Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You hve a strange way of understanding the logic behind what is historically correct. Assumptions does not makes proof of fact. No matter how numerous they are thrown in the basket.

Please do tell me what is historically correct then, regarding the 100 octane spirit.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Even the way of some 100Octaner are flying the sim is subject to doubt.

I know I know, everybody is cheating - especially whoever shoots you down.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

And know you are arguing the SPit does not have strange FM regarding turn rate, E retention, is not Free of stall etc.. etc...

No I am not arguing about that at all. In fact I have raised many issues regardless on the side preference (I fly pretty much everything) and I am aware of the issues you mention. I never said what you said I said though.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

You know, the more I read you and your affiliates, I make my mind believing that the right simulation for you is something related to Duck shooting in a narrow corridor. And still you might request some change in the bird FM !

You are very wrong in your assumptions, but it does not matter all that much. I have nothing else to say to you.

[phoenix1963]

Kwaitek's post reminded me that with this patch the Spit 2a versus 100 octane Spit 1a performance is now completely out of kilter. They really should not be massively different.
The 100 1a now feels strangely unstable, much slower to accelerate, struggles to turn.

Spitfires were always "nice" to fly, this one is not. Yes, this is a rather subjective view! I'd be grateful if someone could produce some comparative performance graphs, particularly sustained turn rates, it's difficult I know.

56RAF_phoenix

[CaptainDoggles]

Do not turn this into another moronic 100-octane thread. Please and thank you.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by phoenix1963

Kwaitek's post reminded me that with this patch the Spit 2a versus 100 octane Spit 1a performance is now completely out of kilter. They really should not be massively different.
The 100 1a now feels strangely unstable, much slower to accelerate, struggles to turn.

Spitfires were always "nice" to fly, this one is not. Yes, this is a rather subjective view! I'd be grateful if someone could produce some comparative performance graphs, particularly sustained turn rates, it's difficult I know.

56RAF_phoenix

I don't think that would make any sense now as the devs might come with a new patch soon, putting all testing and graphs to the square one again.

From technical point of view, main Spitfire FM issues are:

1. Mixture still wrong way around (although unlike the Hurricane, this one works correctly as 2 pos. lever)

2. +9lbs. bnominal boost on Merlin III

3. inability to use BCC-O at Auto Rich mixture at 3000rpm (and +12lbs.), just makes no sense, but your engine will shake above 2600rpm

4. temperature limits too strict (time wise) for both all out and BCC-O, engines too fragile

As for the 'feeling' I don't think they have changed anything, neg. G is still dodgy, now you can't stall the thing, you can apparently pull like a plunger and it won't stall while turning. It's still a spitfire with some nice extra kick at lower alts, just as it should be. Above 10-12k it's the same like good old Mk.Ia. I haven't noticed any changes in acceleration or stability - non of these are strong points of this plane anyway.

We'll see how and if these issues will be addressed, but I'd say that with this patch it's a bit more of a Battle of Britain, which is good.

/edit/

If you feel like voting for the mixture bugs, please do so here:

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/18

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/102

It seems that some of the most obvious bugs have been addressed already based on the bugtracker system.

[Kwiatek]

Still some here try to put these disccusion into red or blue agenda whining lol. Poor anyside biased people.

The true is that actuall engine power modeling is wrong in many ways. Merlin engines in CLoD dont reach their real life specification. It should be corrected.

No one from "blue guys" dont even mention that 109 E in CLoD could fly all day in 5-minutes emergency power rating - 1.3 Ata at 2400 RPM without any engine problems but when it is clearly that Merling III or Merlin XII cant even reach their 5-minutes emergency rating without broken engine and some want it to be correct "blue guys" screem like hurted kids.

Im sure that time limit for engine power settings (from manual) should be reachable without any seriously problems in normal condition of flight and only in extremaly condition ( e.x very hot temperatures, cooling system damages, engine damages) could casue a problems.

Unfortunately in CLOD even in normal condition time limits for engine power settings are not possible to achive not mention that there are many bugs with designated engine power settings like e.x. SPitfire MK II with Merlin XII - nominal power should be +9lbs at 2850 RPM ( not +6 like now) and emergency should be +12 lbs at 3000 RPMs (not +9lbs like now)

I repeat correctly (historical) engine power settings for Merlin engines:

Merlin III with CSP at 87 Octan fuel:

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +6 1/4 at 2600 RPM
Continous cruising- +4 1/2 at 2600 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit) - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM

Merlin III at 100 Octan :

Max take off - +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM
Climbing (1/2 hour)- +6 1/4 at 2850 RPM ( below 20 000 ft)
-3000 RPM (above 20 000 ft)
All-out level flight ( 5 minutes)- +6 1/4 at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)
Emergency power (5 minutes)- +12 lbs at 3000 RPM ( 5 minutes)


Merlin XII at 100 Octan

Max take off - +12 at 3000 RPM
(emergency 3 or 5-minutes also)
Climbing (1/2 hour limit) - +9 at 2850 RPM
Continous cruising- +7 at 2650 RPM
All-out level flight (5 minutes limit)- +9 at 3000 RPM

[Crumpp]

now you can't stall the thing, you can apparently pull like a plunger and it won't stall while turning.

