I Want my 4.09 Spit FM's back.........

[Sven]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Why are you laughing, are you not interested in having accurate modelled planes in the game you play? Presumably you're not commenting on the accuracy of the flight model, since you only fly axis planes and wouldn't know much about how the allied planes fly. Those of us that fly both allied and axis planes like them to be as well modelled as is sensible in a game.

You draw conclusions to quickly, trigger happy friend ( hence the forum name perhaps?)

Why I'm laughing was not stated, but I guess I can explain it further, I'm laughing because the now improved FM as, TD indicated, is now causing my predicted outcome to be true. That is that folks who fly the spitfire think it is not good and they want there king of the air back. For long enough I've seen axis plane's thread get hi-jacked by "Allied" nuts saying we shouldn't complain and take the ingame FM for granted. Sure thing, if there is something wrong with the new Spitfire FM, it should be fixed, same counts for some flaws in Axis planes. But I've yet to see any official corrections to those FMs in a long while.

[TheGrunch]

Well, it's more of a discomfort thing than a pilot skill thing. Having the aileron trim tabs set to neutral in the wrong speed range is bloody annoying, I'm sure. I wonder though if those complaining are testing at low enough power settings? I haven't checked it in any detail myself.

[TheGrunch]

Well, I don't think DT did the *wrong* thing, per-se. The maximum economical cruising speed for the Spit IX (from the manual) is 170mph, so they clearly went toward making those long missions more comfortable.

"The recommended speed for maximum range is 170 m.p.h. (147 kts) I.A.S. if the aircraft is lightly loaded. At heavy loads, especially if the rear fuselage tanks are full this speed can be increased to 200 m.p.h. (172 kts) I.A.S. without incurring a serious loss of range."

"On aircraft not fitted with interconnected throttle and propeller
controls
(a) With the supercharger switch at MS fly at the maximum
obtainable boost (not exceeding + 7 lb./sq.in.) and obtain the
recommended speed by reducing r.p.m, as
required.

NOTE.— (i) R.p.m should not be reduced below a minimum of 1,800. At low altitudes, therefore, it may be necessary to reduce boost or the recommended speed will be exceeded.

(ii) As the boost falls at high altitudes it will not be possible to maintain the recommended speed in low gear, even at maximum continuous r.p.m, and full throttle. It will then he necessary to set the supercharger switch to AUTO. Boost will thus be restored and it will be possible to reduce r.p.m, again (as outlined in(a) above).
(iii) In both low and high gears r.p.m, which promote
rough running should be avoided. "

[SEE]

The La's and Yaks are the most stable but presenting an argument that Spitty pilots (or Russian for that matter!) are therefore less competent isn't really useful or accurate. I just had a most enjoyable hour on the 'BOB' server.....in a 'Spitty' of course and I make no aplogies for that!

[CIA_KC]

Hi all, new to the forum but not to the sim. Thought I'd chime in on this. There were many changes in 4.1, many I do not like but I'm dealing with them.
I fly both red and blue, predominately on WC or Sv109 and due to the new damage model on fw I have changed to flying the 109 almost exclusively. I always felt that the spitty had been way too good at e retention prior to 4.1 and we always "killed the spitty first" Some of the things I have noticed is that many of the regs that fly the spitty seem to stall much more often than they used to and probably does get really frustrating. Now to qualify my statements I DO NOT fly the spitty often and can't say what has changed by flying them, but I AM qualified to see that while fighting experienced spitty drivers that they seem to be having much more difficulty. From my pov only it seems that the planes are much more evenly matched and for that I am happy. As to the person who said that the 109 doesn't stall nearly as fast as the spitty, it's due to the complete concrete elevator that the 109 has (not really and advantage )
I will continue to fly this game as I love it!!! reguardless of how much the new FM or DM has changed. Haven't we figured it out yet that noone is ever going to be totally happy LOL. We all can remember all the spitty drivers in the previous patches calling us luftwhiners. Nowadays I do fly more blue than red, but that's because I always join the outnumbered team, and with 4.1 that is almost always blue, usually due to everyones love affair with the new 51 FM, but that's another post entirely.
~S~ all see u in the air!
CIA_KC
Jeff Mc.

