|
|
#91
01-21-2011, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting point, I do find MP very solitary and 'every man for himself'. I would appreciate some info on 'teamspeak' as I know very little about that facility and my typing skills are not good enough to use the chat window effectively but that is for another thread. Flying and communicating with (and against) others would make on-line play far more interesting and enjoybale.
There have been some very interesting posts, some of the technical arguments beyond me but much appreciated. O.K., there have been a few jibes but to be expected and understandable . Many thanks to TD for taking an interest too................... Last edited by SEE; 01-21-2011 at 01:26 PM. 
|
|
#92
01-21-2011, 02:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#93
01-21-2011, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Totally agree, if it can be done add it.
I don't care about whether changes to the FM improve or decline the capability of a particular plane. As long as the information is researched and presented as a basis for a FM decision. We might disagree, but at least we will have an understanding of why an maybe learn something at the same time.  In regard to the control reversal. One source of information is from Jeffrey Quill, who wrote about how aileron reversal affected the Spitfire; "...had we, in 1941, been able to produce a design of aileron capable of allowing much greater control displacements at very high speed we should soon have been in serious trouble with what was known as 'aileron reversal' arising from lack of torsional stiffness of the wing. In other words the load applied to the wings by more powerful ailerons would have caused the wings to twist, thereby nullifying or reversing the effect of the ailerons and, incidentally, causing damage to the structure itself"(Quill; Spitfire: a Test Pilot's Story; 1983 pp.272-273) Note that he quite definitely states that the problem would have manifested itself had the ailerons been capable of greater control displacements ie: aileron reversal was not a big problem, although the Spitfire was "teetering on the edge" of suffering from aileron reversal. Quill goes on to say that the theoretical speed at which reversal would have occurred was 580 mph - still well above normal combat speeds and one only likely to have been exceeded in a prolonged and steep dive.
|
|
#94
01-22-2011, 01:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The fact is that 170mph at 1800rpm is MAXIMUM ECONOMY CRUISE: used for extracting every last mile from the petrol tank at the expense of speed and being able to to accelerate quickly. You would fly at these settings for long range ferry flights, or on the initial part of a long range combat mission in areas where enemy air interception is negligible. You couldn't cruise in a combat area in that state: To quote Tom Neil in 'Spitfire: From The Cockpit' ISBN 0-7110-1918-5, p 40: "...It was a very odd chap indeed who chose to roam about over enemy territory with his engine operating at it's most economical setting! Except on navigation or reinforcement flights, it invariably became necessary to use the engine at wide throttle openings..." From Spitfire In Action, ISBN 1-85648-015- 1, Dr Alfred Price p.192 Chapter 26 Correct Engine handling - Key to Survival "In August 1942: the Air Tactics department at the Air Ministry issued the document which follows, as a guide to Spitfire pilots on the optimum engine settings to use when flying over enemy territory. Long range sorties had to be planned to meet the diverging requirements of fuel economy, and the need to maintain the highest possible cruising speed in areas where formations were liable to to encounter enemy fighters. If the Spitfires were 'bounced' while flying at low speed it could take up to two minutes for them to accelerate to maximum speed during which time they were extremely vulnerable. To reduce the risks while over enemy territory formation leaders were advised to cruise at speeds considerably higher than those for optimum fuel consumption.... at 10000ft.... maximum continuous cruising speed 331 (True) [thats 295 IAS - Fenrir] with +6lb boost and 2650rpm, consumption was 70gal/hr. Memorandum: HOW TO MAKE FULL USE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SPITFIRE V, VI AND IX <-[HEY! Will you look at that! Fenrir] 1. This memorandum is intended to bring to the notice of all concerned the necessity of making full use of the power available in our Spitfire aircraft. It applies equally, in principle, to all our fighter aircraft operating against an enemy whose performance is equal or superior to our own. 2. At the present stage of the war the enemy in France is equipped with the FW 190, a fighter with an excellent rate of climb and good acceleration. To defeat this aircraft and to avoid casualties on our side, our aircraft must fly as fast as possible whenever they are in the combat zone. 3. In the past pilots have been told to fly at low rpm and high boost to economise in petrol. All pilots must know the correct rpm and boost at which to fly to obtain the longest duration of flight or range; a Table at appendix 'A' gives the various durations at different adjustments of rpm and throttle for the Spitfire VB & VC (Merlin 45 and 46). 