I Want my 4.09 Spit FM's back.........

[Oktoberfest]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

I've always had more luck continuing to fight after being shot when in a 109 or 190. I've found the Spit a lot more fragile the the German fighters.

ROFLMAO LOL MDR

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

So how are you in a good position to compare the modelling of different fighters?

At least my plane taught me some skills to defeat better planes. I doubt it happens with the spit.

[SEE]

The La's and Yaks are the most stable but presenting an argument that Spitty pilots (or Russian for that matter!) are therefore less competent isn't really useful or accurate. I just had a most enjoyable hour on the 'BOB' server.....in a 'Spitty' of course and I make no aplogies for that!

[CIA_KC]

Hi all, new to the forum but not to the sim. Thought I'd chime in on this. There were many changes in 4.1, many I do not like but I'm dealing with them.
I fly both red and blue, predominately on WC or Sv109 and due to the new damage model on fw I have changed to flying the 109 almost exclusively. I always felt that the spitty had been way too good at e retention prior to 4.1 and we always "killed the spitty first" Some of the things I have noticed is that many of the regs that fly the spitty seem to stall much more often than they used to and probably does get really frustrating. Now to qualify my statements I DO NOT fly the spitty often and can't say what has changed by flying them, but I AM qualified to see that while fighting experienced spitty drivers that they seem to be having much more difficulty. From my pov only it seems that the planes are much more evenly matched and for that I am happy. As to the person who said that the 109 doesn't stall nearly as fast as the spitty, it's due to the complete concrete elevator that the 109 has (not really and advantage )
I will continue to fly this game as I love it!!! reguardless of how much the new FM or DM has changed. Haven't we figured it out yet that noone is ever going to be totally happy LOL. We all can remember all the spitty drivers in the previous patches calling us luftwhiners. Nowadays I do fly more blue than red, but that's because I always join the outnumbered team, and with 4.1 that is almost always blue, usually due to everyones love affair with the new 51 FM, but that's another post entirely.
~S~ all see u in the air!
CIA_KC
Jeff Mc.

[Fenrir]

Guys, can i make a request that we stop attacking people and making synde remarks regarding pilot skill just because of the plane someone chooses to fly?

It's snobbery of the highest and most disgusting order, and no-one should be maligned in this community for choosing to fly their favourite plane.

Do I malign 190 pilots for choosing a plane with awesome firepower? No.

Do I insult 109 pilots for having a plane with excellent lateral stability at the stall? No.

Do I attack either for their ability to outrun (with a couple of exceptions) the equivalent Spitfire Mk of that theatre/year? No.

Yes, the Spitfire is one of the easier planes to fly and fight - which is historically and prototypically correct btw; a vast majority of former WW2 pilots and modern day operators will attest to that- but having flown the equivalent various Mks of 109 and 190 myself, against Spits, these planes have their advantages, tho small I warrant you, and a good pilot will use them to his advantage.

I suspect too many of you Luft-fans are wandering into fights co-alt or below -I avoid them even in the spit - and you fight on it's terms. No wonder you get pwned so often.

If you have a problem with FMs then fine, but leave us the operators out of it - we don't design the flight models, we like you are just trying to get them to a stage where it reflects what we read and can find documented.

It's funny btw, that no Spit pilot here has complained about the percieved e-retention change; we just want an aircraft that doesn't constantly roll right throughout the majority of it's fighting speed range. It's all the Lufties who have jumped on there particular agenda yelling about that. Funny, eh?


And for those who didn't see it earlier, here's some documented fact by a spitfire pilot who flew Mks I - XIX:

Me, earlier:

Real spit pilots used to have their ailerons manually trimmed by their 'chiefy' - in the earlier spits with fabric ailerons a piece of cord was doped onto the trailing edge of the aileron on the wing that was dropping too much, thereby causing that aileron to droop slightly and thus lift the wing. How much depended on the length (and therefore weight) of the cord. A system of trial and error was used to get the balance about right.

With the metal ailerons, this was considered a bit old fashioned, and instead the 'chiefy' would give the offending aileron a few hearty wallops with a hide-faced hammer to bend it. If that didn't work, they'd swap round ailerons till they found a pair that gave the pilot the best compromise in the speed range he was happiest. - paraphrasing Tom Neil, Spitfire: From The Cockpit ISBN 0-7110-1918-5

So theoretically I should be able to CHOOSE the aileron neutral trim point of my spitfire.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

...............

