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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Interesting. Reeeallly interesting.

You think?

To me it sounds like the same old protagonists/antagonists pissing on a wall.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

You think?

To me it sounds like the same old protagonists/antagonists pissing on a wall.

On the same old wall

[von Brühl]

Originally Posted by crumpp

you mean the issue of "british fm killing the fun of the game for allied pilots"?

lol

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Rolls Royce specify in the notes that you can push past the limits, it is a risk to undertake. It's been published in this thread a few pages back by NZTyphoon.

Yes thanks! as you say, risky

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Engine damage in seconds from lubrication starvation, in a Merlin or any other engine. Bearing coatings burns away, piston's are scored...would be nice to have engine proper use pilot notes posted. Many here push well beyond manufacturer use recommendations, that I'm sure of

I'm sure it happens - what is needed is some empirical data to show how long it takes for the oil pressure to drop below the minimum safe level. How much negative g is needed to lower the oil pressure enough to cause damage? The Pilot's Notes General, for example, describes one condition imposing too much negative g is a succession of slow rolls - so how many pilots are going to indulge in successive slow rolls during combat? What other combat conditions will impose enough negative g for long enough to damage the engine?

The normal oil pressure for the Merlin is 60lbs/sq.in, with a working minimum of 30lbs/sq.in. For gameplay a rough rule of thumb could be anything below 30lbs and the engine begins to suffer progressive wear (according to the Pilot's Notes General it doesn't take long for damage to occur once the oil pressure drops below the minimum).

[Crumpp]

Klem says:
I admit the amplitudes began to decay

That is the key feature that did not exist in the early mark spitfire. All oscillation had to be controlled by the pilot as the airplane was neutral to unstable.

I agree that others should test it as well.


It is really not that hard to test. A stable airplane will seek what ever speed it is trimmed for so there is no need to "precisely trim". The airplane will move to trim speed by design if it is stable.

The amplitude will grow smaller and finally disappear as the airplane arrives at trim speed.

It is really easy to test. Just get the airplane in a sembelance of level flight, pull back on the controls and let go.

If the airplane is stable, the blue and green will stop changing proportions in the windshield after a few minutes. If it unstable, the proportion of blue and green in the windshield will increase until you see all blue or all green.

Osprey says:
if you think the Spitfire is overmodelled then that's laughable, overall it definately isn't.

Well, start laughing because the in game Spitfire is modeled as a stable airplane where the real airplane was neutral to unstable.

It means the game shape is easier to precisely maneuver and get guns on a target than the real aircraft.

Is that overmodeled in a game? When something has a capability or feature that did not exist in reality? I think so.....

What do you think?

Will it will be more representative of the actual airplane when it is made to be faster, turns better, climbs better, AND is stable??

[klem]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is the key feature that did not exist in the early mark spitfire. All oscillation had to be controlled by the pilot as the airplane was neutral to unstable.

I agree that others should test it as well.


It is really not that hard to test. A stable airplane will seek what ever speed it is trimmed for so there is no need to "precisely trim". The airplane will move to trim speed by design if it is stable.

The amplitude will grow smaller and finally disappear as the airplane arrives at trim speed.

It is really easy to test. Just get the airplane in a sembelance of level flight, pull back on the controls and let go.

If the airplane is stable, the blue and green will stop changing proportions in the windshield after a few minutes. If it unstable, the proportion of blue and green in the windshield will increase until you see all blue or all green.

.......................[/B]

Crumpp the whole point of my producing that test mission for you was so that YOU could prove your point. My test was only a quick and dirty. Why aren't YOU taking the trouble to do some of the work yourself?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

[B]It means the game shape is easier to precisely maneuver and get guns on a target than the real aircraft.

How do you know this?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

The 3th point also worth a bugtracker ticket...

Very well! I'll do that at some point (if no one is faster).

At the moment, if you happen to cut your engine completely due to neg-G (much easier done in previous patches prior to 1.0 you won't be able to start it again unless you cut the throttle all the way down anyway and point your nose vertically downwards and wait a few seconds, then add throttle gradually. This does not make any sense according to point 3.

[JG52Krupi]

I have flown the spit a few times these past few days and it certainly is a very stable aircraft it's a joy to fly compared to the 109, that said I did but it into a flat spin which I could not get out of last night after pulling off a unsuccessful manouver trying to hit a 109.

The lack of speed does suck but so does the 109 it's got the flight model of a 104 star fighter while the spit is more like a sopwith pup

From my brief flights with the spit here is my cons and pros for both aircraft.

Spit

Pros

Very stable
Easy to aim
Amazing turning
Very tough (need more flight time to confirm this)

Cons

Very slow
Slow rate of climb
Lack of ammo

109

Pros

Fast
Fast rate of climb
Good armament

Cons

Very unstable/easy to stall
Hard to aim due to above (more of a personal problem I imagine )
More prone to damage

Summary

Both aircraft need a lot of work but it's fair to say that anyone in there right mind in a 1v1 fight would opt for the 109. Even with its bad FM the 109 will win most fights hand down unless out numbered and even then it can just nose down and run for home.

The damage model is screwed up IMHO the spit can take much more damage than the 109 for sure, for example I was hit by flak in a spit and didn't feel any effects from 3 HUGE holes in my wing I didn't the 109 would have lost a control or would have to rtb from such damage.

From what I have read about the early spit vs 109 the two were a clos match with the 109 with slight advantages.