Even cars that come off the assembly line the same day all drive different, so all planes will fly different as well, especially the ones that were hand made or used different materials.

So even if you have flown a real Spit, you have flown an unique example with unique characteristics.

Imagine each time you fly a plane it has randomly generated characteristics (within the range of the specifications, obviously). That will teach people to be cautious in seeking it's limitations.

Why? I thought discussion and debate helped find the truth?

.

How condescending. I know a fair bit about trim and a/c having been 6 years in the RAF cadets, flown a glider solo and generally done my research over the years. I've also got a lot of material on The Spitfire, some old, rare books that aren't widely known and therefore quoted.

I'm not after this feature; as in depth and great it could be even I with my incredibly limited knowledge realise what a pig that could be to programme in game.

That's my problem - I DO NOT THINK IT IS CORRECT FOR ANY AIRCRAFT TO BE TRIMMED FOR THE CLIMB. Logically, it seems common sense to me to put the trim neutral state of any flying surface, aileron, elevator, rudder, whatever in the approximate middle of that a/cs speed range or at least at around the combat cruise setting, since then the out-of-trim-forces are balanced at opposite ends of the speed-range.

What I mean by this is if your aircraft is trimmed for the slowest regime of flight at max power, and you go diving it to max speed it'll require a helluva lot of force to keep the a/c attitude.

Arbitrarily say an a/c has a aileron stick force requirement of 20kg when trimmed out in the middle of her speed range. For arguments sake call it 250mph. That means at lowest, e.g. 100mph that should require 20kg of pressure to, let's say, the right against the torque. Similarly at max speed, say 400mph, that required 20kg of pressure is now to the left to compensate for the inherent trimming of the airframe.

Cool. Ok. What happens if we make our datum 175 mph instead? Well down at 100mph against torque we only need 10kg of pressure - however at 400 suddenly you need 30kg of pressure to keep the a/c on keel.

It's counter intuitive to me to think that any aircraft that will regularly fly at any of theses speeds would be so set up to give such variance of 300% in trim forces, and although only an example, reflects my attitude regarding the aileron trim modelling.


I have the Quill book, amongst many others. Nowhere does he say the Spitfire suffered from aileron reversal.

He says given the high speeds being reached by 1944, they would have run into aileron reversal had they continued adding more and more power and strengthening the airframe thus pushing it beyond the 450Vne of the airframe, but absolutely NOWHERE does it state that any operational mark of Spitfire suffered from aileron reversal.

Here's the problem, you "think".
That means you don't "know".

Is suggest you bring proof for your theories. Why drop a line to Flying heritage?
Or, maybe your even able to contact a ret. RAF testpilot.

Defending your point of view is much easier if you have something to show which actually backs ups your argument.


Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

"Elliptical wing" & "Improved late wing designs"

I don't like it either, I wish I had flown a real Spitfire or had some nugget of data that gave us the designed Spitfire trim speed, however sometimes the only way to find an answer is to extrapolate from various sources, and make best guesses from interpretation.

TD have made a decision about the aileron neutral trim speed that they interpreted from the manual. Nowhere, nowhere, does it say in that manual, that the max economical cruise speed and rpm is the setting at which the a.c is trimmed. THEY INTERPRETED AND INFERRED IT.

On that note, I'm trying to correct it, based on EDUCATED and INFORMED analysis and some RESEARCH. I can't give you a figure but I'm trying to find it and in the meantime, demonstrate the questionable logic of having an a/c - any a/c - trimmed for such a low relative speed in it's performance envelope.

Good point and well said, mate.

Cheers,
6S.Insuber

Swiss, you and I don't see eye to eye on much, I know. Regarding the think and feeling, please re-read my posts. These sentiments are not based on over romanticised History Channel thinking, but 20 years of learning all I can about Spitfires, with plenty of airtime, flight training, and research thrown in.

To quote your wiki link:

There is no documented case of Spitfire aileron reversal. This was a rare case of an a/c designer pre-empting a potential problem, NOT reacting to an existing one.

Fenrir, I which country do you live?

I agree; knowing a TD guy I could appreciate his seriousness, fairness and intellectual honesty. And that said, unfortunately the FW190 acceleration issue has not yet been corrected afaik.

Cheers,
6S.Insuber

I know I know, pick me pick me! Messerschmidt BF 109 F4!

Fenrir, you have informed me greatly goddammit.

:grin:

I'm in the UK.

Manu - very true mate. It is very rare to fight against a coordinated pair of Spitfires in DF servers - luckily!

I have strong doubts about that. It could be a simple search in a folder, where people could make a simple text file with the name of the type, in the right format. No file means standard trim. Changing the GUI of the game to include sliders to adapt standard trim is too much work indeed, and people themselves should spend some time and energy. If loadout affects a style of playing, for example if you usually fly at high speed and this time you're doing a long range bombing run in formation, it could be nice to be able to adjust that too.

I think TD make surly better job then 1C with Spits FM's and versions. Now they have more historical types ( engine models) and performance.

