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

[Sven]

Originally Posted by ImpalerNL

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

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

[kimosabi]

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Ofcourse, the Spits were fitted with constant speed propellers so his notes regarding the props were out of date when the battle kicked off.

[Kwiatek]

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.

[kimosabi]

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.

[SEE]

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?

[Kwiatek]

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.

[SEE]

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'........

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by SEE

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'........

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.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

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.

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?

[Wolf_Rider]

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]