've got a question: is there any site to find these em graphs, or do I have to make them?
They're made manually based off flight testing. I'll be making more eventually
Excellent.
Need kind of these chart for yaks and laggs
Working on it!
How can i compare other planes with the same method ?
For example the yak 1b vs bf 109 g2 ?
The la5fn vs 190 a6 ?
And other planes ............................
Requiem, you didn't mention climb rates, dive rates or acceleration (level or diving). Could you discuss these, either in conjunction with E or in addition to? I suspect from experience that both climb rate and acceleration also favor the 109 in most circumstances, but am unclear where these are true/not true, and the answer is essential when repeatedly converting/recovering E from an altitude advantage.
Yeah I didn't get to that Scott, it was a little out of scope for what I wanted to make in this video and it was getting pretty long already. I'll keep them in mind for a future one though.
Gasp!! When did you change to a whiteboard?? 😱
Those are things teached in "Flight mechanics" in Aerospace Engineering. It's very impressive how far you go with these videos. Just wandering if you are an actual Aeronautic Engineer.
Thanks Marqis, no I'm not an engineer. Just an airline pilot with time on his hands and a copy of aerodynamics for naval aviators:-)
Is there a chart comparing the Spit VB and 109 F4?
So basically as Bf-109, if we meet neutral I should keep my distance and in shallow turns over 500 Kph and slowly gain altitude/energy advantage to later exploit?
All well and good, but in the K-4 vs the Spit9e you're fkd without a big starting advantage. I mean, how often and for how long can you keep a 470+ km/h speed in a dogfight? 1v1 nightmare, BnZ vs a turn fighter that are so close performance wise.
In this case in the k-4It's all a game of "don't let the instinct of chasing the spit at every turn blurr your mind"...nerves of steel which i usually don't have myself and so guess who's in the ball of fire at the end of the dogfight :D
This is all true in horizontal pane, correct? This consideration doesn’t take into accout climb rates which are in favour of K-4 even below 480km/h. In other words 109 gains energy faster by climbing then Spit even at low speeds.
Correct, this is only under those sets of conditions. Part of creating these can include Ps = 0 lines at various climbrates /descent rates as well but I chose not to include that because I only wanted to focus on this core concept atm. It's a pretty tough topic to cover well in a reasonable timeframe
Using DCS models would be probably more appropriate to show the science and how the numbers translate to flying these machines. Otherwise top job!
Yes, but doing more comparisons would lead to less content. Plus I think more wwii-centric pilots use IL2 than DCS at the moment.
@@MrSkins45 IL2 flight models don't include prop torque and many other things. DCS is mostly jets and bugs but at least they got that right.
@@slegawsky3292 I'mnot so sure I agree wholly. What torque would you want? P-Factor? They've got the left turning (choose your direction for your country) tendencies modeled in IL2 correctly. You have to manage your rpm/manifold to not overspeeed/overtorque. What else would have material impact?
However, I do agree that there are far more data points available in DCS to use at your will.
I plan on making these for DCS too. The F/A-18 or F-5 will be the first jet I do for it. It would be interesting to compare the MkIX and K4 in DCS against their counterparts in Il-2 as well. It's just that I have the process for making them using Il-2 more refined which is why I made them in Il-2 first
Will the next video be about how to fly the razorback?
Yep
Requiem do you have a video that explains this chart table?
Yep. Right here ruclips.net/video/rCLywusR3fo/видео.html
This is a great video! How do you make your EM charts?
Thanks Cliff, a friend of mine called Floppysock created a program which pulls performance data from Il-2 while flying which allows for gathering of test data. I take the data and input it into an excel spreadsheet I created (which took forever) and this is what creates the EM charts you see.
@@RequiemsACTL is that tool available to the public at all? would love to play around with something like that for my own learning purposes
@@discgenerate No it's not
@@discgeneratestart coding
@3:34 You say that Ps = 0 line shows a state where you are at a constant G, but that is incorrect. The G changes at various speeds along the Ps curve. Great video though and thanks for making this content.