I dunno why people think that new Spits are more stally beacuse from my feeling new Spits have much more gentle stall then stock ones. And it is good beacuse Spits have good symptoms of incoming stall due to its wash wingtips. Spits should be quite easy plane to fly.

Impression of easier stall could be casued from much more longitudal instablilty of new spits which now are very unstable planes and have very big pitch up tendency. Still i think here is a space for improvement in general flight charactersitic of all new spits.

Also i dont like these stupid WEP activated by button. It is very wrong idea which allow to use WEP even belowe full throttle. It shouldnt be these way.

Could it be that the pitch up tendency is a product of aft CG due to the rear tanks?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/s...lsystem-lr.jpg

EDIT: No. I just tested it. 100% fuel vs 10% with an F Vc 1942. Same tendency.

Your lack of respect for spitifre pilots only shows your incompetence as a virtual LW pilot.
Cut the **** and practice more often.

Only some late Spits ( Marki VIII or Mark XVI) have rear fuselage fuel tanks. Such Spits with rear tank surly could have longitutad stability problems with rear fuel tank full similar to P-51s. But witht empty rear tank it should be any problem with COG.

Earlier types of Spits had only forward fuel tanks before pilot cocpit.

Apparently the IX is unaffected as well, so if that type has rear tanks, the effect on CG is not modeled.

Suggestion for your next pleasure trip:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/

The exact words of the spitfire pilot again, ".. The spitfire could be flown by any idiot"

What do you think that means? That I have disrespect for Spitfire pilots?
I think this man who flew in the war knows what he is talking about, more than any one of you! What I understand from this sentence is that even FRESH PILOTS could fly the Spitfire, why the term idiot? Because it sounds better than raw recruits, otherwise the pilot wouldve said that, and it sounds funny as well.

You're extremely overreacting, and haven't got the slightest idea where I'm talking about, and keep personal thoughts about me to yourself, you have no idea.

EDIT I'm looking for the video to clear this all up, I remember the now old pilot had a very nice moustache

It's no secret that pilots thought the Spitfire was easy to fly.

Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full." 114

Ofcourse, the Spits were fitted with constant speed propellers so his notes regarding the props were out of date when the battle kicked off.

Remember that Molders tested SPitfire MK1 with only 2-stage prop pitch ( not constant speed propeller unit) and lower boost settings( +6 1/2 lbs). But of course flying charactersitic (not peformacne) were the same. Also German report confirmed that both Hurricane and Spitfire could turn tigher then 109 E even with older 2-stage prop pitch and lower boost.

Yep, I added that in.

Geoffrey Wellum also mentions in his book that the Spit was more manageable in tight turns, with some practice, when you encounter the stall threshold.

I appreciate all the contributions made and many thanks to Fenrir in particular for his technical arguments wether you agree with them fully or not . On a personal note, I find the Bf's just as stable to fly and in many areas even better than the Spit, particularly the early Mk1 variants which are not modelled in the stock game. Interestingly, I see on other forums that pilots have noticed the LA7 has it's FM improved in 4.10 and it still retains a better rate of fire than what I have always believed it should have but I am no expert so accept that.

I have read accounts from BOB Spit pilots who said that young inexperienced flyers did not turn hard enough for fear of stalling and that one aspect of the Spit was the airframe would shudder and shake violently before the onset of stall making it very predictable even if somewhat unpleasant.

OK, let's accept that the previous FM of the Spit was too much in favour of the 'Reds' and that changes were necessary but it might just be that some aspects need questioning and supported with good technical evidence (for and against).

It will be very interesting to see how the MK1 Spit FM will be modelled in CoD given the new benchmark set by 4.10 (allbeit for the later variants which had many improvements). Hmmm,....I wonder if we will see similar Spit FM threads in the CoD forum if there is any discrepancy compared to 4.10?

I really wonder what engine settings ( boost preassure) will be used in Spitires MK1 with CS propeller and 100 octan fuel in Cliffs of Dover. With using 100 octan fuel in Spits MK1 during BOB time there were used new Boost seettings - + 9 lbs for climb ( 1/2 hour limit) and +12 lbs for emergency ( 5 minut rating). Before using 100 octan fuel MErlin III used +6 1/2 lbs maximum boost ( 1/2 hour limit) without any emergency power.

Dunno what data and information 1C gots for these early SPits.

IIRC, virtually all the Spits engaged in BOB had variable pitch props fitted, Geoffrey Wellum makes a point in his autobiography that he set his Spitty PP to 2650 rpm for combat as he considered it handled better! One thing's for sure, CoD is going to require 'up close and personal' before pressing the Spitty/Hurri trigger.......me thinks that maybe 'probables' should be awarded as opposed to just 'definite kills'........:grin:

Thanks Swiss, I'll look into this.

Also, to clarify, I don't want a return to the 4.09 Spitfire FMs; I quite like the new stall/energy characteristics.

The only issue I have is with the lateral trim.

Not variable pitch but constant speed propeller units (CSP). It is different thing that variable prop pitch which were used in early german fighters. In variable pitch you directly change prop pitch settings but in CSP you just set desire RPM settings and these system is trying to keep needed RPM by changing automaticly prop pitch.

