SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[klem]

Originally Posted by SEE

"Even a child could fly one!" no guesses who made that famous remark!

The simple truth is that many of the pilots who flew these highly advanced machines were just kids fresh out of school with no combat experience.

That remark is testament to Mitchells excellent design - a damned good fighter that a kid and young men could, and bloody well had to, fly against overwhelming odds, excellent Axis fighters and adversaries with more combat experience!

One question asked at the time was "could the average RAF pilot go to war in this". Answer, born out by the many interviews you can still find on Discovery, History, etc channels is "Yes" and "you didn't get into a Spitfire you strapped it on, it was a delight to fly" (Bob Doe I believe). Adolph Galland, comparing it to the Me109: "The Spitfire was ridiculously easy to land".

On the subject of 'E' state, performance, is it right? etc.. A decent flight model will take all that into account. The data for power, weight, drag factors etc have to be correct and the environment data, including gravity, is modelled in.

In simplistic terms 'E' at 500 feet is essentially the same as 'E' at 10,000 feet for the same true speed. E=MC^2. Its when you change altitude, power etc that E changes. Potential E is another matter, you have the potential to develop much more E at 10,000 feet (by diving) than you do at 500 feet, also you have the potential to develop more E by putting up the power.

[TomcatViP]

It seems I need to add some clarification here.

The Term I invented - E-Liability - was part of attempt to make a joke combining the Law of Energy conservation (Em=cte - Em being the mechanical energy of a closed system - ie : every well defined system) and the fact that our beloved Spit in IL2 had the right to bypass it (the dive climb maneuver for example).

SO sorry it was pure un-intentional trolling

Specific excess power (SPow) is what come close to this - Thx IK.

Just remind that Em = cte is not a true representation of what is really happening. The plane is in fact trading energy with the surrounding air at an huge rate so the the neat amount would be most of the time negative in a dogfight.

For example, flying level if you attempt a climb you'll go higher than if you had started turning just before. An other example is the yoyo move.

A good equation IMHO that give a clear picture of this is the low kinetic energy that stat that the time derivation of the kinetic energy equate the sum of consumed power of a system

dEc/dt = Sum of (P)

With P being the power of the engine, the power consumed by the drag etc... depending only of the speed and the turn rate.


BoT :

Following IK remark : 0.6G is a huge diff.
But doesn't it look right if you compare the wing area ?
However it would be only an advantage in a flat turn. Slow speed turn with vertical added would be problematic for the Spit pilot giving the wing being prone to dyn stall (lower aspect ratio + thiner + elliptical planform) and the ctrl sensitivity in pitch that you alrdy hve demonstrated.

But do we hve similar curves for the Hurri ?

[SEE]

The technical theory FM arguments are way over my head but I appreciate everyones input. I just read Cambers post (excellent too!) and it refers to the Acusim modelling of the Spit.

I asked someone who has this installed how the Spit compared to the one in CloD regards handling? His opinion was that it was very similar (better in some aspects regards performance).

I appreciate that it has little significance in contributing to this discussion but I would be interested to know if there is a marked difference between the FM modelling given to us by MG and another such as Acusim both of whom I would imagine are researching and using the same data.

[klem]

Originally Posted by SEE

The technical theory FM arguments are way over my head but I appreciate everyones input. I just read Cambers post (excellent too!) and it refers to the Acusim modelling of the Spit.

I asked someone who has this installed how the Spit compared to the one in CloD regards handling? His opinion was that it was very similar (better in some aspects regards performance).

I appreciate that it has little significance in contributing to this discussion but I would be interested to know if there is a marked difference between the FM modelling given to us by MG and another such as Acusim both of whom I would imagine are researching and using the same data.

The A2A Spifire is sweet to fly and similar in handling to the CoD although to me it 'feels' nicer. The IIa seemed to me to have better acceleration but I haven't done any comparative tests. The A2A Spit Ia only comes with the fixed 20' pitch wooden prop or the DH5-20 2 position three bladed prop (like the DH5-20 in CoD). It does not come with a CSP. It is more sophisticated that CoD in that the engine is more prone to lasting damage through mishandling, e.g. overheating is not only hard to overcome but with Accusim modelling it causes lasting damage to the engine which stays with you on the next flight unless you put right 'in the hangar'. If looked after properly it is just fine.

I'll try to find time to compare level speeds and climb to height in the two DH5-20 versions.

[SEE]

Cheers Klem! From your observations, apart from CEM/performance, etc, the handling characteristics are at least reasonably similar which is re-assuring.

[TomcatViP]

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation. So that's not really a good comparison for CoD.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation.

Got data to back that statement up?

[klem]

Originally Posted by klem

The A2A Spifire is sweet to fly and similar in handling to the CoD although to me it 'feels' nicer. The IIa seemed to me to have better acceleration but I haven't done any comparative tests. The A2A Spit Ia only comes with the fixed 20' pitch wooden prop or the DH5-20 2 position three bladed prop (like the DH5-20 in CoD). It does not come with a CSP. It is more sophisticated that CoD in that the engine is more prone to lasting damage through mishandling, e.g. overheating is not only hard to overcome but with Accusim modelling it causes lasting damage to the engine which stays with you on the next flight unless you put right 'in the hangar'. If looked after properly it is just fine.

I'll try to find time to compare level speeds and climb to height in the two DH5-20 versions.

I've done the A2A FSX Spitfire MkIa with the DH 2 pitch prop and will post results soon but the CoD DH5-20 isn't modelled properly. It should be possible to obtain variable pitch in the mid-range of the prop control (which should be a plunger btw not a lever) making it effectively a variable pitch prop although not intended to be be. In fact using the variable capability became an official recommendation and it could deliver almost the same performance as the Rotol in expert hands with the pilot being the 'constant prop speed' governor.

Bottom line is I'll have to use the Rotol set to 2600 rpm which is the prop speed I manually maintained in the A2A FSX model. As the 2 pitch props were capable of being converted to CSPs in the field I am assuming they used the same blades.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

and the fact that our beloved Spit in IL2 had the right to bypass it (the dive climb maneuver for example).

Fact?

Really? Well than there must be some well defined and documented test of the ingame spit to make such a claim.. Right?

Can you provide us the link?

I think that would be interesting to see just how that test was conducted.

On that note, here is a classical WWII ZOOM test I did back in 2007 on the Spit 25lbs

Spitfire MkIX 25lbs

And I saw nothing in that test that would suggest it was ignoring the laws of physics..

Also, when I did the FM ANALYSIS of the Spitfires, I saw nothing in the Ps charts or Doghouse charts that would suggest it was ignoring the laws of physics

But maybe this test your referring to does?

So I am looking forward to the reading the test that your FACT claim is based on!

Thanks in advance!