[Fenrir]

Guys, can i make a request that we stop attacking people and making synde remarks regarding pilot skill just because of the plane someone chooses to fly?

It's snobbery of the highest and most disgusting order, and no-one should be maligned in this community for choosing to fly their favourite plane.

Do I malign 190 pilots for choosing a plane with awesome firepower? No.

Do I insult 109 pilots for having a plane with excellent lateral stability at the stall? No.

Do I attack either for their ability to outrun (with a couple of exceptions) the equivalent Spitfire Mk of that theatre/year? No.

Yes, the Spitfire is one of the easier planes to fly and fight - which is historically and prototypically correct btw; a vast majority of former WW2 pilots and modern day operators will attest to that- but having flown the equivalent various Mks of 109 and 190 myself, against Spits, these planes have their advantages, tho small I warrant you, and a good pilot will use them to his advantage.

I suspect too many of you Luft-fans are wandering into fights co-alt or below -I avoid them even in the spit - and you fight on it's terms. No wonder you get pwned so often.

If you have a problem with FMs then fine, but leave us the operators out of it - we don't design the flight models, we like you are just trying to get them to a stage where it reflects what we read and can find documented.

It's funny btw, that no Spit pilot here has complained about the percieved e-retention change; we just want an aircraft that doesn't constantly roll right throughout the majority of it's fighting speed range. It's all the Lufties who have jumped on there particular agenda yelling about that. Funny, eh?


And for those who didn't see it earlier, here's some documented fact by a spitfire pilot who flew Mks I - XIX:

Me, earlier:

Real spit pilots used to have their ailerons manually trimmed by their 'chiefy' - in the earlier spits with fabric ailerons a piece of cord was doped onto the trailing edge of the aileron on the wing that was dropping too much, thereby causing that aileron to droop slightly and thus lift the wing. How much depended on the length (and therefore weight) of the cord. A system of trial and error was used to get the balance about right.

With the metal ailerons, this was considered a bit old fashioned, and instead the 'chiefy' would give the offending aileron a few hearty wallops with a hide-faced hammer to bend it. If that didn't work, they'd swap round ailerons till they found a pair that gave the pilot the best compromise in the speed range he was happiest. - paraphrasing Tom Neil, Spitfire: From The Cockpit ISBN 0-7110-1918-5

So theoretically I should be able to CHOOSE the aileron neutral trim point of my spitfire.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Sven

You draw conclusions to quickly, trigger happy friend ( hence the forum name perhaps?)

Why I'm laughing was not stated, but I guess I can explain it further, I'm laughing because the now improved FM as, TD indicated, is now causing my predicted outcome to be true. That is that folks who fly the spitfire think it is not good and they want there king of the air back. For long enough I've seen axis plane's thread get hi-jacked by "Allied" nuts saying we shouldn't complain and take the ingame FM for granted. Sure thing, if there is something wrong with the new Spitfire FM, it should be fixed, same counts for some flaws in Axis planes. But I've yet to see any official corrections to those FMs in a long while.

All the nasty "sissyfire" quotes make you a liar.

Svend.

[Sven]

Originally Posted by Seeker

All the nasty "sissyfire" quotes make you a liar.

Svend.

? I don't quite understand, what sissyfire quotes did I made again?
I can make a quote if you want, If I remember right this is what a spitfire pilot said in an interview: "The spitfire could be flown by any idiot."
In that point of view IL2 got it spot on, the plane is meant for idiots.

Getting back to the thread direction, which seems to be ailerons, I think I'm going to take the Spit for a ride, had too much Ju-88 A17 practise, time to do something different.

[Flanker35M]

S!

This thread delivers. Can't wait to see the amount of whinery when IL-2:CoD is out. Then each and every armchair combat ace pilot X or Y is like a kid with a lollipop pulled out of their mouth when their fabled plane does not act like a X-Wing or TIE. This same crap discussion about Spit vs 109/Allied vs Axis has waged on since first flight sims from stone age and only between the GAMERS..or should use word lamers. This pathetic horde of "know it all sim pilots" are like kids on a sandbox arguing who's daddy has biggest epeen. And of course everyone here knows better how it was and should be, than the real vets, for sure. We would beat them vets all if given chance..right? This never ends..and you still wonder why no-one wants to make a flight sim?