+1

we have a winner;)

Then that should be the focus of any further argument...and once again, thanks for your input!

Well said mate, thanks.

+1

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

The official Royal Air Force History states:

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?

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]

Hi mate,
1. Irrelevant
2. 4.11 , that and some other things too ;)

~ 9 months have been spent on research which include everything we could find on the net, visits to UK national archives and discussion with pilot who fly Spitfires.

Is new FM perfect? No it is not but it is still the best you can find in combat flight sim IMO.

Well, if that's the only issue you have with new FM than we can be quite pleased with the job done.:grin: As you probably know, we will release Bug Fix patch and some changes in FM are possible. Some of the planes in 4.10 didn't get latest FM files and AFAIK Spits are among them.

And this is how it looked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCmzY...ayer_embedded#
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.

Beautiful video FC99, thank you.

6S.Insuber

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.

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!)

Nice video. I'm surprised he was able to maintain power in those inverted passes and not damage the engine. That's an early Spitfire - I, II or Va; a Spit V from 1941 according to the text. I didn't know they could do that.

Lol! Same thoughts here. You beat me posting that thought by just 1 minute :)

...and the Merlin sounded so sweet for the entire time of that inverted pass.......you gotta love the Spitty....well I do!

+1

Much appreciated response FC99. I would only add that the way the WEP is activated as KWIATEK suggests is not really very real. Better to follow all the other types and have up to 110% boost to cover the WEP and limit it's use before engine problems (realistic engine management) IMHO.

Many thanks for replying and indeed 9 months is a lot of research.

Nicholaiovitch:)

Please make Spitfire wings breakable in high speed dive. And its unrealistic and inpossible to see Spitfire following FW-190 or P-47 or P-51 in the high speed dive without breaking wings. The reason is: Spitfire got HUGE wings and cannons sticking out of it. Also, vertical climb with low speed (~150-160 km/h) without stalling - again inpossible and unrealistic due to the same reason, huge wings and cannons.

Lol you surly dont know that Spits due to thier wing desing had higher mach number reached in dive then even P-51 or P-47 :)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg

Mach .891 ! :)

;)

its not fair, its not fair:-P

nice chart Lane, thanks for posting

You're welcome, my pleasure :)

To be fair, the Spitfire IX Pilot's Notes restricts diving corresponding to a Mach No. of .85.

Sure, but it takes them forever to build up speed.

Some spits in Italy, notice the absence of yellow flames when the cannons are fired at 1:22, only gun smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V28M9Wo2iX0

hey FC, nice to see(read) you again.
1°how "irrelevant"?
from what i found in the the engine class in the 409, the carburattor
didn't allow for a fast RPM recovery and especially did
made loose the engine it's RPM's.
Did something changed in the 410,hein?

2° Tell me , tell me (PM is open;) )

Anyway, the throttle idea is a very good idea for the 190 (how to highjack a thread)
Using 1.0001 on the boost factor with automaticaly activating the start/notleistung
as in the P47 with it's waterinjection through the class file.
The Boost "button" would be used for the Ernhohte notleistung (C3 einzprits) in it's
2 different versions, jabo and standard fighter 1.65+1.78+1.82atea (depending on period)


And if the pitot was placed on the nose the numbers would be very different.;)

the same could be said about the anton or the dora, when Mister Tank tested an A7 in a dive from 1OK
and set it straight at 6K with a speed of 950km TAS (calculated from the IAS) without any structural
failures or even small cracking noises.
But were those numbers exact?due to the pitot positionning (in the spit or in the 190)the errors get almost squared with speed increasing.

so when talking about Mach numbers into the transonnic area those numbers can't be taken seriousely.:grin:

According to the dive chart posted above it took 36.4 seconds to reach Mach .891 from 274 mph TAS ; that isn’t exactly forever. ;) The AFDU did note, however, in comparing the Mustang III and Spitfire IX that “The Mustang III pulls away very rapidly in a slight dive.” It only stands to reason that eventually - evidently in about half a minute, the Spitfire IX would gain on the Mustang.

I agree with you, but they will tell you, "you are wrong" or "you are luftwhiner" :)

Oh, ok.
Sure, the spit is best fighter ever built.
Turns better, outdives, and of course outruns any plane on the planet.

The holy grail of aircraft construction. :rolleyes:


edit:
http://www.flightjournal.com/Media/M...ger/fw-190.pdf
nice read about the 190, he mentions the Spit 9 too.

So the reason you give is that it has HUGE wings and cannons. Not because you have any engineering understanding, or because you have read anywhere that their wings came off in high speed dives.

Which model, and do you mean when diving, and compared to what?

Well if you make false statements with no evidence to backup your biased opinions, of course you're going to get criticised.

The Spitfire had disadvantages from some respects, like it didn't have a lot of ammunition, and it didn't have the range of fighters like the P51. But it was an excellent fighter. If you can find some documentation to show otherwise, let's see it. Or even the odd pilot account of it being below par would be a start.