That is not right at all. The Spitfire gave plenty of warning but the longitudinal instability made it easy to over control and stall with a wing that had very harsh accelerated stall characteristics.

3/4 in stick travel runs the wing from cruise to stall with 5lbs per G.
Here is the post war proposal to adopt quantifiable stability and control standards like the United States. Up until then, stability and control at the RAE was opinion. It is interesting too reading the measured results vs opinion.

In Gates test, the Spitfire exhibited peak stick force during a steady 4G pullout was only TWO POUNDS!!

Of course he labeled it too light. The Stirling on the other hand exhibited a peak stick force of 84lbs during a steady 2G pull out. It was considered normal under quantifiable stability and control criteria.

Now Gates did publish several papers after visiting the NACA attempting to get the RAE on a standard or at least improve their stability and control science but it was not adopted until post war.

Between Gates and Lyons the RAE was finally on a standard by 1950.

[Robo.]

What Kwiatek said.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is not right at all. The Spitfire gave plenty of warning but the longitudinal instability made it easy to over control and stall with a wing that had very harsh accelerated stall characteristics.

I am aware of that, Crumpp.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Kwiatek, I do not complain about the 1.31ata as I VERY rarely even use it My most used setting is actually the best cruise power 1.21ata That way can keep oil and coolant cool with minimal radiator flap opening thus I have nice speed too

But this all boils down to the "complicated" CEM we have, basically a bit refined from IL-2. CEM is not an issue most of the time as you soon learn the settings that can be run regardless power settings. Be it blue or red.

I think all agree that the FM/DM/CEM needs a LOT of work and we can only hope that before the sequel is out, it is done or all hell will break lose and this bickering here will be nothing compared to that.

Over and out

[=AN=Felipe]

Originally Posted by Ernst

I do not known but my opinion is that guys complaining about sptifires are noobies because yesterday i found =AN=Felipe's spitfire at 6.5 K and we need 3 109s to shot down him.

S! Ernst,

First, you guys dont took me down, i land my plane, with damage but i land... lol

So lets talk about this point you bring up in your topic... All performance test i have read tells me one thing, spitfire still under modelated, BUT almost red pilots complain agains 1009s not becouse the spitfire was under performed, its becouse they dont know how to manage the engine settings...

That night we fight a hell of a great battle, i shoot 2 109s down at 23k ft, and apper 2 more and i have to run away and land... How i do that? How can i make barrel rolls at 22k top how can i loop in that altitude...

So... every loop i made, i lost my engine at top, flaps down to help me bring my nose down again and dont stall, to restart my engine again... BUT in result of that i lost about 5k 6k ft to recover and back to fight again.

In that altitude you can compare, spitfire got almost the same climb rate, i just set my engine for better flow of cavalary and acceleration... Thats the point when a Blue pilot fight against a Red Ace, we got the same vantages you got.

I know you are a great fighter pilot, we play togheter a long time, but belive me, in that altitude fighting against a Spitfire IIa in certain hands, its very difficult to win...

I dont want to be arrogant or rude with anyone, but its fact, blue pilots trust too mutch in their planes, this excessive trust maybe will defeat someone maybe not, deppends against you are flying. I belive in two things, gunnery and pilots hands, of course engine performance will help too, but in war we saw this happening, spitfires rocking 109s and vice versa...

We will try to reach a more realistic Spitfire, and of course we want a more realistic 109s, but guys, open you eyes, dont reach a IL2 1946 performance, that simulator SUCKS becouse that unaccurate flightmodels... fact too...

Ill post Spitfire tests soon in this forum, for comparasions... ok?

Cya guys! Cya in skyes!

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by =AN=Felipe

I know you are a great fighter pilot, we play togheter a long time, but belive me, in that altitude fighting against a Spitfire IIa in certain hands, its very difficult to win...

I claim it since 6 years at least... Spit's energy retention gives to it a great advantage at that altitude.

Originally Posted by =AN=Felipe

I dont want to be arrogant or rude with anyone, but its fact, blue pilots trust too mutch in their planes, this excessive trust maybe will defeat someone maybe not, deppends against you are flying. I belive in two things, gunnery and pilots hands, of course engine performance will help too, but in war we saw this happening, spitfires rocking 109s and vice versa...

The first part it's true for both the sides.

Gunnery, yes, but more than pilot's hands it was pilot's IQ. Fatigue modelling, but above all realistic scanning timing and visibility would give the real advantage to the smarter and more disciplined guy, and not to the one who's good with the stick.