BETA PATCH v.1.08.18956 - August 3, 2012

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by Winger

Btw. the Spit this is FAAAAR better turning than the 109. And what you abviously want is a spit that performa better than the 109 so you can negate his energyadvantage just by a better engine. And thats plain wrong.

Winger

We all want accurate flight model. Both types were a match except spit had lower radius turn, its wing load is lower so that's normal.
There's no point arguing the sim shall have balanced forces, they have to be accurate to history and we have to do the rest.

So 109 would substantially loose the advantage on climb and dive speed but they can do negative G and dive steeply which Spit cannot follow without a half roll first.

That's how it has to be until better german side aircrafts are available. The 109F was not matched because it had very much improved aerydynamic.

Any other discuss has no point, IL-2 has always been a sim and hence need to be realistic. Only FM are wrong currently, and I'm not sure either about the 109 characteristics.

[Winger]

Originally Posted by jf1981

We all want accurate flight model. Both types were a match except spit had lower radius turn, its wing load is lower so that's normal.
There's no point arguing the sim shall have balanced forces, they have to be accurate to history and we have to do the rest.

So 109 would substantially loose the advantage on climb and dive speed but they can do negative G and dive steeply which Spit cannot follow without a half roll first.

That's how it has to be until better german side aircrafts are available. The 109F was not matched because it had very much improved aerydynamic.

Any other discuss has no point, IL-2 has always been a sim and hence need to be realistic. Only FM are wrong currently, and I'm not sure either about the 109 characteristics.

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically. Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfightingcapability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by Winger

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically.

I claim aircrafts in accordance with their real performance. K5054, the prototype of Spitfire, was fit with a fixed pitch propeller. It once did a level speed performance of 350 mph, that is an IAS close from 280 mph at 17'000 ft.
Later on, the production Spit did 290 mph at sea level and about 350 at 17'000 (TAS).

I claim all aircrafts to have their correct performance, today, open to the gate in a spit, you get 250 mph and above 240, it will increase very slowly. I don't know about 109 but all aircrafts are concerned with this, they should all have correct performances, I know that the Italian one has also much less than it should, it was said to match the Spitfire even more than a 109, and it's currently not good at all in flight.[/quote]

Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfighting capability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

You are right, I am not sure, but I guess it went from too sensitive to not enough, on a neg G, however you have to remember that before, just pushing a little bit, even at zero G for one split of a seconf, it had the engine cut instantly.

We had also very good performances in Spitfire, I think the climb rate in IIa was too high by about 50%, and when they updated that, it went from an extreme to another.

If you allow me to tell you, it's necessary to know a little bit more about what we are talking for actual performances are completely unbalanced and at that time, the Spit was a tremendous aicraft, it took the development of 109F and 190 to overcome the Spit II and even Mk V, only much later did the British come with the new variant of Spit which matched the latest fighter with the Mk IX.

Mark I and II were very good oponents to 109, they were taken by surprise, or often, the 109 had then to dive away.

It would have no sense to tune aircrafts with performances that have no relationship with reality.

PS Maybe you're not familiar with mph, the spitfire is missing more or less 60 km/h in level flight top speed at SL and approx 70 km/h at 5000 m alt.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Winger

You dont have to tell me that. I know you allies want a plane that wins automatically. Steep dive and spits that have enginecutout. Sorry if i only LOL on this one. At the beginning the enginecutout was modeled correctly. What happened? Allies side started to whine bigtime and now we have an engine cutout. But one that doesnt at all influence the dogfightingcapability of the spitfires. This enginecutout as we have it now is a plain joke.

Winger

I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

[jimbop]

[QUOTE=IvanK;454021]I fly primarily Luftwaffe. However your statement about the -ve G cut is incorrect. It was proven by in game flight test that the -ve G cut was occurring at 0.9G (that is a reduction of 0.1G ... barely nothing).

Documentation from RAE flight tests was provided. This documentation was quite specific in that -ve G cut out commenced at +0.1G (That is a a reduction of 0.9G from 1G flight .... a reasonable push). So what we now have is more correct. This has all been posted before but here is the documentation once again:

[cut]

Interesting, thanks IvanK. At least red (and purple) pilots were taught how to roll over into a dive! There was very little margin for negative G as you point out.

[bornflying79]

Ive never flown a spit in real life, but I am a corporate pilot and have flown a gravity fed- non inverted fuel pump aircraft: a stock Cessna 172 into zero G's just for fun. Does the engine quit instantly? Of course not, fuel remains in the carburetor long enough for a few seconds of zero or negative G's.

I haven't even played this game yet (waiting on a real, final, playable release) but thats my 2 cents on the issue.

[DairyAir]

I have never flown a Spit in real life either.
I Flew solo in a C-172 for the first time in 1959. I fly on.
I have flown a fair number of carburetor fed, piston engined aeroplanes.

In my experience.
Pushing the aircraft's nose down moderately should not cause the engine to immediately quit.
Airspeed should not be immediately, and drastically reduced, apparently directly related to RPM.
Mass and Momentum, should serve to keep things moving along.

In my humble opinion Eh!

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by DairyAir

Pushing the aircraft's nose down moderately should not cause the engine to immediately quit.

You are quite right, it shouldnt, which is why it was fixed in later version of the Birtish fighters. But this is a factual known issue with these planes due to the lack of direct fuel injection, which when put into negative g's cause the fuel to be forced out of carb.

Now whether this effect in game is too much or too little is something I have no clue on judging.....