British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Ease of flying is not about managing the systems, the Spit was easyer to fly because it had light and responsive controls as opposed to the heavy controls on the 109, it really does not take much flying skill to operate a prop lever and radiator flaps.

The 109 controls were only heavy at higher speeds...and at least as far as ailerons are concerned, it wasn't much worse than Spitfire or Hurricane.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

The 109 controls were only heavy at higher speeds...and at least as far as ailerons are concerned, it wasn't much worse than Spitfire or Hurricane.

Not true, there has been a very long winded thread recently highlighting the effects of stability, the 109 was more stable in pitch than the Spitfire and this manifests itself as a resistance on the controls making them heavy in all flight conditions and got progessively worse with increased speed.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Not true, there has been a very long winded thread recently highlighting the effects of stability, the 109 was more stable in pitch than the Spitfire and this manifests itself as a resistance on the controls making them heavy in all flight conditions and got progessively worse with increased speed.

Pitch would only effect elevator and you're making a general statement. A higher stability does not necessarily imply higher control forces. "Higher" control forces do not imply "heavy" controls.

[Crumpp]

Yet performance is more true to life

??????

ATAG_Dutch....

I find it difficult to have a serious discussion on the accuracy of one set of parameters such as speed or climb and ignore the flying qualities that make these airplanes unique.

These airplanes were all pretty much equal dogfighters due to their performance and flying qualities.

Modeling them the same is more accurate than producing charactures and frankenplanes.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I find it difficult to have a serious discussion on the accuracy of one set of parameters such as speed or climb and ignore the flying qualities that make these airplanes unique.

I have sympathy for your difficulties.
Again, the suggestion is one of inaccuracies in the programming of the temperature effects in the game as against engine power and airspeed produced within the game.

The unique flying qualities of any aircraft are totally irrelevant to this specific issue.

Nor was I necessarily intending to have a discussion with anyone. My intention was to inform the readers of the forum of an observation made in one specific test of the game's 'temperature effects' setting relating to one specific aeroplane, and to suggest that others conduct similar tests in order to verify my findings or otherwise in other aircraft within the game.

Please feel free to test this yourself with any aircraft of your choice within the game and report your findings accordingly.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

I have sympathy for your difficulties.
Again, the suggestion is one of inaccuracies in the programming of the temperature effects in the game as against engine power and airspeed produced within the game.

The unique flying qualities of any aircraft are totally irrelevant to this specific issue.

Nor was I necessarily intending to have a discussion with anyone. My intention was to inform the readers of the forum of an observation made in one specific test of the game's 'temperature effects' setting relating to one specific aeroplane, and to suggest that others conduct similar tests in order to verify my findings or otherwise in other aircraft within the game.

Please feel free to test this yourself with any aircraft of your choice within the game and report your findings accordingly.

Did a quick test with temp effects off and got similar results. The real life Spitfire II PNs: The Spitfire II could show up to 125° coolant temp for climbing for 1 hour, and 90° for oil.

135° coolant and 105° oil for 5 minutes emergency boost



And the Pilot's Notes General on engine handling - issued with all Pilot's Notes, and always used in conjunction with them:



Note on climb speed and how engine temperature could be improved by adopting a higher climbing speed, plus radiator settings:

[Kurfürst]

On the related note, what if its the oil pressure dropping during negative G manouvers and causing the engine to seize? Oil pumps are driven by the engine, so pressure may fall below minimum - lubrication is gone, but the engine is still revving as the propeller still drives the engine.

AFAIK this was a problem with constant speed propellers as well, since they were hydraulically operated on many aircraft and could cause the engine to overrev.

I'll give it a check.

[Osprey]

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me, but then again it's not a new behaviour of yours.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Osprey

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me, but then again it's not a new behaviour of yours.

#sigh

Edit..

Won't waste my time

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

Pitch would only effect elevator and you're making a general statement. A higher stability does not necessarily imply higher control forces. "Higher" control forces do not imply "heavy" controls.

I'm not sure where exactly I implied pitch affects anything other than elevators, the more stability the more resistance it's simple fact, if there was no resistance to input then by definition it has no stability (the nature of returning to original condition) it is that resistance which pulls the controls back to original position therefore the relationship between stability and control force is almost proportional, there is an RAE report stating 'exactly' this point about the 109.
I have flown aircraft with heavy controls and it's bloody tiring and I would class an aircraft with lighter controls as much easier to fly despite any perceived 'twitchyness', the penalties from adverse handling characteristics of an aircraft are just something to get used to and I would always prefer an aircraft to have light controls so I don't have to wrestle with it if things get hairy.

in summary, it may not 'necessarily' mean higher control forces but in practice and most of the time it means 'exactly' that in a conventional planform aircraft with the largest proportion of mass toward the front, aircraft like the Spitfire and P-51, P-39 were exeptions because of the way certain loadouts (or engine in the P-39) would affect distribution of that mass thus affecting CofG, as we all know CofG has an impact on stability, the 109 was just a whacking great big engine,prop and gun with a tiny little aircraft bolted to it, a stable speed machine with big guns...ideal for BnZ.