Learn ACM's kiddo.

Oktoberfest manages just fine from what I hear...

Spit vs same generation 190.

btw, read the attached pdf

Plus accusing the slim petite spitfire of having chunky thighs, woops I mean wings, is treasonous in the UK.

Besides, we all know the REAL reason the Spitfire wings came off is it was too effete and girly :D

Dont forget the magic elliptic antigravitation. War winning stuff.

Quote from “Gun Button to Fire” (Tom Neil – passage refers to May 1940…so Mk1)

“I forced down the nose and watched the speed rise rapidly – 300, then 350, finally 400. Everything tight and the starboard wing dropping. Hard left aileron now – it must be the radiator under one wing. I trimmed forward…..more, then more, working the rudder bias at the same time. God, I had never been so fast! 430!”

Interesting! This was his first flight in a Spitfire.

Nicholaiovitch:o

Edit:- Dive was started at 8000ft.

Such sceptiscm and sarcasm! .......I suppose, that despite the evidence in the video, that the early spits could fly inverted for longer than is currently modelled (without the engine dying and spluttering) is going to be challenged as MOD propaganda rather than genuine attempts to correct FM errors.

I read the 190 pdf when you posted it and it doesn't back up your point at all. The 190 was a great fighter, my favourite looking WWII aircraft, and it was superior to the Spit Mk V, we all know that. But the Spit mkV was out before the 190, and as soon as the RAF met the 190 in the air they stuck a bigger engine in the Spit (giving the mk IX) which was immediately superior to the 190.
According to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/fw190a5.html
the mk IX (1942) was as fast as the 190 A5 (1943), and easily outclimbed and out manouevered it (despite the 190s superior roll rate).

So your evidence of the Spitfire taking forever to build up speed, is a pdf that says nothing of the sort.

As with the 109, the 190 had other things going for it, like its great roll rate, impressive firepower, good dive speed etc. If you were at altitude in a 190, this meant you had a good chance of rolling and diving away when in trouble.

Later versions of the 190 continued to get faster, but the pdf you linked to doesn't show direct comparison with the Spitfire (he says the D9 was one of his favourites, along with the Spit XIV, P51D IV etc), but instead points out that the Germans had a shortage of pilots and fuel.

Actually you're right - this pdf doesn't have the same content as it's German counterpart.
I was pretty sure it's same as in his book - obviously they only took parts of it and rearranged it for the mag..

Doesn't matter - I found it:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/1191005588

1.- LOL,spitfire ix only had advantage over 7600 meters, where the bmw engine lose performance, below that altitude, the fw190 had the same climb performance, could accelerated much more than the spitfire ix and was a bit more fast. Www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org rates are very selective when it comes to performance tables, they are pro allies and love airplanes like spitsfires and mustangs, so I believe nothing of what they publish, it is best to book information research rather than a couple of stupid that they think is right.

Quoted from a book: Comparasion fligths between an fw190 a-3 and a spitfire ix HF showd the fw190 to have a minor advantaje between 600 and 5500 meters; from about 7600 meters upward the spitfire was faster. The climb rate for both machines was equal to about 7600 meters. At that point the fw190 began lagging considerably behind the spitfire. Diving and turning were the same as for the spitfire VB comparasion. Kurt Tank Focke-Wulfs Designer and Test Pilot

As we could see both machines are totally equaled. We are a talking about only a fw 190 a3, not late machines, who had an increased performance.

2.-Fw190 d-9 inmediatly was a succes becouse, at military power could reach 686 km/h and for ten minutes could reach the maximun top speed with mw50 increasing the 1776hp to 2240 hp, the top speed was 730km/h, acceleration and impressive flight characteristics were.

Grow up. If you have some relevant information to post, let's see it. I was replying to a post suggesting the Spit took forever to pick up speed, and I can't see evidence of that. So you think the wwiiperformance site it biased towards allied planes - what evidence do you have of that? The data they quote in from serious militarty testing, not from propaganda. But anyway, you have some other site with good research, I'd be interested to see that too.

Well Swiss has just posted another link which says "the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m)"
So that's not 7600 metres, that's 1525 metres. You're getting 7600 metres because you're looking at the H.F. model, which was specifically designed for high altitude flight. So a Spitfire designed specifically for high altitude flight (ceiling height of about 45 thousand feet) has a minor disadvantage to an FW 190 below 5500 metres. Ok, maybe you didn't realise what H.F. meant, no big deal.

I think the D9 was an excellent fighter. If you have some good data on it's performance vs a late war Spit that would make interesting reading. Particularly if there were enough D9s in the air to make a difference to the war, becuase if not, there's very little reason for the allies to need to compete with it.

BoB Spit vs 109 arguments are always hard to nail...

Let's not forget that it was a very fluid time in development terms and features were added as they were produced. The germans knew what their advantages were which is why they would attack, dive away climb back up and try again, very few would deliberatley enter into a turning fight (except the aces who knew they could beat Spitfires any way).

