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

[Fenrir]

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. "

Roger that, however there's a massive difference between 170mph at 3000rpm and 170mph at the most economical rpm; around about 1800.

The torque effects will be VERY different.

If the current flight model is geared for this figure at 3000rpm then it's wrong - the best cruise settings for the Mk V (I don't have the data for the IX) were:

- 230mph IAS, +2.75lb, 1800rpm @ 2000ft = 35 gallons per hour
- 200mph IAS, -1.5lb, 1800rpm @ 10,000ft = 29 gallons per hour
- 250mph IAS, +3.75lb, 2000rpm @ 10,000ft = 42 gallons per hour
- 200mph IAS, -1.75lb, 2200rpm @ 20,000ft = 36 gallons per hour
- 230mph IAS, +1.5lb, 2400rpm @ 20,000ft = 46 gallons per hour
- 180mph IAS, -3.25lb, 2850rpm @ 30,000ft = 41 gallons per hour

It seems that a minimum of 200mph was recommended, with 230-250 preffered. This represents cruise over friendly/neutral territory; there's no way any self respecting Spitfire pilot wandered around over enemy ground at 170mph - combat cruise should be faster still than even these airspeeds I have given, and at higher revs and boost. I'll see what figures I can find for that, if any.

My point still stands which is - as you can see - even at these higher speeds we're not at full rpm so torque effects are reduced again, therefore, less need to correct for it in the airframe.

I suspect that TD have gotten their spits set up incorrectly on 2 counts:

1) a/c inherently trimmed at far too low a cruise speed

2) compounded by these being attained at much lower rpm in reality - therefore TD are correcting for too much torque at that airspeed.

Cheers.

[Holgersson]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

I find your attitudes offensive and bigoted.

Some of us have no agenda other than 'getting it right'.

I was there supporting the removal of the Fw190 bar, I requested the MG151/20 loadout for the late 109s many years ago. I also posted recently to get the cockpit view on stock Spitfire Mk Vc's corrected because it currently gives too good a view for deflection shooting.

Your partisanship (and that of others) shows narrow mindedness and is unhelpful to the community as it promotes bickering and marginalises genuine issues by relegating them to Luftwhiner/Sissyfire trash.

So instead of smugly throwing trenchant comments about, how's about you read my above post - particularly regarding the fact that the current aileron trim modelling is questionable - test it by seeing if any other a/c in game suffers a similar problem, then go find some relevent sources to support your findings and make an educated opinion?

My guess is you probably won't.

True words.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

...............

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

Now THAT's realistic! Ask your chiefy.

Hope Oleg thought of that for the COD War.

Anyway some of the 'finer FM points' arguments are probably wasted on us average pilots.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

tbh i'm pretty firmly of the opinion that spitfires may be easy to fly, but they are hard to excel in. i find 190s are far deadlier, either in my hands or in those of my opponent. i find spitfires irritatingly hard to get guns on, but as long as i am not being stupid i don't fear them as much as a 190. i also try not to attack people at my altitude, but that's in any airframe barring possibly a 190, where i can rely on the heavy armament and a reasonable speed/dive advantage. overall... hell i don't know, i'll get used to it! however i would say if you take damage in a spitfire it robs you of it's main, defensive, tool - a stable fast rate turn. a 109 or 190... couldn't turn in the first place, so nose down and flee.

Of course the faster plane is the better one for survival, and I'm aware that Spitfires can take a great punishment by a single 20m (sure they are not Las or "Emmental" Yaks). However there is the thing called "ambush". You can kill a Fw190 with an Hurricane if you bounce it. But in all my hours of flight on dogfight servers the number of times I have found Spitfires higher than me is something like 10 (to be positive!). A lot of P47s, many P51s... but usually the Spit are on low/medium altitude. Usually you find them following a enemy without checking they six (and then some hilarious guys call the DnB a blue tactics, like P51 couldn't do it) or chasing a smoking plane in the enemy base (I'm quite sure that many complains by P51's pilot about the inadequacy of the brownings in IL2 were because they couldn't score kills: they damage the 109, that 109 go home but a Spitfire get him "winning" the 100 points ). Why do I find them always at 300m in furballs? It's like fishing in a bathtub! Go in the BoB dogfight server, it's an example.

