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

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Ease of flying is not about managing the systems, the Spit was easyer to fly because it had light and responsive controls as opposed to the heavy controls on the 109, it really does not take much flying skill to operate a prop lever and radiator flaps.

pure bs... again.

Some of the P40 pilots switching to 51 mentioned the added workload with the Merlin vs the Allison.

Fact is fact. And again in a sim you don't dye and can learn after your mistake. Nothing unmanageable with the Merlin. You just have to get used to it.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Ease of flying is not about managing the systems, the Spit was easyer to fly because it had light and responsive controls as opposed to the heavy controls on the 109, it really does not take much flying skill to operate a prop lever and radiator flaps.

The 109 controls were only heavy at higher speeds...and at least as far as ailerons are concerned, it wasn't much worse than Spitfire or Hurricane.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

pure bs... again.

Some of the P40 pilots switching to 51 mentioned the added workload with the Merlin vs the Allison.

Fact is fact. And again in a sim you don't dye and can learn after your mistake. Nothing unmanageable with the Merlin. You just have to get used to it.

First of all the 'pure bs...again' is unecessary and rude, funny how you can use all the annecdotal evidence you like but when it comes to anybody else using it you reject it, I am telling you as a real pilot that using prop levers and radiator controls, carb heat, gear levers etc etc do not call for any particular level of flying skill.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

The 109 controls were only heavy at higher speeds...and at least as far as ailerons are concerned, it wasn't much worse than Spitfire or Hurricane.

Not true, there has been a very long winded thread recently highlighting the effects of stability, the 109 was more stable in pitch than the Spitfire and this manifests itself as a resistance on the controls making them heavy in all flight conditions and got progessively worse with increased speed.

[swift]

With newest patch I too have the impression that the spitfire overheats faster, even with full radiator open.

I am also a bit confused with the mixture handling. How does it affect the performance and the overheating?

Anyhow I do not seem to be able to get the Spitfire fast when at altitude without cooking the engine.

I do not know how I can get maximum performance without overheating it. However it seems that the Spit overheats a little less at sea level but at altitude it starts to boil quickly. Somebody can give me advice on it?

I also think that when flying faster the cooling effect should be better. So with same power settings (boost, rpm) I should cool my engine when diving.

I also seem that the Spit 1a_100 seems to overheat quickly in short! dives. I frequently cook the engine when I run her at 2600 rpm full boost (but no boost cut out) after a short dive. This is strange. Due to constant speed propeller rpm should not increase for too long beyond 2600 rpm at 6 lbs boost which is a setting for which one can run the spit 1a_100oct quite safely without overheating her. When I do some extended loops at about 10 kft I always overheat her. This seems not normal. Not for a constant speed prop plane where overreving should be not a big issue. Radiator's always full open btw.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hi Swift, and welcome to the 1C Forum. Your observations tally with many of us with the latest patch. A few of us are working behind the scenes on that very thing at this moment. In the meantime, keep your rpms no higher than 2500 and boost at 6.2. Stay posted.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Not true, there has been a very long winded thread recently highlighting the effects of stability, the 109 was more stable in pitch than the Spitfire and this manifests itself as a resistance on the controls making them heavy in all flight conditions and got progessively worse with increased speed.

Pitch would only effect elevator and you're making a general statement. A higher stability does not necessarily imply higher control forces. "Higher" control forces do not imply "heavy" controls.

[Crumpp]

Yet performance is more true to life

??????

ATAG_Dutch....

I find it difficult to have a serious discussion on the accuracy of one set of parameters such as speed or climb and ignore the flying qualities that make these airplanes unique.

These airplanes were all pretty much equal dogfighters due to their performance and flying qualities.

Modeling them the same is more accurate than producing charactures and frankenplanes.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

Pitch would only effect elevator and you're making a general statement. A higher stability does not necessarily imply higher control forces. "Higher" control forces do not imply "heavy" controls.

I'm not sure where exactly I implied pitch affects anything other than elevators, the more stability the more resistance it's simple fact, if there was no resistance to input then by definition it has no stability (the nature of returning to original condition) it is that resistance which pulls the controls back to original position therefore the relationship between stability and control force is almost proportional, there is an RAE report stating 'exactly' this point about the 109.
I have flown aircraft with heavy controls and it's bloody tiring and I would class an aircraft with lighter controls as much easier to fly despite any perceived 'twitchyness', the penalties from adverse handling characteristics of an aircraft are just something to get used to and I would always prefer an aircraft to have light controls so I don't have to wrestle with it if things get hairy.

in summary, it may not 'necessarily' mean higher control forces but in practice and most of the time it means 'exactly' that in a conventional planform aircraft with the largest proportion of mass toward the front, aircraft like the Spitfire and P-51, P-39 were exeptions because of the way certain loadouts (or engine in the P-39) would affect distribution of that mass thus affecting CofG, as we all know CofG has an impact on stability, the 109 was just a whacking great big engine,prop and gun with a tiny little aircraft bolted to it, a stable speed machine with big guns...ideal for BnZ.

[Crumpp]

Stick force per G is a control characteristic, not stability.

Hurricane, high stick forces, stable airplane....ideal for TnB........