That's the thing, too many German aces said they could easily beat Spitfires.
It's been said that a great pilot couldn't get much more out of a Spit than an average pilot because it was so easy to fly, whereas a great german pilot could get a lot more out of the 109 than an average pilot could. Use of the slats to deliberatly stall the plane to escape a Spitfire seem quite comon among the German Aces from what I've read, along with a few other 'tricks' that only the top men could perform.

It will be interesting to see how the diving away tactic works in CoD, depends on how much speed is lost when the Spit engine cuts, if it's realistic there are going to be a few frustrated Spitfire pilots about.

Believing that site, nothing made by the Germans could ever compete with anything British or American. Funny enough, there are very little graphs of early war aircraft. In charts comparing axis vs. allied, there are also no conditions of tests mentioned.

You get better idea of relative performance by reading a good book or 2 of each plane and how they actually met in combat, and compare factory tests(and their conditions), not tests done on half broken stressed airframes that ran an overdue engine with a wooden prop, and of results' would then be used in propaganda and/or post-war publications. Applying to both/all sides, not just Allies.

D-9 was the single most produced model of the Fw 190.

I'm just looking at that link, looks good.

Just regarding acceloration though, this has been poorly written:
"From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration"
Now I don't doubt what he is saying, that the 190 can climb quicker when starting a climb from a high-speed cruise, but his English is not correct - that is not acceloration. If you are cruising at high-speed in a mid WWII plane, and adjust to climb at your maximum climb rate, you will slow down, not speed up.

Have you got a link for that? And were there enough pilots left for it?

Wiki - which I don't hold much faith in, but it's a start:
"The A-8 was the most numerous of the Fw 190 As, with over 6,550 A-8 airframes produced from March 1944 to May 1945. A-8s were produced by at least eight factories during its lifetime"
"A total of 1,805 D-9s were produced.[Rodeike 1998, p. 381.] Production started in August 1944"

From http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html

"The next subvariant, the "FW-190A-8", turned out to be the most heavily produced of all FW-190 subvariants, with over 1,300 built."
(a hugely different number than that given by Wiki, but they both agree the A8 was the most prodiced.

continued from vectorsite:
"The Dora-Nine was produced in good numbers, but Nazi Germany was falling apart by that time; there were few pilots, there was little fuel. Many of the FW-190D-9s built never saw combat, and in any case they were too few to have any influence on the course of the war. Those that did see action were often used as "top cover" for airfields operating the Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighter, whose poor acceleration made it highly vulnerable during landings"

I'd like to read this book, never seen it before :grin:

heres the anton numbers for all types, trying to dig out the dora numbers now. EDIT, done see below

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...2Jan241436.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...3Jan241437.jpg

your link for 1805 dora 9's seems correct:)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...4Jan241447.jpg

Safe to say that the Dora 9 was not the most produced 190, lol.

got the numbers for other doras and Ta's as well, if anyones interested.

S!

Some 1705 produced FW190D-9 is not a small number. Rather the amount 830 airframes of FW190A-9 is, comparable to a few tens more of FW190A-4's built. FW190A-8 seems to be the most produced and used version according to that table :)

When looking at the figures of relative performance between Spitfire and Fw190A one can easily see that if the speed difference was within 5-15km/h then a worn out plane or wrongly trimmed plane, for example, would make you lose to the other in performance, be it the Spit or Focke-Wulf. Down to the pilot skill more or less when talking of so small speed margins seen here. IF a Spitfire flies 550km/h and Fw190A 545km/h at a certain altitude it does not make the Spitfire "superior" or "overwhelmingly good" over the FW..or vice versa. The planes could have different performance for various reasons.

Blindly quoting and touting stuff like a fanboi, as seen in this thread, is useless. IF planes are so evenly matched the rest really boils down to the pilot skill and the situation. Fw190 and Spitfire were remarkable planes, but had their weaknesses and required a skilled pilot for best results.

what a sensible post.

you know thats far to much sense for this thread flanker,:cool:

Without doubt, I completely agree.

I think this guy is watching too much history channel. :grin:

hello troll.

First of all and since it's been already brought up twice, i don't see how the amount of available pilots has anything to do with how good the D-9 was, or any other warplane for that regard. The 262 didn't have much of an impact, yet nobody can argue it wasn't revolutionary and keep a straight face while doing so. In a similar fashion, was the B-17 a rubbish bomber because they lost 60 of them on the Schweinfurt raid due to awful planning? Not by a long shot i'd say ;)

What i'm trying to say is we're discussing flight models which means how the aircraft fly, not if they were flown by experten and their impact on the war's outcome.

It's true that when referencing pilot narratives they will be tinted by their personal perception and experience (one man's crappy plane is another man's ace maker, within limits of course and owing to how each pilot prefers to fly and the tactics he likes to use), but i see the knowledgeable folks have started digging up the numbers so we've already sidestepped that issue.
How many pilots flew it or how many of them knew what they were doing has just nothing to do with how good or bad of an aircraft the D-9 actually was. Let's not try to diminish the design and engineering value of an aircraft that gives us trouble in the sim based on how outside situational factors limited its performance, just saying ;)

Now, as for the actual numbers i think i'll agree with this:




Finally a recent observation about the negative G issue, which this post reminded me about:

I think the error in the sim is in the engine quitting too soon. Just because the engine is still running however doesn't mean that it's developing any useful amount of power, you just don't have to restart it. It might sound confusing, but do read on.

