Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Gryphon_

but when airspeed falls and AoA increases that big wing should produce a lot more drag than it does. But the Spitfire seems to retain energy very well, and pulls off high AoA turns that no other aircraft can follow.

This sounds obscure to me. As far as I know, there’s no reason a “big wing” should produce more drag in a turn than a small one.
As a rule of thumb, you look at wing loading (Kgs x square metres, or lbs x square feet) to evaluate stalling speed, but you must look at span loading (Kgs x metre, linear, not square) to evaluate efficiency and low drag in a turn.

My feeling is that Spit FM is pretty good, and that we should look with suspicion at our feelings without hard numbers.

[Gryphon_]

Originally Posted by Furio

This sounds obscure to me. As far as I know, there’s no reason a “big wing” should produce more drag in a turn than a small one.
As a rule of thumb, you look at wing loading (Kgs x square metres, or lbs x square feet) to evaluate stalling speed, but you must look at span loading (Kgs x metre, linear, not square) to evaluate efficiency and low drag in a turn.

My feeling is that Spit FM is pretty good, and that we should look with suspicion at our feelings without hard numbers.

Ok then lets look at some hard numbers. Take a Spitfire-F-IXc-M61-15 with full fuel and turn the engine off, and glide at 280kph (160mph). Measure the rate of descent passing thru 2000m (5.1m/sec). This aircraft weighs 3377 kg in game.

Now try the same with a 109G2, you'll find this lighter aircraft (2846kg) has a much higher rate of descent of 6.2 m/sec at 280kph.

That Spitfire wing is really something...

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Gryphon_

Ok then lets look at some hard numbers. Take a Spitfire-F-IXc-M61-15 with full fuel and turn the engine off, and glide at 280kph (160mph). Measure the rate of descent passing thru 2000m (5.1m/sec). This aircraft weighs 3377 kg in game.

Now try the same with a 109G2, you'll find this lighter aircraft (2846kg) has a much higher rate of descent of 6.2 m/sec at 280kph.

That Spitfire wing is really something...

If you want to compare minimum sink rate between different planes, you should do so at – you guess – their minimum sink rate speed, and the same you should do to compare best L:d.
Now considering that Spitfire has a wing loading of around 130 kg per square meter, while the Messerschmitt is around 190, the best glide and minimum sink speeds are surely vastly different. Your test, performed at an arbitrary speed, doesn’t demonstrate anything meaningful. Moreover, the data provided (just weight and speed) are not enough to attempt any comparison.

A serious evaluation of Spitfire’s energy retaining capability is beyond my competence and – I suspect – beyond yours. In any case, you can make your attempt and send your report to Daidalos Team.

[Gryphon_]

Originally Posted by Furio

If you want to compare minimum sink rate between different planes, you should do so at – you guess – their minimum sink rate speed, and the same you should do to compare best L:d.
Now considering that Spitfire has a wing loading of around 130 kg per square meter, while the Messerschmitt is around 190, the best glide and minimum sink speeds are surely vastly different. Your test, performed at an arbitrary speed, doesn’t demonstrate anything meaningful. Moreover, the data provided (just weight and speed) are not enough to attempt any comparison.

A serious evaluation of Spitfire’s energy retaining capability is beyond my competence and – I suspect – beyond yours. In any case, you can make your attempt and send your report to Daidalos Team.

I made a comment about the Spitfire's performance in this thread, which is for 'Questions and Requests Only'. You chose to comment on it. I made the mistake of responding to you. Well, I've made my input to 4.11, thank you. If TD want to discuss it with me, they know where to find me.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Gryphon_

I made a comment about the Spitfire's performance in this thread, which is for 'Questions and Requests Only'. You chose to comment on it. I made the mistake of responding to you.

You chose to write in a public forum, making statements that looked to me technically not correct. I questioned them on technical ground, and if my words sound in any way offensive, I apologize, of course. However, I maintain my technical points.

Well, I've made my input to 4.11, thank you. If TD want to discuss it with me, they know where to find me.

It’s your right to make any input you want, that’s out of question, and this is my last comment on this topic.

[Ernst]

Any possiblity of a "Bombenabwurfgeraet" like in CloD in future patches?

I want, I want!

[Pursuivant]

Another idea: rework some of the uglier/less realistic-looking damage textures, especially for older planes like the MiG-3 and Bf-109.

At least get rid of the sooty crater look. Real bullet/cannon hits shred aluminum and blow off the paint, revealing the bare metal below. They don't leave perfectly round, black-edged holes.