Well AoA I won't make any comments on the SPit in IL2. It's way out of topic and CoD does not deserve that with all the efforts they hve made to make it credible

But I figure you never attempted to B&Z a spit in Il2. My personal safety minimal margin was 500 meters to regain after each pass to find myself still above the free ballooning alt of the beast ;)

realitive to IAS TAS increases with altitude..

Thus if you 'climb'

TAS will be increasing

I think I found the source of our miscommunication?

I am talking about a ROC test

Where there is no acceleration!

The speed (BCS) is kept as constant as it can be kept (humanly possible) during a WWII style ROC test

I only brought it up because you were saying the IL-2 Spit and the CoD Spit have the same problem..

Or did I misunderstand you when you said the following?

You figured wrong ;)

Which IMHO says more about the relative pilot skills than the FM and thus is not proof that the Spit is ignoring the laws of physics

As an example of WW2 climb tests, look at table I in this Spitfire IX test, you can see a constant IAS up to FTH and a constant TAS above FTH. Il-2 compare will always give you constant TAS, which will give you the somewhat higher climb performance below FTH, about 100 fpm in this case. Less than 5% obviously, and all I wanted to say.

The A2A Spifire is sweet to fly and similar in handling to the CoD although to me it 'feels' nicer. The IIa seemed to me to have better acceleration but I haven't done any comparative tests. The A2A Spit Ia only comes with the fixed 20' pitch wooden prop or the DH5-20 2 position three bladed prop (like the DH5-20 in CoD). It does not come with a CSP. It is more sophisticated that CoD in that the engine is more prone to lasting damage through mishandling, e.g. overheating is not only hard to overcome but with Accusim modelling it causes lasting damage to the engine which stays with you on the next flight unless you put right 'in the hangar'. If looked after properly it is just fine.

I'll try to find time to compare level speeds and climb to height in the two DH5-20 versions.

Cheers Klem! From your observations, apart from CEM/performance, etc, the handling characteristics are at least reasonably similar which is re-assuring.

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation. So that's not really a good comparison for CoD.

Got data to back that statement up?

No really, you can't feel it ?:confused: