Spit IIa

[CWMV]

I do the same, trust me.
I think both of our favorite aircraft need new FM's!

[David198502]

...yes as realistic as possible please,...and please do not tweak them in unrealisic manners just to ensure online balance!!
make them as they were, with all their advantages and drawbacks, its supposed to be a SIM!

[TomcatViP]

Guys are you even reading the charts IvanK hve just posted ? Those are great stuff and real dynamite.

Before complaining abt the lack of boost on the spit pls do start to question yourself about how the Spit is turning (indefinitely level) in game and hold E.

Regarding the neg G cut-out, I think it has been extensively debated to the point that it s rather insulting to read that it has not been modeled in a real (and honest ) manner.

Damn, we even hve a video of a latter model itching the camera while flying upside down: : pump up the volume and L.I.S.T.E.N by yourself !

[SEE]

Tomcat, I stated the Neg G is 'debatable' which means it may be correct or it may be incorrect - hence the discussion. The other aspects of FM I pointed out with the Mk1 are incorrect for that model/timeperiod and, on many servers,
the only Spit in the Plane set.

You seem to have an issue with the Spit, that's OK, some posters have issues with the BFs but that's not OK?

Read my post....(the Spit Mk1 is very capable at altitude and handles beautifully) I do not feel at a disadvantage against any of the BF's even with its current modelling but that does not mean it is correct either. The Boost data for the Spit Mk1 has been extracted from the FM file....it adds 0.002 Ibs/sq ...are you seriousley telling me that is correct or a signicant figure?

+1 to David198502 last post.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by SEE

You seem to have an issue with the Spit, that's OK, some posters have issues with the BFs but that's not OK?

I HVE NO ISSUE WITH THE SPIT. Pls bear that in mind. I want that sim to be real and not an ego contest with Ninja planes. Think about you hvn't eared me criticizing the hurri.

I am not trying to impose my view. I think that talking abt the subject is interesting and in no way do I feel perso implicated in "one side or another".

I wld be pleased to fly the Spit as soon its FM won't look likes anymore that of a flying carpet.

Originally Posted by SEE

The Boost data for the Spit Mk1 has been extracted from the FM file....it adds 0.002 Ibs/sq ...are you seriousley telling me that is correct or a signicant figure?

I am only stating that as the drag is contestable (the E retention) pointing the way it turn in the sim, the Boost can't be accurate or this plane will zoom or accelerate like an F16.

In other words : let them fix the FM and then I guess that the boost restraint will be lifted.

If you fly the hurri you'd see that the boost is already a joke (infinite time, extra cooling...). But as the hurri drag and E seems to be correctly modeled, it does not give it surrealistic perfs (just optimistic ones).

I guess you can't do that on the spit as it is for now

Last but not least, it has been shown that the 12lb boost can't be what it is seen by some here (we shld speak here more abt a "WunderBoost")

[SEE]

Points taken Tomcat...no arguments with your last post.

It does seem odd that the devs state in the patch notes ' for Spits, 'boost cut out' can now be enabled/disabled' - what they don't say is that it does sweet FA!.....

[IvanK]

""Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual. It was then flown against a brand new Spitfire with a 1940 engine. As shown by the test data, the turns were made in the 120mph range which is too slow for the 109 slats to be deployed, which doesn't compare the maximum turning abilities of each aircraft."

Of course the old clapped out engine theory will be presented. The data is the best available and is presented as is. I am not sure about the clapped out bit either. that is a readers assumption, and is not reflected in the report which is very thorough.

as to the slat comment ... The original author shows a fundamental lack of basic aerodynamic knowledge. Slat deployment is a function of AOA. The Slats deploy at a specific AOA every time not at an IAS. The AOA remains the same and IAS at which the slats deploy will vary as a function of G .... BUT ALWAYS AT THE SAME AOA. But the corker is the bit " the turns were made in the 120mph range which is too slow for the 109 slats to be deployed" ... you are not serious surely ! Think about it Slats are High AOA slow speed regime devices they are more likely to deploy at the slower speed (i.e. higher AOA).

For the record here are the 1G slat deployment speeds as found by the RAE in AVIA 6/2394 Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests. Its worth noting a 9Mph diff between the ASI reading and the trailing static source.