![]() |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#132
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Actually, I think TD have done an excellent job in making the Spits lighter in the azimuthal axis, Mk Vs now float off the runway at 100mph very nicely, and the stall is less sharp - as it should be with that shape of wing. Good to hear from you Fen, I've never forgotten that Sv109s desert map when you went off and downed a gaggle of 5 109s on your own... 56RAF_phoenix = phoenix1963 Last edited by phoenix1963; 01-22-2011 at 08:25 PM. Reason: spelling |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
All benefited from the replacement of 87 octane petrol with 100 octane, which allowed the engines to run at higher boost, and increased the Spitfire's speed by 25 mph (40 km/h) at sea level and by 34 mph (55 km/h) at 10,000 feet. Why would Oleg do anything different? |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Between 1940 and 1946, Henshaw flew a total of 2,360 Spitfires and Seafires, more than 10% of total production.[98][99]
Henshaw wrote about flight testing Spitfires: After a thorough pre-flight check I would take off and, once at circuit height, I would trim the aircraft and try to get her to fly straight and level with hands off the stick ... Once the trim was satisfactory I would take the Spitfire up in a full-throttle climb at 2,850 rpm to the rated altitude of one or both supercharger blowers. Then I would make a careful check of the power output from the engine, calibrated for height and temperature ... If all appeared satisfactory I would then put her into a dive at full power and 3,000 rpm, and trim her to fly hands and feet off at 460 mph IAS (Indicated Air Speed). Personally, I never cleared a Spitfire unless I had carried out a few aerobatic tests to determine how good or bad she was. The production test was usually quite a brisk affair: the initial circuit lasted less than ten minutes and the main flight took between twenty and thirty minutes. Then the aircraft received a final once-over by our ground mechanics, any faults were rectified and the Spitfire was ready for collection. I loved the Spitfire in all of her many versions. But I have to admit that the later marks, although they were faster than the earlier ones, were also much heavier and so did not handle so well. You did not have such positive control over them. One test of manoeuvrability was to throw her into a flick-roll and see how many times she rolled. With the Mark II or the Mark V one got two-and-a-half flick-rolls but the Mark IX was heavier and you got only one-and-a-half. With the later and still heavier versions, one got even less. The essence of aircraft design is compromise, and an improvement at one end of the performance envelope is rarely achieved without a deterioration somewhere else.[100][101] |
#135
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
1. Irrelevant 2. 4.11 , that and some other things too ![]() Quote:
Is new FM perfect? No it is not but it is still the best you can find in combat flight sim IMO. Quote:
![]() Quote:
It is interesting to notice that first time we saw that video was after 4.10 was released, I'd say that our model is very close to what you can see in video.
__________________
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Beautiful video FC99, thank you.
6S.Insuber |
#137
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
thanks for the work on the spits FC99.
particularly like the implementation of Miss Shilling's orifice. I think they are much better than in 4.09 in general. look forward to the bug fix patch, to see how that affects things further, particularly the lateral trim issue, affecting the ability to be able to fly hands off in the spits. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That video was shot in 1941 and very nice too! Has anyone else noticed that the pilot could hold the inverted pass for far longer without the engine cutting out (compared to all IL1946 variants up to 1943)? As a full switch player I would appreciate that being included.......(if my observation is correct of course!)
Last edited by SEE; 01-23-2011 at 01:53 PM. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
![]() |
|
|