You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically. Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfightingcapability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

Thats what all you allielovers ALWAYS start to scream when someone talks for the germans.
Getting old.

Winger

ACG run both factions, we presently have 3 RAF squadrons and 1 Luftwaffe squadron. The difference with our Axis pilots to you is that they know what the real situation is with these FM's, so we never have arguments on this, we have discussions but we understand what the pros and cons of each type were. You don't.
Now what you need to do is do a small amount of research, just a tiny bit, and then make a comparison in game in the Spitfire. You'll soon find how poor it is compared with what it is supposed to be (And yes I know there are faults with the 109 too but they are far fewer).

If you are too lazy to do that then my crew will happily help you, sincerely, we will because tbh mate you don't know what you are talking about and it's really grating having to read this kind of ignorance so frequently.

I see what you're trying to say with initial advantage / disadvantage here, but you obviously don't fly the RAF planes. If you would, you'd probably never write anything like that. ;)

On the other hand, I remember having a few fights with you and you always happened to quit in rage complaining about the FMs. Why was that, then? :-P

Thats BS!

Winger

Winger will surely have a witty remark, but is it normal that I fly the Spit at2600 rpm an half throttle rads fully open and the temp is still rising?

Also, it would be nice to have the gun belting working in the plane menu finally.

Performance wise the new beta is the best so far, well done!

I claim aircrafts in accordance with their real performance. K5054, the prototype of Spitfire, was fit with a fixed pitch propeller. It once did a level speed performance of 350 mph, that is an IAS close from 280 mph at 17'000 ft.
Later on, the production Spit did 290 mph at sea level and about 350 at 17'000 (TAS).

I claim all aircrafts to have their correct performance, today, open to the gate in a spit, you get 250 mph and above 240, it will increase very slowly. I don't know about 109 but all aircrafts are concerned with this, they should all have correct performances, I know that the Italian one has also much less than it should, it was said to match the Spitfire even more than a 109, and it's currently not good at all in flight.[/quote]

You are right, I am not sure, but I guess it went from too sensitive to not enough, on a neg G, however you have to remember that before, just pushing a little bit, even at zero G for one split of a seconf, it had the engine cut instantly.

We had also very good performances in Spitfire, I think the climb rate in IIa was too high by about 50%, and when they updated that, it went from an extreme to another.

If you allow me to tell you, it's necessary to know a little bit more about what we are talking for actual performances are completely unbalanced and at that time, the Spit was a tremendous aicraft, it took the development of 109F and 190 to overcome the Spit II and even Mk V, only much later did the British come with the new variant of Spit which matched the latest fighter with the Mk IX.

Mark I and II were very good oponents to 109, they were taken by surprise, or often, the 109 had then to dive away.

It would have no sense to tune aircrafts with performances that have no relationship with reality.

PS Maybe you're not familiar with mph, the spitfire is missing more or less 60 km/h in level flight top speed at SL and approx 70 km/h at 5000 m alt.

I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...NegGonset2.jpg

Hello Doggles,

You are absolutely right. I was just intrigued by Winger's example of a 109 pilot perceiving himself in a fair "balanced" fight continually stall turning onto the Spit but not getting hits due to Spit manouvreability, but with the Spit secretly cursing and feeling hard done by below because there is no way to break his defensive position without immediately being in a worse defensive position.

Besides the speed problems with all planes and RAF glass engine which are well documented, I am suspicious of the 109 current (seemly unchanged in latest beta patch) ability to use initial zoom from level to often get into an unassailable position from co-E and even slight disadvantage. But this is rather a secondary characteristic to things like level speeds, I'm not sure how historical data could tell us if this was possible or unlikely. And I might be flying badly. I'm not saying the situation can't be fun either.

If I am seen in the bounce on a good 109 pilot, I find that he just needs to turn away, a little dive if it looks like I might get into guns range, then rapid climb which I cannot follow even at "engine explode in 1 min" settings. Perhaps this is really what 109s could do in 1v1s at all alts, the wide range of anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise to me though.

Of course the really frustated bounces are when he DOESN'T see you and you come screaming in behind but don't quite make guns range before your speeds equal and he draws away flying straight and level for England :)

Cheers, camber

[QUOTE=IvanK;454021]I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

[cut]

Interesting, thanks IvanK. At least red (and purple) pilots were taught how to roll over into a dive! There was very little margin for negative G as you point out.