109 e3b against spitfire II

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Humm did you not see the pictures of the ballerina (aka the spit) and the iron (aka the 109) ?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Regarding the 109 FM it's not under modeled. I feel them like perfect (ok ok it lack a lot of buffeting, dyn stalls etc ..) but those are way ahead of the previous IL2 series.

If you take any IL2 moded FM as a reference of course CoD planes have lower perfs but ... it's not related anyway to the CoD devs.

They hve done a tremendous work .

The 109 and early spits don't get their historical performances. That is undermodeled. I'm not comparing it to IL2 or mods or anything.

[TomcatViP]

Rgr that. No jokes btw cats and dogs

But I hve no prob with the 109 perfs. Perhaps at alt but there is no one flying there most of the time.

Hurri is just perfect.

Spits can still out turn a hurri (in fact it seems as it can turn inside the cockpit of the hawker, raise her nose faster than a 109 at any sped and stall only for a microsecond before being given back a positive vario. Oh and the max available power is always linked to max revs low pitch making that pit awfully noisy (I wld prefer rather be on the mower for an entire day than behind that propeller for an hour ).

Frankly everyone will gain having a more realistic Spit model with contested dogfights instead of this.

[CaptainDoggles]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I don't find the spitfire Mk1 and 1a to be uber.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

One thing missing from at least the Spits, is the Negative G cutout. Historically, I've read that the engine would completely shut off if held in neg-G, but I just did 2 negative G loops with the Spit, and while it sputters, it absolutely does not shut off. Full forward on the stick.

I remember, this an old story, it was changed in the first patch Il-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover: Patch 1.00.14072 -ARIL 15. "Completely removed overload assessment from carburetters. Rolls-Royce engines will now cut if overload is negative, and will not cut if it is positive. (old values were sneezing at .5G, and cut-out at .25 which we felt were dead on, but this apparently confused most of the players)".

They may not have written, that simply made the RAF planes easier I don't know, how much this value now. Some topics started, but without a result.
Please keep the realism!
Realism or accessibility, what decision should be made?

[IvanK]

This has been argued at length. The documented values taken from Instrumented aircraft are shown in the images below. These from documents from the national archives. The Devs have these values:





So the first onset will occur at +0.1g

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by IvanK

This has been argued at length. The documented values taken from Instrumented aircraft are shown in the images below. These from documents from the national archives. The Devs have these values:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5658/vegcutfile.jpg
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7585/vegcutfile2.jpg
So the first onset will occur at +0.1g

Hi. Based on a undated (? 1940-1941 who knows) sheet of paper, the Englishs was obtained this development in their all existed airplane? I guess to these modifications there is a more tangible source, when, into which airplane, where and who mounted it in? Could we see them?

Compared with this, as you wrote it in the topic (109s autoprop - did it ever existed?):
IvanK: "By general operational employment I am referring to general Squadron use, i.e. How many aircraft were equipped with it and at what date."

There were not enough to the German auto prop pitch, that were published a manual in 1939 (maybe from a joke it would be printed), and the german aug.-oct. 1940 somehow not part of the BOB era anymore...
I will be curious, there will be an automatics in the E-4, E-7 after these (Will be E-7 at all?). I hope so yes, otherwise this -beside all respect- is double standard.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Hi. Based on a undated (? 1940-1941 who knows) sheet of paper, the Englishs was obtained this development in their all existed airplane? I guess to these modifications there is a more tangible source, when, into which airplane, where and who mounted it in? Could we see them?

Compared with this, as you wrote it in the topic (109s autoprop - did it ever existed?):
IvanK: "By general operational employment I am referring to general Squadron use, i.e. How many aircraft were equipped with it and at what date."

There were not enough to the German auto prop pitch, that were published a manual in 1939 (maybe from a joke it would be printed), and the german aug.-oct. 1940 somehow not part of the BOB era anymore...
I will be curious, there will be an automatics in the E-4, E-7 after these (Will be E-7 at all?). I hope so yes, otherwise this -beside all respect- is double standard.

Err what exactly are you on about Tom? The first paragraph of the document is valid. This refers to the documented value of +0.1G that cut out effects commence. Thats the relevant bit ... the remaining bit of the document refers to a "proposed system" to reduce the effects. No one is suggesting anywhere that this "proposed system" be incorporated in CLOD. The document was provided for the sole purpose of providing a documented value of cut out (in terms of G) in original early Merlins .... i.e. those without any mods at all.

This is a single page of a two page document that is dated in the usual pattern in the signature block on the last page, the document date is 21/12/1940. The remaining documents in the file are dated 20/12/1940 and 21st February 1941.

What is the relevance of the 109 Auto Prop pitch statement ??