4. Wings must still fly at the most economical rpm when they are flying under the enmy RDF [radar] screens but it is essential, as soon as they are liable to be detected, that they open up to maximum power for formation flying. 5. The acceleration of the Spitfire is relatively poor. It is therefore dangerous to cruise at say +2 boost and 1900rpm when the Hun is about because the time taken in accelerating to maximum speed will allow him quickly into firing range. 6. 7. & 8. - [tho of passing interest are somewhat superfluous for our argument - Fenrir]" You noticed the figures I posted for the Mk V? These are the recommended settings from this document Now extrapolate the fact that the Mk IX was a Mk V airframe with the Merlin 60 series engine. Why would you give an airframe a more powerful engine, with it's accompanying effect on cruising speeds and hamstring it by giving it a nominal cruising speed of 170mph, when all operations before that point, prove that combat cruise is only safe around or above 230? Caspar, we are both interpreting data, neither of us has a definitive statement which will read "The aileron neutral trim speed of a Mk (x) Spitfire is xxxxx" - and more's the pity. Your marker is the max economical cruise speed. I'm a fighter pilot at heart which means when I fly 400+ mph fighter plane, designed to fight other enemy aircraft I personally would want it aileron neutral trimmed within the speed range of which I am fighting so that gunnery, and flight characteristics are least affected. You said it best: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Between one guy who has the nothing but the fidelity of this simulation in mind to another, will you please consider my argument and in the meantime I'll see what I can do regarding some extra research? I'll see if I can contact the BBMF for clarification on aileron neutral rpm/speed settings. Regards, Caspar, and thanks for your continuing work on the Il-2 series. Last edited by Fenrir; 01-22-2011 at 01:30 AM.
|
|
#95
01-22-2011, 02:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I've always had to apply a bit of aileron in the spit at full power, which I'm sure 99% of us use 99% of the time given the turn and burn nature of most online games. I'm also contantly applying trim for any given air speed, It's only when I'm flying with a formation that i'm interested in having a lower workload. Pilots spent 95% of their time getting to and from combat, not in actual combat, and we very rarely fly in formation unless in offline campaign mode. So the planes should be set for a compromise between getting fatigued from a high pilot workload getting to combat at cruise power, and a lower pilot workload at combat zone power so you can concentrate on spotting enemies. The ultimate answer is to allow a fixed trim setting for non-adustable surfaces in plane loadout screen for planes that actually had set and forget trim tabs. (not just the spit BTW) I have learned to fly the new spit FM with negative 40% elevator trim to fly straight and level, bit I still think that is way too much. The plane still needs negative elevator trim even at low power setting at sub 200MPH which just doesnt feel right. I hope the DT guys will take this on board and consider some more real data rather than some visual references that they have eluded to earlier about elevator position in flight. I have been to many airshows in Australia and regularly attend the Temora Aviation Museum where we have a couple of operational spits (mk VIII & XVI) that i have seen up close and personal on the tarmac and flying in formation at low alt. These aircraft are flown every 3-4 weeks or so. Next time im at the next showcase I will try and speak to the pilots and get 1st hand comments and I'll even record what they say. We have 3 spitfire outings before April so I will try and get to all 3 and also take a bunch of pics. I already have a few hundred pics, and use pro camera gear so I will get some great pics. February 19th, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - V-12's and Trainer Spitfire, P-40, Tiger Moth, Wirraway, Ryan March 5th, 2011 No Showcase due to TAM support of Avalon Airshow March 19th, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - Bomber/Attack Hudson, A-37B, T-28, Spitfire April 2nd, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - Jet Fighters Meteor, A-37B, Sabre April 16th, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - Piston Fighters Wirraway, Spitfire, P-40 My grandfather and his brother both flew a mix of allied plans in combat in the pacific campaigns and I have just requested both of their complete service records from the national archive. There may be some interesting notes to look through. Ultimately I want the modelling to be accurate, so If I and the handful of people who have commented on the spitfire flight models are wrong after more data is revealed, Im sure we will be hapy to eat our hats! We just want the emperical data to back up the FM changes! Cheers TD and S! to all. FS~Phat - Fire Squadron Last edited by FS~Phat; 01-22-2011 at 02:45 AM.