I don't remember if it's in this very thread, but i sat through the entire BBC documentary about the battle of Britain that someone linked on youtube and at one point a surviving RAF veteran (i think it was Tom Neil) talks about the advantages and disadvantages of Spit vs 109.

Well lo and behold, according to that guy the reason for the loss of power is not the engine cutting out from fuel starvation, but having too much fuel!
In a negative G maneuver the float in the carburetor would be pushed upwards due to inertia.
However, when describing how the float carburetor actually worked he said that in order to get more fuel to the engine the float mechanism moved up, not down. Putting two and two together, the conclusion is that negative G maneuvers didn't cause fuel starvation but an over-rich mixture, that "drowned" the engine and resulted in minimal power being developed. There was enough fuel to keep it running (obviously), but it was burned inefficiently and didn't produce any real power. The pilot in the video also mentions how "massive, enormous clouds of black smoke would come out of the exhaust", which is a telltale sign of unburnt fuel and too rich a mixture. He also mentions how this could go on for "three, four or five seconds" during a diving chase with no mention of the engine quitting, which further corroborates the assumption that loss of power results mainly from too much fuel instead of not enough of it. Bottom line, the engine doesn't stop running but it's still not developing power anyway.

Now i'm not a real life pilot but whatever virtual flying i've done in civilian sims and most real life manuals for general aviation aircraft i've read, agree that the engine loses power when running on too rich a mixture but doesn't necessarily quit altogether.
In fact, for many general aviation aircraft part of the descent checklist before landing is to go to full rich mixture if idling below a certain RPM value, in order to be already setup for the landing circuit and since minimal power is needed during the descent phase, plus to safeguard against overheat or even accidental stoppage.
The mixture control limits fuel flow but so does using a lower throttle setting after a certain threshold. So if you run a cessna at idle with a lean mixture during the descent, you could possibly get high cylinder head temps due to not enough fuel in the cylinders plus an accidental fuel starvation and the engine quitting.

Enriching the mixture to full rich prevents his, the engine loses power but it's ok since we want to descent anyway, plus the pilot's attention doesn't need to be focused on incrementally finding the correct mixture setting every few thousand feet he descents, he just sets it for low level where the landing circuit will be flown and leaves it there.
If there was any danger of the engine quitting as a result of a rich mixture, i assume it wouldn't be something the manufacturer's checklist would tell the pilot to do on such a critical phase as the landing approach.

So, if we sum everything up we get the conclusion that when applying negative G maneuvers the carb fed merlin engine shouldn't suffer from fuel starvation and shouldn't quit, but it should run rough on too rich a mixture and just not produce enough power. Mind you, that's for the initial push of the stick forward that forces the float in the carb to go up. I don't know if fuel starvation really does set in when in a prolonged inverted flight situation, which would be very possible if the containter where the float is situated is gravity fed.

The end result might still be the same (a 109 that gains separation through an evasive dive), but it explains the youtube video of the Spit's test flight. In the video the engine doesn't quit because it has as much fuel as it needs to keep running and then some for the short duration of the inverted pass, it just doesn't make good power as a result of too much fuel in the mixture.

So, how is the maneuver flown then? I'll have to rewatch it to be absolutely sure so correct me if i'm wrong, but i think i remember the inverted pass being flown after a dive. This probably gives the Spit in the test flight video enough speed for an inverted pass of a mere few seconds. Why doesn't it emit black smoke from unburnt fuel? I'm not an expert by any means, but i can still think of a few plausible reasons:

1) The pass is practically at ground level, where engines can run with a richer mixture. This could mean that during the initial negative G phase, the lower you are the less power you lose from the overly rich mixture. If it needs X fuel flow at sea level, X-10 at 20000 feet and a -3G maneuver pushes X+20 fuel flow into the engine, it's easy to see that at 20000 feet the resulting fuel flow from the same maneuver is 30 fuel flow units higher than optimal, but at sea level it's only 20 fuel flow units higher than optimal.

2) He's a test pilot and has a few tricks up his sleeve. Namely, when making a pass for the cameras it's not good to have the aircraft belching thick black smoke, so pick up some extra speed first in the dive to make it through the maneuver and when you roll inverted and start pushing negatives, reduce throttle to idle to reduce fuel flow and minimize the chance of smoke appearing, coasting through the pass on kinetic energy alone accumulated in the dive. Then roll upright again, re-apply power and off you go.

Long story short, just because the engine is running doesn't mean it's of any real use under a certain set of circumstances. What we don't know is how pronounced these circumstances were.
In light of Tom Neil's interview i too think that the engines in the sim quit a bit too easily, but i still think that a carb fed Spit without the Shilling modification probably wouldn't be able to follow a BF-109 in a negative G maneuver. Loss of power is loss of power, whether is due to fuel starvation or improperly rich mixture.