So theoretically I should be able to CHOOSE the aileron neutral trim point of my spitfire.

Now THAT's realistic! Ask your chiefy.

Hope Oleg thought of that for the COD War.

Anyway some of the 'finer FM points' arguments are probably wasted on us average pilots.

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

So theoretically I should be able to CHOOSE the aileron neutral trim point of my spitfire.

So, make that request here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18260

[BadAim]

I'm sorry boys, but this argument is getting a bit silly. I ran into my longtime nemesis the other night, him in a Spit V, me in a 109F. The outcome was exactly the same as it usually is, we both limped back home after a 20 min dogfight smoking and nursing damaged aircraft but still alive. I'm just not sure what, on balance has changed. (outside of the trim thing, and perhaps some adjustment of flying style). BTW, the other outcome is usually that I make a mistake first and he as the better pilot exploits it and gives me an overdose of Hispano.

All of the bitching and moaning (on all sides ) is just getting to be too much.

Edit: After reading the last couple of pages, this thread has turned a bit (just a bit) more sensible. Just wanted to say that.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by BadAim

I'm sorry boys, but this argument is getting a bit silly. I ran into my longtime nemesis the other night, him in a Spit V, me in a 109F. The outcome was exactly the same as it usually is, we both limped back home after a 20 min dogfight smoking and nursing damaged aircraft but still alive. I'm just not sure what, on balance has changed. (outside of the trim thing, and perhaps some adjustment of flying style). BTW, the other outcome is usually that I make a mistake first and he as the better pilot exploits it and gives me an overdose of Hispano.

All of the bitching and moaning (on all sides ) is just getting to be too much.

Edit: After reading the last couple of pages, this thread has turned a bit (just a bit) more sensible. Just wanted to say that.

lol, i remember that fight and arthur saved your butt twice, before you met Mr P

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Sven

If I remember right this is what a spitfire pilot said in an interview: "The spitfire could be flown by any idiot."
In that point of view IL2 got it spot on, the plane is meant for idiots.

I assumed you were just being silly with that comment, but...

Originally Posted by Sven

The pilot obviously meant flying the plane not mastering it, that's something totally different. The plane was meant for idiots ( read fresh pilots, as the Spitfire pilot obviously meant.)

Er, what? Are you for real? It was designed as an interceptor, with good climb rate and high manoeuvrability.

You think the Spitfire was designed primarily with fresh pilots in mind (so it could have been better if designed with experienced pilots in mind). You're either trying to stir up an arguement, or you're clueless. It's impossible to argue that the Spitfire wasn't highly capable in real life dogfights.

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

At least my plane taught me some skills to defeat better planes. I doubt it happens with the spit.

So the real Spit was designed for idiots, and consequently those idiots never learnt to defeat better planes. It's a wonder any Spit pilot scored a kill.

I like to fly Spits and although I've flown 109s and 190s a lot, I flown Spits a lot more. But I get more kills more easily in a 190. Fly high, drop down and boom, there's nothing of the opponent left, even if they're in a well armoured IL2. And if a pair of Spits are on your tail, into a gentle dive and bye bye Spits. When flying a Spit against a couple of 109s or 190s though (lets say one of each in this example) it's a different matter. Running is not an option. You'll probably get shot down, but you'll learn a fair bit along the way, and when you win the fight it feels good. Meanwhile the 190 pilot learns that he's going to have to completely blow the Spit up to stop the 109 stealing the kill, and the 109 pilot learns to cut in.

[Sven]

"Er, what? Are you for real? It was designed as an interceptor, with good climb rate and high manoeuvrability."

I never said it wasn't?

"You think the Spitfire was designed primarily with fresh pilots in mind (so it could have been better if designed with experienced pilots in mind). You're either trying to stir up an arguement, or you're clueless. It's impossible to argue that the Spitfire wasn't highly capable in real life dogfights."

It is a good and easy highly capable fighter, that's why it could be flown by even idiots, that's totally right, what are you trying to say? Every plane which was very succesful in combat was produced in large numbers was easy enough to let even raw pilots get off in the air, otherwise it wouldn't have been a succesful plane wouldn't it? That's exactly what the Spitfire pilot meant, a good front line fighter, as it's intercepting role of bombers was given to the hurricanes.

I think you made a mistake on your last quote, since I never wrote it
Oktoberfest was the author I believe. Am I trying to get into an ever lasting argument or are you? This all doesn't makes much sense to me.