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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

You guys would know better than me but as Robo is a red pilot 1st I thought him offering to add it as a bug / feature ment it was not.

Ive just been thinking about it actually and it applies to a CSP. Is this not an automatic pitch propellor? What mark of engine is this manual for?

Trying to research this myself but red stuff is all new to me, found this:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/batt...ropellers.html

The Pilot's Notes General don't apply to any particular mark or make of engine, they were issued to all pilots and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes issued for different aircraft types and models. The PNs Gen comments on propellers and overspeeding:

[bongodriver]

@bugmenot

I am really refering to the elevator controls, I have never disputed the rolling characteristics, the Spitfire was very stable latteraly.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The Pilot's Notes General don't apply to any particular mark or make of engine, they were issued to all pilots and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes issued for different aircraft types and models. The PNs Gen comments on propellers and overspeeding:

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?


Snapper, Dutch and Osprey I take it from your sarcasim that you object to having any negative flight model aspects added even though you constantly cry for a better, truer and more historically accurate flight model. I find it kind of odd when someone else makes a point that might add a realistic characteristic that you belittle the entire thread. Lets just get the facts so we can present them! Not sustain the red vs blue stance.

We can go over the 109 after if you like, I would enjoy that more. The narrow track landing gear physics do not operate as I have read them (when one wheel is on the ground and the other is not which causes the grounded wheel to move toward the centre - turning the aircraft over) for starters.

[JG52Krupi]

Osprey/Snapper your both getting out of hand no one here is saying that the spit is perfect far from it in fact they are saying the opposite.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Osprey/Snapper your both getting out of hand no one here is saying that the spit is perfect far from it in fact they are saying the opposite.

I think we quite get the message, Krupi. In abundance.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?

These are the Pilot's Notes General (A.P 2095), 2nd Edition - April 1943. AFAIK the comments on the propellers are the same as those in the first edition from 1940, although that has to be confirmed.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?


Snapper, Dutch and Osprey I take it from your sarcasim that you object to having any negative flight model aspects added even though you constantly cry for a better, truer and more historically accurate flight model. I find it kind of odd when someone else makes a point that might add a realistic characteristic that you belittle the entire thread. Lets just get the facts so we can present them! Not sustain the red vs blue stance.

We can go over the 109 after if you like, I would enjoy that more. The narrow track landing gear physics do not operate as I have read them (when one wheel is on the ground and the other is not which causes the grounded wheel to move toward the centre - turning the aircraft over) for starters.

Point well taken, Farber.

As for the 109, its shortcomings in this sim are well known:

1) it's too slow
2) the stall characteristics are too harsh
3) it's flat spin is not realistic
4) it's too difficult to bring its sights to bear on target
5) it's narrow-track landing gear characteristics is not accurately modelled (as you noted above)
6) prop pitch too slow in changing

Done. Anything missed?

[Crumpp]

After the application of an inertial elevator to fix the longitudinal instability, the aircraft would have NEAR neutral longitudinal stability.



Before that fix, during the Battle of Britain, Spitfires were longitudinally unstable at normal CG.

Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:




That is not representative of an early mark Spitfire.

[Talisman]

When I purchased the boxed version of this sim it included a replica of the historic Spitfire aircraft pilot notes (with the addition of the sim company logo). I therefore presumed that I would be able to fly the Spit in accordance with the reproduced notes provided. However, I have not been able to fly the Spit in accordance with these notes as the sim Spitfire under performs against the information provided in the said notes.
I am not sure whether anyone has ever managed to get the Spitfire to fly as per the notes provided, but I would be very surprised if they have. I feel somewhat let down by this and hope to be able to fly a more accurate representation of the Spitfire soon. In the mean time, I very much appreciate the efforts of those who have put the time and effort in to genuinely help the developers of this sim to achieve as near as possible historic values for the Spitfire and all the other aircraft involved.

[bongodriver]

Crumpp....have you read all of that modification list? the 30 Gal wing tank...... yeah that was a fleet wide modification wasn't it? I think you will find that list of modifications was not a list of universaly applied mods but rather just a list of things that were tried.

You will also realise the need for an elevator mod was for the same reason it the MkV had one, with all the extra equipment being fitted to Spitfires the CoG was changing.