Nice one Blackdog_kt first long one of yours in a while that hasn't been a struggle to read.

I wonder whether the I-16 was similar?

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)

Blackdog_kt you have probably right. Most opinions and data claim that float curraburator under negative G casue engine stall due to fuel lost but probably the truth is that lost power is beacuse of fuel flood curraburator and engine. When you apply negative G float in curraburator is going up and fuel flood curraburator. Probably with prolonged fuel flood engine could stop and then could be little problem with start it again. Of course moving prop will start engine again but it could need some time to do it.

I have a few time problem to start on ground inline engine of plane beacuse i gave it too much mixture.

I think Ms Shilling Oriffice was a small disc with hole to prevent fuel flood curraburator.


Ad to video with Spitfire flying aerobatic when he is making inverting flying he is actually in shallow dive with throttle back.


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.

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.

Fw 190 D was faster at low to medium alts, had better high speed manouverbility ( roll rate) and firepower (more concentrated) other thing like climb rate, turn rate and high alt speed was for Spitfire side ( MK IX).

Hi,
our float carburetor and Shilling orifice model is primarily based on description in Pilot's Notes General AP 2095. We would welcome any better source than that.

In regard the video I think that you are wrong in your conclusion. You can take any Spitfire with SO and perform same maneuver. Biggest difference is that things are more binary in game than in RL. That is design decision because SO is tightly connected with mixture control model which is rather rudimentary in game at the moment.

That is another deliberate decision. We know that WEP is not realistic but we see it more like immersion problem. Changing it would require careful examination of the code. Very often some changes that look simple and harmless could cause problems later when it turns out that they interfere or interact with some other parts of the code which might not be obvious at first glance.

So in terms of cost/benefit we decided that it is best and safest to leave WEP for now.

FC

Mhm.. I'm not so sure... "Prevention is better than cure" IMO.

Right, and there is not only prop pitch. Engine cooling is also "undermodeled" in IL2. Try to dive with cooling flaps open without power from 10000m. The engine will still run perfectly once you are at sea level. In RL you had to close these flaps to prevent the engine from getting too cold. Some other planes could be overboosted like the P47.
It might be interesting to watch player killing their machines because of abusiv operations.

Yes but it would affect most such plane with piston engines. Maby we will get it in COD :)

Which is exactly what is modelled in game. You may notice black smoke coming from the exhausts after/in a neg g manoeuvre, this is the overly rich mixture refusing to burn or burning badly.

Which bit are you questioning? There's plenty of documentation as to why is went fro mk V to mk IX, missing the more advanced mk VIII etc, and the mk IX would not have been made if not for the 190.

But if, I expect, you're suggesting that they simply made the planes as good as they could regardless, well on the face of it you'd think so, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Developing a newly improved model takes time, effort, money etc, that could be used to make more of an existing model.

The objective is not to have the best fighter, the objective is to win the war. If your planes are inferior and being shot down, and you're losing, you make your plane better - no excuses acceptable, no price too high. If your planes are inferior but you're winning, while your opponent is struggling to keep supplying their 'superior' plane, your decision is not so easy.

I'm not taking anything away from the D9, it's just my opinion that you need to compare planes that were flying against each other in numbers. As posted above, there were a good number of D9s made, although I don't know how many flew and in what capacity (as some covered Me 262s etc). Has anyone got links to the performance of the D9 vs the Spit XIV? And if the war had continued the D9 would have been up against the Sea Fury - but it wasn't, so we don't look at how good the Sea Fury was. But as we know, there were other nations with great planes too.

Can't find a Dora 9 vs SpitXIV comparison, but regarding your comment on aircraft that saw service in numbers, Wiki says 1,805 Fw 190D-9s were built, compared to 957 Spitfire XIVs.

I'm not questioning the SpitIX's birth. Simply I think that engineering industry (engines, materials ect) always works for improvements and of course during wartime the improvements are researched very quickly (with problems of durability and safety, like you say the matter is to win the war).

Why did the DB use the fuel injection? Why was the Me262 drawn up in 1939? The war was almost ended but P51Hs, P47Ms, P80s were to be used by the Air Force: weren't the P51Ds and P47Ds enough to win the war?

That was Hans Joachim Marseille attacking Lufberry circles in Africa not 109's vs Spitfires in the BoB.

What actually IS documented in the BoB is that the better LW pilots often flew elliptical turns in a dog fight using the slats to temporarily pull some lead and then loosing the stick again before too much speed was washed off.

As far as i known Mrs Shilling Orifice was a not a definitive solution. The time for engine recovery was just lesser, but the negative g effect still there. Even carburetor was not as good as fuel injection.

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.

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.

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 :grin:

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:

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.

All the Tilly Orifice did was restrict the maximum rate of fuel flow to the float chamber and hence reduce the rate of flooding and resultant over rich mixture cut-out in the SU carbs fitted to early Merlins. (The needle valve was also modified.)

It absolutely did NOT eliminate the problem just made it more manageable.

