My mistake was having a brain fart. Its may'41 I have as well, although i have it that they were being made and fitted at the Air Service Training factory at Hamble, near Southhampton.

Despite the fact that they were being fitted to Mk V's, 616 Squadron (ie Bader) decided that they wanted to have them on there Spit MkII's and dealt directly with the factory and signed the bits of paper put in front of them.

About a year later, Johnnie Johnson got an official letter, requiring an explanation as to why and who had authorised this, he replied that perhaps Bader might know (he was PoW by now)!

I think these were probably the only spit II's that had them, and suffice to say no spits had them in BoB.

That's good because it clears up an ambiguity that would most certainly lead to a bloody great argument! ;)

Got Track? ©®

And again to Kurfurst, did you test the 109?

I suggest you test it yourself and open a new thread for it, if you find something is wrong with it. Unfortunately I have very little on 109E roll rate.

That stacks up with the rest of the problems in the FMs for these two planes, as currently the Spit is more manueverable than the Hurri, which is opposite of RL.

Maybe they should simply invert the FM of Hurricane and Spitfire, this would be a closer match to reality ;)

You have the same data as you do for the Spitfire, and you did a test and made the effort to raise a bug. You know the 109 roll rate is also incorrect yet you did nothing, at speed it is actually meant to be slower than the Spitfire, nice work. I suspect too that had the rollrate for the Spitfire or Hurricane been too slow you'd have also done nothing.

I'll do the test on the 109 and verify your 'work' on the RAF fighters.

The Hurricane's rollrate is in fact too slow - and no mention of it on the bugtracker ;)

This is what I noted in there:

''The test figures posted are well known, I remember reading these on A2A forums. I suppose the devs are aware of the fact and the RAF fighters are already modelled with rather heavy and unresponsive aileron control at higher speeds. (that goes for Spitfire and especially Hurricane). I have not done any testing yet but I would say that 90° bank in the sim would take a bit longer that 2 seconds in a Hurricane at given air speed. The effect is already present in the sim and aileron and rudder control becomes very stiff and heavy as the speed raises.

Reading the document again - it seems that the behaviour was not identical on all liveries and varied quite a bit. In one unit, they mention 'replacing the ailerons until matching pair is found'. This would be extremely difficult to model in the sim. Also, the 8 second roll was only a basic testing, no method is stated, it was only done to compare these 2 types. It is also stated on the very beginning, that the reports and complaints from actual users (pilots that is) are comparable and both types suffered similar control issue, therefore the test with massive difference (that particular Spitfire rolled like a B-17) concerned them to the extent of contacting actual units and waited to hear from them with the report. This is what the Memorandum is. The method and report statements seem to be inconsistent but that does not matter that much as they wanted real life tests and feedback in the first place.

There is no way you can tell from this particular memorandum, that every Spitfire was rolling this slow and that Spitfires in game are rolling 3.2 times faster at 400 mph IAS than they should.

I agree the fabric ailerons were a pest and it should be modelled, I am looking forward for the new FMs in the upcoming patch, perhaps the general flying characteristics have been altered too and the planes will be closer to their RL counterparts.''

The 109's and Spitfires also turn way too fast. The hurricane can't out turn them.