The Spit IA should have a Constant Speed Prop

[winny]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I rarely fly the Blue teams planes so thats a issue someone else can follow.

The way I see it is that maddox games decided that that there was going to be two Spitfires in the release so they chose a MkIIa that is very similar in performance to a late model MKI and an early model MkI with a 2 speed Prop. Both of which will cover a lot of senarios.

Extra planes would be good, but we didn't get 'em. Roll on the patches and expansion packs!

Flight models and performance are not perfect but they are within a range that for me is acceptable, especially if mission designer make use of the mechanical weathering to vary performance of individual planes (something I haven't even begun to look at yet)

The thread topic was that a 'Spit Ia should have a Constant speed Prop'. Unfortunately the designation system that they used changed several times leeading to a lot of confusion and there were MkI spitfires with 'a' wings and two speed props in the time period of the Battle of Britain (though not on the front line as far as I know) so it's inclusion is Ok by me.

Cheers!

I agree, if you want to be able to recreate Dunkirk of the latter stages of the Battle of France then the early Mk 1 makes total sense. Just because it wasn't still around by the end of June '40 dosn't mean it shouldn't be there.
This type of game is all about expansion and that works both ways, forwards and backwards in time.

I have no idea about the single player campaign in this game as I can't actually run it on my rig. What date does the campaign start?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by winny

I agree, if you want to be able to recreate Dunkirk of the latter stages of the Battle of France then the early Mk 1 makes total sense. Just because it wasn't still around by the end of June '40 dosn't mean it shouldn't be there.
This type of game is all about expansion and that works both ways, forwards and backwards in time.

I have no idea about the single player campaign in this game as I can't actually run it on my rig. What date does the campaign start?

I am not suggesting changing the propellor of the early Mk I, this thread is about the Mk IA which lacks both a constant speed propellor and +12 boost. It is doubly handicapped.

The fact is, there are three Spitfires at present. The Mk I and Mk IA are basically identically incorrect in performance, they currently duplicate each other in performance, this despite the fact the graphics on the Mk IA shows a constant speed propellor, as per the historical aircraft. The Mk IA has the graphics of a CSP aircraft, but not the performance.

As others have pointed out, the Spit II has significant differences in performance from the Spit I.

1) It climbed better, it had a higher ceiling. According to the British tests, it reached 25,000 ft one and a half minutes faster than the Spit I. That is a significant difference for an aircraft which had as its primary role bomber interception.

2) It was slower above 20,000, but faster under. Essentially very similar to the differences between the Spitfire IX LF and HF as far as speed goes.

3) It was slightly heavier than the Spit I, which would affect handling.

4) Diving limits were raised to 470 mph maximum from 450.


Plus for those of us who want to be able to design historically accurate scenarios, it is important to have the correct aircraft. Many servers in the original IL-2 insist on the same thing, when that happens, the RAF side would be penalized.

We don't want half baked, performance fudged Spitfires, we want the correctly modelled aircraft.

[winny]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

I am not suggesting changing the propellor of the early Mk I, this thread is about the Mk IA which lacks both a constant speed propellor and +12 boost. It is doubly handicapped.

The fact is, there are three Spitfires at present. The Mk I and Mk IA are basically identically incorrect in performance, they currently duplicate each other in performance, this despite the fact the graphics on the Mk IA shows a constant speed propellor, as per the historical aircraft. The Mk IA has the graphics of a CSP aircraft, but not the performance.

As others have pointed out, the Spit II has significant differences in performance from the Spit I.

1) It climbed better, it had a higher ceiling. According to the British tests, it reached 25,000 ft one and a half minutes faster than the Spit I. That is a significant difference for an aircraft which had as its primary role bomber interception.

2) It was slower above 20,000, but faster under. Essentially very similar to the differences between the Spitfire IX LF and HF as far as speed goes.

3) It was slightly heavier than the Spit I, which would affect handling.

4) Diving limits were raised to 470 mph maximum from 450.


Plus for those of us who want to be able to design historically accurate scenarios, it is important to have the correct aircraft. Many servers in the original IL-2 insist on the same thing, when that happens, the RAF side would be penalized.

We don't want half baked, performance fudged Spitfires, we want the correctly modelled aircraft.

I see.. I have the same book. ( I got very lucky and found it in a charity shop for £5)

So it looks like a CSP but dosn't behave like one. Are you sure it is a CSP? And how do you tell the difference? (genuine question, not sarcastic.. just incase you start getting all spikey again...)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by winny

I see.. I have the same book. ( I got very lucky and found it in a charity shop for £5)

So it looks like a CSP but dosn't behave like one. Are you sure it is a CSP? And how do you tell the difference? (genuine question, not sarcastic.. just incase you start getting all spikey again...)

The spinner of the De Havilland (2-pitch or csp) and Rotol (csp) propeller look different.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/batt...ropellers.html

still from 1940 newsreel showing a mixture of Rotol (recognisable by their blunt spinners) and de Havilland propellers employed on first-line Spitfires during the Battle.

[IvanK]

Devs have been informed directly of a number of issues (mechanisation and graphical) on relation to DH and ROTOL props on the Spitfires.
This includes the option of DH 2 pitch VP, DH CS props converted from 2 pitch. ROTOL CS props.

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Engine differences between the Merlin III and Merlin XII, 100 Octane usage have been fully documented and are with the Devs.

As Jonsey says "Dont panic ... dont panic"

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Sounds great. Mission builders should have the Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP for early war scenarios and the two other for BoB scenarios with CSUs.

Note: pilot armor was introduced to Spitfires at around mid-June 1940, there were none equipped so at the start of the Battle of France/Dunkerque, so optimally the 2-pitch ones should get a corresponding graphical and DM update (i.e. no armor).

Same goes to Hurricanes, iirc four Squadrons had pilot armor installed on 10 May 1940.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Devs have been informed directly of a number of issues (mechanisation and graphical) on relation to DH and ROTOL props on the Spitfires.
This includes the option of DH 2 pitch VP, DH CS props converted from 2 pitch. ROTOL CS props.

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Engine differences between the Merlin III and Merlin XII, 100 Octane usage have been fully documented and are with the Devs.

As Jonsey says "Dont panic ... dont panic"

Great news. The inclusion of the variable pitch and CSU MkI's will really flesh out the Spitfire range and make a lot of people (including me) happy.

Hopefully a lot of the work has been done so we get our early Mk1's before we start needing MKV's!

Cheers!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Devs have been informed directly of a number of issues (mechanisation and graphical) on relation to DH and ROTOL props on the Spitfires.
This includes the option of DH 2 pitch VP, DH CS props converted from 2 pitch. ROTOL CS props.

Hopefully where its going is this:

Spitfire I DH 2 pitch VP
Spitfire IA DH CS
Spitfire IIA ROTOL CS (i.e. as it is now)

Engine differences between the Merlin III and Merlin XII, 100 Octane usage have been fully documented and are with the Devs.

As Jonsey says "Dont panic ... dont panic"

Good news. Just a note that might have been overseen: according to pilot's notes general 2nd edition the 20° props (i.e. DH mod. to CSP) don't have enough pitch range and may cause to high rpm in a dive with very high speed. 35° props (i.e. Rotol) don't have that problem.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40498672/A...dition-UK-1943

Page 44.

[winny]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

The spinner of the De Havilland (2-pitch or csp) and Rotol (csp) propeller look different.

Thanks, for some reason I always associate the blunt ones with the wooden 2 blade prop.