The times I had Spitfire higher than me, even if I was not ambushed (one single ambush of Jaws had taught me in my first days.. now I'm paranoid):
- I had to extend home since I could not touch it
- to kill the good Fenrir in his single Spitfire at 6km my squad needed of four 190s (Spitfires climb better and can stay in the zone at lower speed, Fenrir knew it well)
- another time 5 Doras couldn't not touch another guy at 7km.
And when you have an enemy over your head you can't do your job because your SA is always busy (and the other guys on the targets can do more damage... Tempest?).

What if they weren't alone but there were four coordinated Spitfires? A good thing of Spitfires is that they can stay on the zone of action since they don't rely on high speed to be fled (do you remember the Galland's quote?) and so they can provide a wonderful air superiority on the front.

To me their main problem is the ammo quantity but without the "engine radar" limit of IL2 that would not be a real issue(infact in IL2 it's a problem for both the sides).

However I know that diving is better in the german planes but still diving is a defensive manouvre who actually take them OUT of action... after the dive you have to go away and regain energy (altitude). Instead the Spits can turn hard staying at the same altitude; 190s can't sustain more then 2 pass on the same Spitfire. This is the reason they are really good air superiority planes (not like the P51s of course because of the fuel issue) but again people don't use it in the way they should.

I was scared of moment the majority of Spitfire pilots were to learn this: luckly in 4.10 Spitfires are not the amazing things they were in 4.09. Finally I can take a SpitV in a climbing contest knowing that in thin air their energy management can be affected too!

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

I suspect that TD have gotten their spits set up incorrectly on 2 counts:

1) a/c inherently trimmed at far too low a cruise speed

2) compounded by these being attained at much lower rpm in reality - therefore TD are correcting for too much torque at that airspeed.

Cheers.

agreed 100%

this is my only issue with the spit in 4.10.

the aerilon roll that just wasn't the case irl.

before anyone jumps on me for be being a spitwhiner, ask fenrir what my favourite plane is...(clue, it's blue)

i want the Fw's (not my fav, but up there) acceleration to be accurate, i want the spits to be able to cruise without ludicrous aerilon input.

i've never bought into the whole red/blue thing, because i think that all who do are idiots (of which there are many in this thread), who deny themselves half the game, whatever half.

fools.

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by 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

+1

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

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

So, make that request here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18260

[BadAim]

I'm sorry boys, but this argument is getting a bit silly. I ran into my longtime nemesis the other night, him in a Spit V, me in a 109F. The outcome was exactly the same as it usually is, we both limped back home after a 20 min dogfight smoking and nursing damaged aircraft but still alive. I'm just not sure what, on balance has changed. (outside of the trim thing, and perhaps some adjustment of flying style). BTW, the other outcome is usually that I make a mistake first and he as the better pilot exploits it and gives me an overdose of Hispano.

All of the bitching and moaning (on all sides ) is just getting to be too much.

Edit: After reading the last couple of pages, this thread has turned a bit (just a bit) more sensible. Just wanted to say that.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by BadAim

I'm sorry boys, but this argument is getting a bit silly. I ran into my longtime nemesis the other night, him in a Spit V, me in a 109F. The outcome was exactly the same as it usually is, we both limped back home after a 20 min dogfight smoking and nursing damaged aircraft but still alive. I'm just not sure what, on balance has changed. (outside of the trim thing, and perhaps some adjustment of flying style). BTW, the other outcome is usually that I make a mistake first and he as the better pilot exploits it and gives me an overdose of Hispano.

All of the bitching and moaning (on all sides ) is just getting to be too much.

Edit: After reading the last couple of pages, this thread has turned a bit (just a bit) more sensible. Just wanted to say that.

lol, i remember that fight and arthur saved your butt twice, before you met Mr P

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

It seems that a minimum of 200mph was recommended, with 230-250 preffered. This represents cruise over friendly/neutral territory; there's no way any self respecting Spitfire pilot wandered around over enemy ground at 170mph - combat cruise should be faster still than even these airspeeds I have given, and at higher revs and boost. I'll see what figures I can find for that, if any.

Agreed. Unfortunately the Spit IX manual only mentions the MP/RPM settings for most economical cruise speed...no doubt operational settings were discovered by the same method, however, setting +7 boost and reducing RPMs to achieve the desired cruising speed.