Crumpp
A couple of comments on your positing 288
1 The observation that the US were talking about the Lateral and Yawise coupling. A good point but as far as I can see they do not mention any of the problems that you keep raising. Can you point out where these are highlighted
2 The observation that they were not talking about the Spitfire. I disagree they were making a general comment about fighters of the period and this would have included the SPitfire. I don't see where they exclude the Spitfire from that statement, again could yo point that out to me. It would be appreciated
3 Adding Inertia weights to Spit 1 in July 1941. This I agree is a very good point but I don't see the relevence to the BOB. Between the BOB and the adding of the inertia weight a number of other changes were made, in particular:-
a) adding firproof bulkhead behind pilot
b) adding electron lower fuel tank
c) changing the Merlin to a Merlin 45 as used in the Spit V
All these would have added weight and impacted the handling quite possibly necessitating the introduction of the inertia weights in July 1941. In other words the Spit 1 in July 1941 was a very different animal to the one in the BOB, it was more like the Spit V.
I also note that not all these changes were implemented a good example is the deletion of 4 x LMG and their replacement by 2 x 20mm in July 1940 which clearly didn't happen.
I would like to digress a moment and concentrate on the areas where we do agree. It have been pointed out to me in a PM exchange that these have been missed. If people can agree on these at least it will give the Developers somehting to work on while other areas are finalised.
Gun Platform.
I beleive there is a greement that the SPitfire was not as good a gun platform as the Hurricane. Its well documented and shouldn't be made impossible but more difficult
Tightening up in a high speed turn
Again I don't have a problem in making the pilot have to take action to counter this trendency. In the real world its almost instictive and I wouldn't expect a pilot to have any difficulty dealing with it but it a difference
Loss of lift when flying in turbulance
All aircraft lose performance when flying in turbulance and this should be reflected in the model.
regarding how to model it in the ideal world everyone whould have a feedback stick and feel it but a lot of people don't have this. I would suggest that a visual shaking on the screen piture be built in.
'Overcooking it' when in turbulance
If someone in a Spit is in turbulance, ignores the warning and tries to tighten the turn further I totally agree that the plane should flip and go into a spin.
Note - I do disagree that the plane should break up in the spin for the simple reason that examples are very rare and often had other factors which almot certanly played a part. Some examples I am sure exist but they are hard to find.
Hope that helps
|