Interesting that he was not maintaining the Ps=0 curve, but was maintaining a constant 3 G, using that to show that slowing to deeper beneath the Ps=0 curve allows use of excess power to climb or accelerate. While that is correct, I was also surprised he did not show using the power to increase the G and turn rate, which is why most people use these charts, to find the speed for best sustained turn rate. So he was not incorrect, but he was answering a different question than I would ask.
Also, folks who fly jets rather than props should remember that the Ps=0 curves for these prop planes are quite different than those for jets, which usually have a peak much further to the right rather than to the left near the lift limit.
You're right that G changes along that line, but in this context he has specified the case that the aircraft is maintaining constant speed, which restricts you to a point on the line. At any given point on that line you are maintaining constant speed and G force.
@@funkyschnitzel We must be seeing different parts of the video. What I saw starting at about 4:40 was continuously pulling 3 G with the airspeed varying.
@@gort8203 same part of the video. So any point on that line describes a situation where you will have a fixed airspeed and G. What he does in this video is show that if you start with a speed which is too high or too low, then pull that specific G force, the plane's speed will settle at that point.
For the case of 3g, the specific speed is about 317mph (for this aircraft). So when he starts faster that that and pulls 3g, he loses energy until he reaches that fixed point, at which stage both numbers will stay the same.
@@funkyschnitzel I understand your point, but in a dogfight, you don't watch your Gs and maintain a constant G through the turn. You should be watching speed and pulling or releasing the stick to reach the maximum sustained turn rate speed. You also can't realistically maintain constant Gs and will use varying Gs to maintain constant speed. Lastly, you should be full throttle to convert chemical energy into max turn performance instead of adjusting speed down to maintain Gs.
Do you have an easy source link for the EM diagram for all planes in IL2? Think it would be good to sticky on the forum under the guides/tips/tricks section.
No I don't. I've tested other airplanes in addition to these 2, at sea level / 15,000ft / 25,000 ft but nothing is public yet. I'm planning on making a post asking for assistance with testing as it's very time consuming
@@RequiemsACTL I am insterested in it. If I can be of any help let me know
THE CHALKBOARD????!!!! NOOOOOOooooooooooooooo.............!!!!!!!!
LOL I told you it would happen one day...don't sweat though, the blackboard is NOT retired ;-)
@@RequiemsACTL PHEWEE!!
Isnt the spit ix top speed 336mph at sea level?
Sorry for the late reply. This video was made before the Spit XIV was even in-game, so the test data I did is for the Mk IX.
So 1941 spit mk9 LF Merlin 66 optimised for low altitude against a 1944 109 k4 optimised for high altitude why not a MK XIV spit I have to ask!
There was no Mk XIV Spitfire available in the sim when I made this video.
where can i find that software you are using at the end?
It's a custom made software for flight tests in DCS and Il-2 that isn't available publicly
What is the last software you use ?
It's a custom made application so it doesn't have a name.
Yayyy
Huh I swear the 109 is better at slow speed fights. At least in rollers and flats I tend dance around Spitfires.
It could be the G-limit. It's really easy to overstress the pilot in the Spitfire, to a point in which in the later stages of your flight you can't match the Gs of your opponents. It is without a doubt the achilles heel. I'd also mention the flaps, 109s/190s can drop their flaps at low airspeeds and force an overshoot as was mentioned in the video. The only counter the Spit has is to quickly bleed speed (I usually go into the vertical a bit). On the plus side though, if their maneuver doesn't work, your energy states will be so low that a kill is almost guaranteed. Flying the spitfire in multiplayer against experienced German pilots is a very challenging experience.
@@mauricedesaxe1745 yeah I use flaps religiously
What game is this?
Il-2 Great Battles series
It must be on pc!?
Liking the new format theme, wasn't really a fan of the older one tbh.
Thanks, I figure when I talk about more "modern" topics like these or for jet videos I'll use a whiteboard instead of the chalkboard
@@RequiemsACTL I like that concept, gives a bit of immersion.
That sea level top speed you showing is not spit ix, it is the top speed of spit xiv
Great. But don't forget about 4g blackouts in Spit IX in this idiotic game.
Hopefully the system can be tweaked slightly
Very good your friendlier theory unfortunately games are different from reality the game has nothing to do with the reality distorted by ipocrites who made this game score zero for those developers who unfortunately removed the true potential of the planes tunes the game is made by the russians score zero to them.