I Want my 4.09 Spit FM's back.........

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Amen, and this is a thing I stated in another thread: flying Red (not PTO) I find vey few cooperation from my occasional teammates. In the Fw190s you are forced to fly that way and ask for "help" (usually during the extension for a good DnB... )

Manu - very true mate. It is very rare to fight against a coordinated pair of Spitfires in DF servers - luckily!

[Kwiatek]

I think TD make surly better job then 1C with Spits FM's and versions. Now they have more historical types ( engine models) and performance.

I dunno why people think that new Spits are more stally beacuse from my feeling new Spits have much more gentle stall then stock ones. And it is good beacuse Spits have good symptoms of incoming stall due to its wash wingtips. Spits should be quite easy plane to fly.

Impression of easier stall could be casued from much more longitudal instablilty of new spits which now are very unstable planes and have very big pitch up tendency. Still i think here is a space for improvement in general flight charactersitic of all new spits.

Also i dont like these stupid WEP activated by button. It is very wrong idea which allow to use WEP even belowe full throttle. It shouldnt be these way.

[Azimech]

Could it be that the pitch up tendency is a product of aft CG due to the rear tanks?



EDIT: No. I just tested it. 100% fuel vs 10% with an F Vc 1942. Same tendency.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Azimech

Could it be that the pitch up tendency is a product of aft CG due to the rear tanks?

Only some late Spits ( Marki VIII or Mark XVI) have rear fuselage fuel tanks. Such Spits with rear tank surly could have longitutad stability problems with rear fuel tank full similar to P-51s. But witht empty rear tank it should be any problem with COG.

Earlier types of Spits had only forward fuel tanks before pilot cocpit.

[Azimech]

Apparently the IX is unaffected as well, so if that type has rear tanks, the effect on CG is not modeled.