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

[winny]

Seriously?

We're back to using a MK V test to change the FM for a MK I/II again are we...?

[SlipBall]

I've been flying red for a few weeks now, the 8 guns are very addictive!

[Crumpp]

We're back to using a MK V test to change the FM for a MK I/II again are we...?

All the early mark spitfires, until fixed with inertial elevator systems had the instability at aft and normal CG as tested by the RAE.

The NACA gives us the more detailed measurement and insight into specific behaviors. Unfortunately, the RAE did not have the level of sophistication or equipment at the NACA disposal.

All we can prove is that the RAE said the early marks were unstable at aft and normal CG, we have one measurement of stick forces, stability diagrams for long period oscillation.

We can prove that the basic stability characteristics in the game are not representative of the real aircraft.

Technically, you are right though, we don't have the level of detail provided by the NACA reports from the RAE and none of the NACA material is about the early Mark Spitfires.

Maybe your right and we should not model the stalling characteristics of the Mark V either.

Just go with what the Spitfire Mark I and II Operating Notes say about the sudden, violent, stall that results in immediate spin if not corrected.

[robtek]

No, crumpp,

[irony]dont you know that the famous pre stall warning of the Spitfire made it physically impossible for the pilot to enter a high speed stall, let alone the following spin?
There is no way that a pilot could ignore this mighty shudder and move the steering column another quarter inch to get this violent reaction, even with only a few pound pressure needed.
No sane pilot would do this, so it doesn't have to be modeled.[/irony]

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Technically, you are right though,

Aww, thanks.. x

You see my point though. Save it for if and when we actually get a MkV.

The temperature 'issue' is more interesting atm.

Got any data on that?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by winny

Aww, thanks.. x

You see my point though. Save it for if and when we actually get a MkV.

The temperature 'issue' is more interesting atm.

Got any data on that?

Having gone through the Battle of Britain Then and Now Mk V I can say that 33 Hurricanes and Spitfires were lost or damaged through non-combat related engine failure, while 43 Bf 109s were lost or damaged because of non-combat related engine failure between 10 July and October 31. Given the relative strengths of the aircraft types this would be a fairly even attrition rate.

[Crumpp]

Save it for if and when we actually get a MkV.

See robtek's post because mine sailed over your head.

The instability of the early mark spitfires is a proven fact.

Instability is not modeled in the game at all.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

See robtek's post because mine sailed over your head.

The instability of the early mark spitfires is a proven fact.

Instability is not modeled in the game at all.

Crumpp can quit highjacking this thread to push his own personal Spitfire elevator fetish; as has been pointed out elsewhere (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=934)

If Crump wants to provide Game test data or observed and documented characteristics and furnish the developers with the supporting valid realworld data (NACA or other I dont care). He can do it in private directly to Ilya, this [94 page] thread has had more than enough time and data thrown at it to "prove" his theory if its correct.

Personally I dont see the point of wasting this much energy on a single characteristic of a single aircraft at the expense of all other aspects and all other aircraft. In doing so it would unbalance the game and overall flight model of the aircraft in question. I would also have to question whether Crump holds an objective view of this flight characteristic and flight data given the single bloody-mindedness of the argument.

The developers have their criteria and approach to modelling flight characteristics and should not be pushed to change a FM based on one persons argument against the community. While I am impressed by the amount of research and data and the extreme effort to prove the spit was unstable, where was the game testing data to back up that infact the FM is incorrect? Nada, zero, zilch... so I have to conclude this is just a massive one-man-band trolling of the community.