Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31181)

Quote:

Kurfurst on the other hand just went and raised a bug on the Spitfire roll rate at the same time as starting this thread. He did not wait for anybody else's opinions nor cared,

Quote:

because he has an agenda to maximise the ability of his favourite type against his least favourite type. That's what he does.

No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.

Quote:

You will note that he never tested nor raised a bug for the identical fault in the 109 which even his own data displays is worse than the Spitfire at those high speeds he refers to.

Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.

You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?

Quote:

I don't object to the bug but I will not vote for it until I make my own checks in game.

You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.

Quote:

I also take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 418492)

And..? If we would need the 'approval' of our trio of braindead rafanatics, nobody would ever be able to raise any bugs about the Spitfire or any other RAF type.

Just be frank about it. All you want is to cover up the Spitfire roll rate bug. It rolls 3 times as fast than it should, there's plenty of documentation about the real world figures and how it does not match up. It does not require anybody's opinion, because its a FACT. RAE has tested it in 1940, found that it rolled 90 degrees in 8 seconds at 400 mph, we have tested it under the same conditions in Il2COD in 2012, and has found that it rolls in about 2.5 secs instead. Its not a matter of anybody's opinion anymore. It simply does not match RL figures.

Nor do anybody agrees with your assertion that there's nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of people acknowledged and endorsed that bug at il2bugreport already. You of course are not one of them.

No, that is what you do. You argue for only 100 octane Spitfires and Hurricanes to modelled without any documentation offered. You do not support the fix any Blue bugs, any valid and try to hinder to fix any cases, you do not seem to have voted for the lack of 100 octane 109/110 models yet, while most of the respected RAF fliers do not have any problem with that, they saw the documentation and voted in favour.

You did not. Your bias is obvious, you only support bug reports which favor your side.

So how is it Osprey, you want 100 octane RAF fighters (nota bene - I myself just like Tom has voted in favour of them to be modelled), but you do not want 100 octane Luftwaffe fighters? Interesting attitude I must say, and yet it is you who accuse others of bias..!!

Everybody knows that you are one of the most biased partisans on this board who has no sources, cannot offer any kind of objective proof, and who's words are not worth noting. And in your frustation of the failure to present any case in an intelligent and convincing manner, you attack those who do.

Ah, again the 'Spitfire bugs can only be fixed if they nerf the other plane, too' mentality. How typical.

I suggest you shall not make up lies about the evidence I have posted. My data has shown the exact opposite what you suggest, but here, a thread about Spit/Hurri characteristics it's irrelevant. As noted if you find any bugs of 109 FM, not the ones you make up yourself, based on your 'feelings' and 'opinion', test it and present hard data how it should be for a correct FM, I shall support that.

Its just not happening because you are

a, too lazy to do the testing yourself, though you keep running your mouth about you will test this and that. For three weeks now..
b, incapable of presenting a case intelligently
c, don't actually know a thing how the real thing had behaved in the air, but you want the other side to be worse
d, too busy with your stupid, primitive character assassination campaign here to have time for life, testing or anything.

You have been promising for three weeks now that you will make tests of the 109s roll rate in the sim and present your findings. Where are they?

You had three weeks to make your own checks, so this is big pile of BS. You object fixing the bug because it would effect your precious Spitfires, simple as that.

I afraid nobody cares about what you do, so might as well keep your precious opinion to yourself.

Nice. I can just imagine that you must've totally lost it during that diatribe, you don't like bites into your reputation above everything else. Too late though, everybody has you sussed out mate :D

I haven't voted for some of the Luftwaffe bugs purely because I do not know the facts of the matter, because just voting without knowing would just be plain stupid don't you think? If I were against them then I'd have voted against.

But the real lunacy is the implication that I want the 109 'nerfed'. Absolutely not. But even a complete dunce can see from your own data that the 109 roll rate is worse than the Spitfire at high speeds, even when you use comparative data from 'rogue' aircraft against captured 109's.
More simply and in support of my suggestion of your bias is that you apply the adjective 'nerfed' to anything that is of detriment to the 109, regardless of fact. So thanks for supporting my point here.

PS Please take the time to look up No.501 squadron and which type we fly, just to correct you on another conclusion you've jumped to.

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurfürst (Post 418535)

Just test the damn thing, gather your data and present it - or just shut up. Nobody is interested 'oh I am the only objective person in the ocean of biased haters' verbal diarrhea.

Out of interest, do you consider yourself as objective?

He does, nobody else does though.

@Kurfurst. Hypocritical of you to make demands on others when you are a master of avoiding questions and evidence when you are asked to prove some of your other claims. I don't operate to your demands pal, I'll do it when I'm good and ready, it wouldn't make this patch anyway. I've still got to tidy up bug 174 after you posted your rubbish about the Spitfire IIa boost allowance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom (Post 418367)

Hi. I don't have any problem personally with you guys, but I know what your opinions about Kurfurst (I know him), you (and some other ppl here) have prejudices against him. He is supported the German side, it's true. But he don't falsify the documents, don't lie, only his opinion does not always correspond with the generally accepted thesis. If he had a personal conflict with someone, it is not my business. But the data that are copied here as well, these can not be found wrong. The test reports and the game is really different from eachother.

You haven't experienced the nastier side of Kurfurst here, on other forums, or on Wikipedia so it would be fair to say that there is another side to this; Kurfurst has (almost deliberately) provoked a great deal of animosity against himself and any views he supports, which has led to some prejudice against the Bf 109. Fair enough though, no further attacks on the source.

However, the data he has presented here, although genuine, is skewed against the Spitfire because it represents one aspect of a complex whole. By maintaining that flight reports about rogue Spitfires with badly adjusted ailerons - reports that are described by Geoffrey Quill - are representative of the flight characteristics of all Mk I Spitfires with fabric ailerons, is drawing an extremely long bow, as is presenting a Rechlin report about a captured Spitfire which may or may not have sustained damage to its ailerons or other parts of the airframe which helped skew the report. I know there have often been complaints about presenting A&AEE or RAE reports about captured 109s because of the state the airframes may have been in. Alfred Price suggests that there was often a certain amount of propaganda involved on both sides, so a degree of caution is needed when using WW2 flight test reports about an enemy's aircraft to generate objective data about that aircraft.

Geoffrey Quill noted that one of his major frustrations with the early Spitfires was the heaviness of the fabric ailerons at high speeds, another problem being, as he explained, the sensitivity of the fabric ailerons to slight variations of tolerances in and around the wing structure and on the aileron itself. The adoption of the metal covered ailerons did away with many of those variations and were on the vast majority of Spitfires.

As is often the case some of what Kurfurst says I agree with and other parts I don't. I totally agree with him re the ease of production and maintanence of the 109. These factors were well thought out during the design phase the RAF were very impressed about this and I have their report should anyone want me to post it.

His comments about the wing mounted weapons is partly true. They did have some impact on the 109's performance that is inevitable with the extra drag, but the biggest impact wasn't on a drop in speed which was a smaller reduction than you might think, but in handling. Difficult to measure but a major impact in combat, fine against unescorted bombers but you didn't want to tangle with a fighter with that extra load.

On the subject of 100 octane fuel for the RAF in the BOB we are poles apart and I do not suggest we get sucked into that topic here.

Sorry to interrupt, but: Kurfürst, you've a PM from me.

Artist