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

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

First of all and since it's been already brought up twice, i don't see how the amount of available pilots has anything to do with how good the D-9 was, or any other warplane for that regard. The 262 didn't have much of an impact, yet nobody can argue it wasn't revolutionary and keep a straight face while doing so.

We're talking about how good competing aircraft were, so what they're up against is very relevant. The Me 262 was revolutionairy, but late designs of the Spit, FW190, or 109 were not, so it's not the same comparison.

How good any of these fighters were is completely dependant on how good their rivals were, so we have to compare models against each other. When the FW190 came out, it was better than the Spit mkV, so the Spit mkIX was made and avialable in the summer of 42. Improvements to each side's aircraft were made specifically to counter the opponents (the spit mk IX would never have been made if it weren't for the 190).

So when we want to look at how good the D9 was, we need to look at what it was up against, and what it was up against depended on how many D9s were in the air. For example, if there weren't enough pilots or fuel for the first 190s, the RAF would have never made the Spit mk IX, and looking back the first 190s would now be compared to the Spit mk V, so we'd think of the first 190s as better than the competition.

Regardless of that I am interested in how the D9 performed against the late war Spits, so if you have any documents, let's have 'em.

[Kwiatek]

Fw 190 D was faster at low to medium alts, had better high speed manouverbility ( roll rate) and firepower (more concentrated) other thing like climb rate, turn rate and high alt speed was for Spitfire side ( MK IX).

[FC99]

Originally Posted by SEE

That video was shot in 1941 and very nice too! Has anyone else noticed that the pilot could hold the inverted pass for far longer without the engine cutting out (compared to all IL1946 variants up to 1943)? As a full switch player I would appreciate that being included.......(if my observation is correct of course!)

Hi,
our float carburetor and Shilling orifice model is primarily based on description in Pilot's Notes General AP 2095. We would welcome any better source than that.

In regard the video I think that you are wrong in your conclusion. You can take any Spitfire with SO and perform same maneuver. Biggest difference is that things are more binary in game than in RL. That is design decision because SO is tightly connected with mixture control model which is rather rudimentary in game at the moment.

Originally Posted by Nicholaiovitch

I would only add that the way the WEP is activated as KWIATEK suggests is not really very real. Better to follow all the other types and have up to 110% boost to cover the WEP and limit it's use before engine problems (realistic engine management) IMHO.

That is another deliberate decision. We know that WEP is not realistic but we see it more like immersion problem. Changing it would require careful examination of the code. Very often some changes that look simple and harmless could cause problems later when it turns out that they interfere or interact with some other parts of the code which might not be obvious at first glance.

So in terms of cost/benefit we decided that it is best and safest to leave WEP for now.

FC

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Improvements to each side's aircraft were made specifically to counter the opponents (the spit mk IX would never have been made if it weren't for the 190).

Mhm.. I'm not so sure... "Prevention is better than cure" IMO.

[JG4_Helofly]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

JG4_Helofly Spits or Hurricanes from BOB era have not too much engine workload. You opearated mostly throttle level beacuse you got CSP ( constant speed propeller unit) which mean that you just set only wanted RPM ( in fight maximum possible, in cruise depend of economy of fuel) and mixture level was also only for economical flying ( auto - reach - lean). Much more work load have planes with variable prop pitch like early 109s and early russian planes.

Right, and there is not only prop pitch. Engine cooling is also "undermodeled" in IL2. Try to dive with cooling flaps open without power from 10000m. The engine will still run perfectly once you are at sea level. In RL you had to close these flaps to prevent the engine from getting too cold. Some other planes could be overboosted like the P47.
It might be interesting to watch player killing their machines because of abusiv operations.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Right, and there is not only prop pitch. Engine cooling is also "undermodeled" in IL2. Try to dive with cooling flaps open without power from 10000m. The engine will still run perfectly once you are at sea level. In RL you had to close these flaps to prevent the engine from getting too cold. Some other planes could be overboosted like the P47.
It might be interesting to watch player killing their machines because of abusiv operations.

Yes but it would affect most such plane with piston engines. Maby we will get it in COD

[JtD]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Well lo and behold, according to that guy the reason for the loss of power is not the engine cutting out from fuel starvation, but having too much fuel!

Which is exactly what is modelled in game. You may notice black smoke coming from the exhausts after/in a neg g manoeuvre, this is the overly rich mixture refusing to burn or burning badly.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Mhm.. I'm not so sure... "Prevention is better than cure" IMO.

Which bit are you questioning? There's plenty of documentation as to why is went fro mk V to mk IX, missing the more advanced mk VIII etc, and the mk IX would not have been made if not for the 190.

But if, I expect, you're suggesting that they simply made the planes as good as they could regardless, well on the face of it you'd think so, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Developing a newly improved model takes time, effort, money etc, that could be used to make more of an existing model.

The objective is not to have the best fighter, the objective is to win the war. If your planes are inferior and being shot down, and you're losing, you make your plane better - no excuses acceptable, no price too high. If your planes are inferior but you're winning, while your opponent is struggling to keep supplying their 'superior' plane, your decision is not so easy.

I'm not taking anything away from the D9, it's just my opinion that you need to compare planes that were flying against each other in numbers. As posted above, there were a good number of D9s made, although I don't know how many flew and in what capacity (as some covered Me 262s etc). Has anyone got links to the performance of the D9 vs the Spit XIV? And if the war had continued the D9 would have been up against the Sea Fury - but it wasn't, so we don't look at how good the Sea Fury was. But as we know, there were other nations with great planes too.

[David603]

Can't find a Dora 9 vs SpitXIV comparison, but regarding your comment on aircraft that saw service in numbers, Wiki says 1,805 Fw 190D-9s were built, compared to 957 Spitfire XIVs.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Which bit are you questioning? There's plenty of documentation as to why is went fro mk V to mk IX, missing the more advanced mk VIII etc, and the mk IX would not have been made if not for the 190.

But if, I expect, you're suggesting that they simply made the planes as good as they could regardless, well on the face of it you'd think so, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Developing a newly improved model takes time, effort, money etc, that could be used to make more of an existing model.

The objective is not to have the best fighter, the objective is to win the war. If your planes are inferior and being shot down, and you're losing, you make your plane better - no excuses acceptable, no price too high. If your planes are inferior but you're winning, while your opponent is struggling to keep supplying their 'superior' plane, your decision is not so easy.

I'm not taking anything away from the D9, it's just my opinion that you need to compare planes that were flying against each other in numbers. As posted above, there were a good number of D9s made, although I don't know how many flew and in what capacity (as some covered Me 262s etc). Has anyone got links to the performance of the D9 vs the Spit XIV? And if the war had continued the D9 would have been up against the Sea Fury - but it wasn't, so we don't look at how good the Sea Fury was. But as we know, there were other nations with great planes too.

I'm not questioning the SpitIX's birth. Simply I think that engineering industry (engines, materials ect) always works for improvements and of course during wartime the improvements are researched very quickly (with problems of durability and safety, like you say the matter is to win the war).

Why did the DB use the fuel injection? Why was the Me262 drawn up in 1939? The war was almost ended but P51Hs, P47Ms, P80s were to be used by the Air Force: weren't the P51Ds and P47Ds enough to win the war?