I bet every "Mr.Pompom" / "Herr Bratwurst", depending on color orientation blue/red, would whine even given a chance fly the real plane and it would not fly up to expectations Please, bring on CoD and the new evolution of whinery

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Well, I don't think DT did the *wrong* thing, per-se. The maximum economical cruising speed for the Spit IX (from the manual) is 170mph, so they clearly went toward making those long missions more comfortable.

"The recommended speed for maximum range is 170 m.p.h. (147 kts) I.A.S. if the aircraft is lightly loaded. At heavy loads, especially if the rear fuselage tanks are full this speed can be increased to 200 m.p.h. (172 kts) I.A.S. without incurring a serious loss of range."

"On aircraft not fitted with interconnected throttle and propeller
controls
(a) With the supercharger switch at MS fly at the maximum
obtainable boost (not exceeding + 7 lb./sq.in.) and obtain the
recommended speed by reducing r.p.m, as
required.

NOTE.— (i) R.p.m should not be reduced below a minimum of 1,800. At low altitudes, therefore, it may be necessary to reduce boost or the recommended speed will be exceeded.

(ii) As the boost falls at high altitudes it will not be possible to maintain the recommended speed in low gear, even at maximum continuous r.p.m, and full throttle. It will then he necessary to set the supercharger switch to AUTO. Boost will thus be restored and it will be possible to reduce r.p.m, again (as outlined in(a) above).
(iii) In both low and high gears r.p.m, which promote
rough running should be avoided. "

That's a big subject but you're right on the money. I won't repost everything from the other thread about the AI, but a lot of imbalances in IL2 (perceived or real) and departures from what people expect to see based on historical knowledge, are the result of the simplified engine management mechanics of a 10 year old gaming engine.

Just because there's a Spit +25lbs doesn't mean it can run that for ages like it does in the sim and this goes for every other plane too, regardless if it's allied or axis. You know what the maximum continuous power was for most Spit Mk.IXs? A mere 8-9lbs of boost! Anything higher than that was unsustainable and pilots had to be closely monitoring the coolant temperature when they exceeded it...if the coolant in the radiators exceeded 100-something degrees celsius and the water-glycol mix started boiling, bye bye cooling and welcome bubbles in the liquid clogging up the system and making cooling inefficient, even busted heat pipes due to expanding steam with resulting loss of coolant and eventually engine seizure.
Similar restrictions apply to every other aircraft in the game, whether it is a Pony running 70 inches of manifold pressure all day long, or a 190 that does the same at 1.45 Ata or whatever it is they run

Having all that spare power is meant as a "reserve bank" to use in high altitudes for when the available ambient air pressure the engine draws from is reduced, plus emergencies or delaying that stall for a few seconds in order to take a firing opportunity when you are climbing vertically behind your target.
It's definitely not something that could be used almost 24/7 in real life like we do in the sim and in that regard, it makes perfect sense that the real life aircraft wouldn't have their trim adjusted by the ground mechanic for a speed range that was unsustainable due to engine restrictions.

That kind of engine limitations is one of the things i most eagerly await in the new sim, because it doesn't only add a new layer of realistic challenges but also gives us new things to occupy ourselves with. Today a good virtual pilot is one who flies well, shoots well, is a solid tactician or a combination of the above...with the arrival of CoD a good pilot will also be the one who knows how much he can stress his aircraft's subsystems without breaking them.
For example you could be bounced by a player in a superior performing plane but the added workload alone might eventually turn the tables on him, since just because some plane is more maneuverable or faster doesn't mean it was easy to be flown that way.

I expect a lot of the match-ups will be totally changed in regards to that. For example, when the new series branches out into 1943-late war it will be great fun learning the ropes all over again, with the better performing but exclusively manually controlled allied fighters versus the lesser performing but fully automatic axis ones.