British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[Crumpp]

Nztyphoon says:

Just for interest I'm going to post Bf 110 losses due to break up or other, mainly unknown, causes between July and December 1940:

Wow,

ONE is due to inflight break up. The rest are due to other causes.

One is an outlier in a statistically insignificant sample, not to mention completely off topic of the British Flight Models.

Hey but emotionally it proves your point right?

Post the paper's about the NACA's work, I think it time for that one again. It is pretty good at confusing people. You can write what ever you want at the top because folks don't read it and many don't understand what it says.



Getting back on topic of the British FM's.

This whole divide of "Red vs Blue" is totally idiotic and does not help the game in any way.

I don't support changing anything that changes the historical fact these aircraft were equal dogfighters. If they were NOT equal dogfighter, then the game should reflect that as well.

I don't want overmodeled ego inflaters for pre-teens pursuing nationalistic fantasy for any side.

I want all the aircraft modeled as accurately as possible. More importantly, I don't care about specific performance. I care about the immersion and thought process of the game.

Do I have to think like a World War II fighter pilot operating a state of the art piston engined fighter of the day?

That is the key parameter to success for the game to most people.

Unfortunately a few fans of specific aircraft ruin things for most by researching details to the point they can no longer see the big picture. Their vision becomes myopic and history is made to conform as a function some airplanes performance.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by swift

So what about the temperature issues with the spitfire? It seems that when temperature effects are turned off the spitfire is faster. Is this because when turning the temperature effects off the radiator no longer causes a drag (because it is closed anyway)?

Why does the water and oil not cool down when flying faster (for instance in a dive)?

Does the spit when flown by the books show temperatures and operation times as it should?

How about the speeds and climb that can be achieved?

It should be possible to reduce radiator opening in normal cruise. Is this implemented?

What about the mixture? It seems that when the lever is forward the game takes it as rich mixture.

All fair and good observations imho and should deserve their own bug ticket / thread.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by swift

So what about the temperature issues with the spitfire? It seems that when temperature effects are turned off the spitfire is faster. Is this because when turning the temperature effects off the radiator no longer causes a drag (because it is closed anyway)?

Why does the water and oil not cool down when flying faster (for instance in a dive)?

Does the spit when flown by the books show temperatures and operation times as it should?

How about the speeds and climb that can be achieved?

It should be possible to reduce radiator opening in normal cruise. Is this implemented?

What about the mixture? It seems that when the lever is forward the game takes it as rich mixture.

They need to fix that Swift. You should be able to correctly operate the aircraft and produce the same performance.

Let's get some data and see.

I will check it out and post my results.

Why does the water and oil not cool down when flying faster (for instance in a dive)?

You can only stuff so much air in the radiator. In fact, most airplanes would get better performance with smaller intakes as they take in more air than they can really use for cooling!

Engine stress can create more heat than the cooling system can remove even at high speeds.

That is why if you descend at cruise power, your CHT's will exhibit very little change.

How about the speeds and climb that can be achieved?

I have wondered if the Vx and Vy in the game is not off too. It is not hard to ball park the Vx/Vy from sawtooth climbs. I will run some calcs and confirm Vx/Vy.

I just saw Kurfurst post and I agree. Swift if you start a thread on it we will get the data for a bugtracker.

[Crumpp]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what robtek stated here

What Robtek says is absolutely correct.

[5./JG27.Farber]

This thread doesnt seem to be getting anywhere, we keep changing direction. We really need several threads - each for its specific problem, polite and respectful discussion and conclusion to present a bug ticket.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There are plenty of examples.

Then supply some

An inertial elevator was added to the design.

Why would they do that???

The only reason to add such a device....IS TO INCREASE STICK FORCES IN ORDER TO OVER COME LONGITUDINAL INSTABILITY.

There is no other reason for it. Inertial elevator is the fix for only one thing...longitudinal instability.

Again no one is denying that there was some instability and that from the Mk V onwards it was an issue that had to be resolved and was. I repeat again, that I personally do not have an issue with the instability as far as it exised in the BOB being modelled in the sim.

However, No one, absolutely no one, including you, has produced any evidence that it was a safety issue on the earlier marks during the BOB. No test report, no test pilot comments, no research establishment observations from any nation (including Germany) and the final proof, next to no accidents. Give us more than your theory as to what should happen and we can take it a stage further, but without some evidence all we have is your theory and that isn't close to good enough.

What also concerns me is that I did post a number of areas where I believe that we can agree on and use that to get the developers working on things that would improve the experience.
I strongly suggest that you spend a day looking at those proposals and we can all make some progress.

[Kurfürst]

David, you do have the Spitfire Mark II manual as of summer 1940? What does it say on this topic?

[bongodriver]

The manual gives some precautionary advice that in no way give any indication the aircraft is dangerously unstable, rather it just reminds you that it can bite if 'mishandled', quite unsurprising for an aircraft of which the defining quality was manouverability.

[28_Condor]

Originally Posted by klem

You omitted:

devs create as near realistic FMs as possible
[exit loop]

I agree, but different people have different opinions about whats is 'realistic as possibel', which leads to an endless discussion...

[klem]

Originally Posted by 28_Condor

I agree, but different people have different opinions about whats is 'realistic as possibel', which leads to an endless discussion...

Well, lets worry about that when they get even close.