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

[Tempest123]

Fuel injection wasn't designed as solution for inverted flight, it was designed to get an even charge of fuel/air to each cylinder. Rolls Royce used carburettors deliberately in the Merlin because they gave a colder/denser fuel/air mixture, so more power was produced than with a fuel injection system. It was a trade-off at that point, and they switched to pressure carburettors later on to cope with negative G's. Kind of interesting all these small details that come out in combat.

[jameson]

BBC documentary:
Spitfire! Two seconds to kill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/battleo...in/11405.shtml

Bob Stanford Tuck and Douglas Bader discussing more or less what this thread is about. From 25 mins on, pertinent remarks regarding Merlin's neg G fuel Starvation and Miss Shillings orifice by Sir Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce.

Please post a reply to say whether it's possible to watch this if you are outside UK, thanks.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

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.

You're correct in what you say, but maybe i misunderstood why you were saying it.
What i was trying to convey is that the FM is the FM and it's not dependent on the competition's FM.
In that sense, when you are talking about how good the D9 was you obviously refer to how good it was in comparison to other aircraft, while i was talking specifically about what it can do in its own right. In any case, i'm glad you cleared it up for me

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Hmmm... FM discussions. Have you ever noticed that most times it's only about turning performance or speed? As if these were the only variables that mattered.
That's the result of IL2 playing: It's the only reality we know

Let's hope that COD will introduce other things we will have to worry about in combat. Complex engine management for exemple. At the moment you can hit the W-key leave everything on 100% and you are ready to go. There is no advantage having the Kommandogerät or other automatic devices.
Should be interesting to see how COD will increase the workload in the cockpit. This should slightly change things. For exemple:Having a slight advantage in speed or turn will not make your plane supperior, because maybe the other guy can handle prop pitch etc. better then you.
Or more engine failures due to improper engine management.

I am looking forward to all this (if it's in the game)

That's exactly why i've been advocating improved subsystems modeling over IL2. Currently in IL2 the situation is completely reversed sometimes, for example a P47 can use most settings with near impunity while in reality it had 4 different engine controls to monitor (prop pitch, semi-auto mixture, throttle and turbo-supecharger), while the FW-190 which was completely automatic performs better when used in manual mode (at least the stock ones, the modded ones work fine on auto).

It's not only historically correct to model these intricacies, it also happens to balance the game out between higher and lower performing aircraft without resorting to gimmicks but by copying what each aircraft actually did in real life.

What's more, this doesn't only benefit the blue team's planes, since the situation was reversed early in the war due to the different choice of propellers used as Kwiatek correctly points out:

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.

With a constant speed prop you move the lever until you reach the desired RPM and the prop governor keeps it there no matter what you do with the throttle or if you climb or dive (within certain limits due to the prop blade's gimbal stops/rotation limits, it's still possible to have increased RPM in a long dive or low RPM when idling on the ground even when the prop lever is at maximum, but it's easy to manage), but with a variable pitch prop you have to manually do the work that the prop governor does in constant speed props.

Essentially, with a CSP you select your RPM and the governor keeps it there by automatically adjusting the blade angle, but with a variable pitch prop you directly change the blade angle yourself. Since the same blade angle produces different RPM for different airspeeds and throttle settings, you have to constantly be on your toes and juggle between inadequate RPM and overspeed.
For example, if CoD can save separate control configurations for each aircraft, it's most likely that i will map the in-game throttle to my keyboard and use my joystick throttle for prop pitch when flying an early 109E, just to be able to manage this.

Once again, the better performing plane (the 109) has the increased workload, which balances things out in a historical manner.

P.S. Jameson, it's not possible to get the clip you posted about the negative G issues outside the UK, but the other interview works fine.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by jameson

BBC documentary:
Spitfire! Two seconds to kill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/battleo...in/11405.shtml

Bob Stanford Tuck and Douglas Bader discussing more or less what this thread is about. From 25 mins on, pertinent remarks regarding Merlin's neg G fuel Starvation and Miss Shillings orifice by Sir Stanley Hooker of Rolls Royce.

Please post a reply to say whether it's possible to watch this if you are outside UK, thanks.

Not from Denmark