|
|
#96
01-22-2011, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Temora Spitfire MK VIII Specs
 Temora Spitfire MK VIII Specs Specifications Engine Rolls-Royce Merlin 70 1710 horsepower (1275.66 kW) 27 Litre liquid cooled V-12 piston engine equipped with a two speed, two-stage supercharger. Propeller Rotol Constant Speed 10'9" diameter (3.22m) An engine driven propeller governor hydraulically controls four wooden blades. Fuel Aviation Gasoline 100 Octane Fuselage Tank Capacity: 90 Imperial Gallons 409 Litres 108 U.S. Gallons Wing Tank Capacity (2): 30 Imperial Gallons 136 Litres 36 U.S.Gallons Dimensions Wingspan: 36' 10" 11.23 m Length: 31' 3 ½ " 9.54 m Wing Area: 242 sq. ft 22.50 sq. m Height: 12' 7 ¾" 3.85 m Weights Empty: 5,805 lb 2,633 kg Maximum Takeoff weight: 8,021 lb 3,638 kg Armament Two 20mm Hispano Cannons. Four .303 in. Browning Machine Guns. Provision for one 500 lb (227 kg) or two 250 lb (114 kg) bombs. Performance Maximum Speed: 361 knots 416 mph 669 km/h Cruise Speed: 220 knots 253 mph 407 km/h Last edited by FS~Phat; 01-22-2011 at 02:19 AM.
|
|
#97
01-22-2011, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Temora Spitfire Mk XVI Specs
 Temora Spitfire Mk XVI Specs Specifications Engine Rolls-Royce Merlin 266 built by Packard in the USA 1700 horsepower (1245kW) 27 Litre liquid cooled V-12 piston engine equipped with a two speed, two-stage supercharger. Propeller Rotol Constant Speed 10'9" diameter (3.22m) An engine driven propeller governor hydraulically controls four wooden blades. Fuel Aviation Gasoline 100 Octane Fuselage Tank Capacity: 48 Imperial Gallons 218 Litres 57 U.S. Gallons Wing Tank Capacity (2): 37 Imperial Gallons 168 Litres 44 U.S.Gallons Dimensions Wingspan: 36' 10" 9.93 m Length: 31' 4" 9.55 m Wing Area: 242 sq. ft 22.50 sq. m Height: 12' 7 1/2" 3.85 m Weights Empty: 5,985 lb 2,715 kg Maximum Takeoff weight: 8,700 lb 3,946 kg Armament Two 20mm Hispano Cannons. Provision for one 500 lb (227 kg) or two 250 lb (114 kg) bombs. Performance Maximum Speed: 361 knots 416 mph 669 km/h Cruise Speed: 220 knots 253 mph 407 km/h
|
|
#98
01-22-2011, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You have correctly understood that aircraft could be pre trimmed on the ground, even though your understanding is limited to the Spitfire. However, this has never been a part of il-2. If you want that different, make a feature request, posting in a Spit FM topic is a waste of time. Currently the aileron pre trim is that the plane can fly hands off stick with no slip in a shallow climb. It requires a little slip to fly straight and level hands off stick over most of the speed range. Your personal preference is different. Tough luck. That's all there is to it. If you've never heard about aileron reversal in Spitfires, that's probably what you should research next. Don't waste it on researching individual Spitfire aileron trim settings, 20000 have been built, flown by lots of different pilots under lots of different circumstances, each with individual trim settings. Posting slip free hands off stick speed range for individual planes is therefore meaningless.
|
|
#100
01-22-2011, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Always amusing to read what someone who's never flown a real spitfire in wartime trim considers how it should fly.
One of the most repeated omg its been nerfed! posts, ever. who says history never repeats. Unless you have -actually flown- a spit, you're just interpreting someone else interpretation. Your opinion is in no way based on fact. Yet you demand a change when you have no idea what the accepted standard actually is. Same old same old. Seems fine to me in game.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