Eliminating the problem completely was impossible without using a totally different type of carb or going to fuel injection ... the neg G issue was "built in" to the float chamber based SU carb design.

The onset of neg G flooding and cut out was much later in a Tilly/Shilling Orifice equipped Merlin than with a standard SU but the problem remained and sustained inverted flight was still impossible.

From 42/43 onwards Bendix and later Rolls Royce pressure carburettors were fitted and these actually DID eliminate the problem altogether.

What I read/heard is that the slats never caused a stall, but allied BoB pilots thought it did, as in tight turns the me109 will roll out.

The actual reality was that the slats came out with such a 'bang' (force) and inexperienced pilots thought they were being shot at and hit, so rolled out of the turn. Experienced pilots had no such problems. The slats did cause a momentary loss of aim.

The Tilly Orifice reduced the fuel flow to the amount of fuel needed at maximum power - 12/16 lb of boost and 3000 rpm. At that power setting, the engine would not cut out in sustained inverted flight due to flooding.

Essentially you re both correct - there has always been a pre-emptive drive to produce more powerful engines, faster aeroplanes, with better rates of climb and more firepower well ahead of any direct reaction to the enemies technological advancement; given the rate of developments (2-3 years even back then) for an engine airframe, you couldn't do otherwise else if all you did was react to the technological advancement of your enemy you'd lose the battle very quickly. Take the Fw190 for example. That 1st flew well before any Bf109 met a Spitfire in combat.

What tended to happen particularly in the British industry was that a technology being developed focusing on a different aspect of the air war or already in development, was found to be suitable to solve an immediate problem with another, or the development was accelerated to get that technology into service as fast as possible. Take the Mk IX, for which this analogy applies on both counts.

The Merlin 60 series was actually designed for powering high altitude bomber designs, but it's much improved output and the fact it would give the Spitfire such a performance boost in light of the then Focke-Wulf ascendancy dictated that it was given priority in this arena.

The Mk IX then is a reactionary a/c in this respect - it's a Mk V with the minimum modifications required to take the new engine. However the technology behind it is of a far more measured and pre-emptive development.

Similarly the Griffon. The Mk IV - later to become the MK XII - first flew in 1941 before the 190 threat was properly understood, but given that in it's early variants the Griffon's high altitude performance was lacking at a time when fighting took place from 20,000ft up it was something of a white elephant. However, they do become useful against the low-level tip and run raiders - tho this is more a case of it fortuitously being available and a suitable answer to an enemies tactics.

Until the two-stage supercharger comes in and we get the Mk XIV (another stop-gap by the way, essentially a Mk VIII with the minimum required modifications to take the Griffon 60 series) then we see a superbly performing fighter at all altitudes.

So unlike the Mk IX, the Griffon Spit's weren't a direct reaction to a particular technology crisis but indicative if the all encompassing urge to go faster, higher, get there faster and kill stuff quickly that drives all a/c development.

Reading it again I'm not even sure myself :)

The fact is that there are people on both sides of the fence that think their favourite aircraft is better than the opponents, and we can't all be right. So there will be comments from both sides that are not accurate.

This thread started with a complaint that the Spit is not as good as it was in an earlier version, and some replies saying that's just as well, as it was like a UFO. Lots of aircrafts have different advantages. I didn't know about the La7 or Yak3 before IL2 (did someone say forgotten battles?), but they're held in the highest regard in lots of books. So the Spits, 109s and FW190s have their own advantages. My personal view is that the i16 was overmodelled in IL2, and the Hurricane undermodelled. I had much more success in the i16 against 109s than I could ever have in the Hurricane, but I'm lead to believe the i16 was really outclassed in the war, and the Brits gave the Russians Hurricanes which actually performed pretty well against the 109. In the BoB the Hurricane could out-turn a Spitfire, and wasn't much slower than a 109. I could easily be wrong about the i16, that's just an opinion I've formed from the odd book.

Forum newbies always start by asking which was the best fighter of the war, and it's no bad thing that there's no one answer. There are too many factors to take into account, like what height a fight is at (no point having the best high altitude fighter defending/attacking low altitude bombers), range, armament, inteception capabilities etc. I still find the comparisons interesting though.

One of the best things about the 190 was the ability to choose whether or not to fight. If you weren't being bounced by someone above, you had a good chance of being able to run. Some of our servers use this advantage, but many don't have the patience and they're then suprised when they can't out dogfight an allied plane that they think is inferior. The more evidence we can find about how these old war birds flew, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, understood, thanks.

Unfortunately it's rather difficult to model the physical difficulties associated with flying under negative G for extended periods, so I think this is a tactic used by 109s more in IL2 than in real life. Pushing the nose down (for negative G rather than to dive) happens a lot in IL2, but doesn't seem to be talked about as a common fail safe from real pilots.
EDIT - I'm going to have to take that back. It seems there is plenty of evidence of 109 pilots dippint their nose, with Hurricane and Spitfire pilots having to roll onto their back to follow.

I agree. It seems Germany made plans for war before everyone else :)