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

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You still trim the plane in the game without all the feedback a real pilot gets and you don't need FF for trim!

Basically you right, but I'm sure, you cannot trim the plane as fast and accurate like in RL. When i fly with bombers, it is difficult to set the level flight. I trim the plane, and look whether moving or not. If so, I trim again, and look again, and so on. Disturbing that I don't feel the movement of the plane, or the stick forces.

And the trimm is not required such a precise handing, like the stick when you flying on the edge.

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Basically you right, but I'm sure, you cannot trim the plane as fast and accurate like in RL. When i fly with bombers, it is difficult to set the level flight. I trim the plane, and look whether moving or not. If so, I trim again, and look again, and so on. Disturbing that I don't feel the movement of the plane, or the stick forces.

And the trimm is not required such a precise handing, like the stick when you flying on the edge.

You can trim the plane reasonable well in these games. It is not the same as actually triming an aircraft but is a very reasonable facsimile.

I am sure a reasonable facsimile of the Spitfire instability can be implemented allowing the aircraft FM's to have their historical performance numbers while maintaining status as equal dogfighters.

Can I ask you to point out which are unique to a Spitfire.

Glider,

Airplanes all have unique flying qualities and the Spitfire is no different.

One of the defining characteristics of the early mark Spitfire is the longitudinal instabilty.

Modeling an aircraft with the speed, climb, and turn performance of a Spitfire and stable would be overmodeled and not historically correct.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

Airplanes all have unique flying qualities and the Spitfire is no different.

One of the defining characteristics of the early mark Spitfire is the longitudinal instabilty.

Modeling an aircraft with the speed, climb, and turn performance of a Spitfire and stable would be overmodeled and not historically correct.

On this I agree. So you agree that the points you highlight are not dangers specific to a SPitfire?

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Glider

On this I agree. So you agree that the points you highlight are not dangers specific to a SPitfire?

The danger to a spitfire in game should be that if a pilot abuses his controls (elevator) the plane should break up, the same abuse in a 109 shouldn't lead to breaking the plane, as the pilot there isn't able to produce the necessary stick forces.

The 109 pilot needs high speed and trim to break his plane with the elevators.

Just to keep it simple.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by robtek

The danger to a spitfire in game should be that if a pilot abuses his controls (elevator) the plane should break up, the same abuse in a 109 shouldn't lead to breaking the plane, as the pilot there isn't able to produce the necessary stick forces.

The 109 pilot needs high speed and trim to break his plane with the elevators.

Just to keep it simple.

But this is nothing special about the Spitfire. Each aircraft has it's structural limits, exceeding these limits damages/destroys the aircraft. As you say the critical situations might be different for each aircraft.
The problem is not the Spitfire, the problem is that structural limits are not simulated.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

But this is nothing special about the Spitfire. Each aircraft has it's structural limits, exceeding these limits damages/destroys the aircraft. As you say the critical situations might be different for each aircraft.
The problem is not the Spitfire, the problem is that structural limits are not simulated.

Question.

One aircraft has a stick force gradient of 4 lbs/g, the other has a stick force gradient of 20lbs/g.

Question 1.
In which aircraft is it easier for the pilot to reach the actual break point of ca. 10-12 g?

Question 2.
Is it possible for the aircraft which has a stick force gradient of 4 lbs/g to actually reach that 10-12 g load at which the airframe is likely to break?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

The danger to a spitfire in game should be that if a pilot abuses his controls (elevator) the plane should break up, the same abuse in a 109 shouldn't lead to breaking the plane, as the pilot there isn't able to produce the necessary stick forces.

The 109 pilot needs high speed and trim to break his plane with the elevators.

Just to keep it simple.

How many Spitfires actually broke up in flight during the battle of Britain/ Documentary/damming evidence please (considering you want up to 80% of Spitfires to fall apart)?

Just for interest I'm going to post Bf 110 losses due to break up or other, mainly unknown, causes between July and December 1940:









According to Robtek in gameplay the wings should be theoretically ripped off Spitfires at least 80% of the time, with no empirical evidence that this actually happened in real life http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=609.

So why not extend that type of thinking to other aircraft types, such as the Bf 110? Why not conclude that a large percentage of 110s lost in unknown circumstances were lost because of elevator failure due to mishandling? It could also be asked why did the 110 lose its right wing on the 18th of July? How many Bf 110s lost their wings, but were counted as lost due to unknown causes? Yes, let's make it simple and assume that at least 80% of Spitfires and Bf 110s will break up due to abuse of the elevators.

[JtD]

I don't think there's anything wrong with what robtek stated here, maybe he could have worded it a bit differently, avoiding the word abuse. The Spitfires elevator was sensitive enough to allow the pilot to achieve the stalling angle of attack at any speed, which at high speeds means it is easily possible to overload the airframe. So if folks in game pull back the stick all the way, they should either stall or break a wing. Just like it would have happened in real life. Pilots learned to not do it, hardly a big deal, and players can probably manage the same.

For the 109, this problem did not exist, the elevator was way too heavy at high speeds. There was, however, a different one. In high speed dives, there was a serious tendency for the nose to tuck under as speeds increased, and coupled with the heavy elevator, the pilot would not be able to pull out with the elevator alone. Trim had to be adjusted. This, however, lead to problems in the pullout, as speed decreased again the tuck under tendency disappeared, which meant quickly increasing g-loads up to the point where the airframe would be overloaded, unless the stick was pushed forward hard.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

The danger to a spitfire in game should be that if a pilot abuses his controls (elevator) the plane should break up, the same abuse in a 109 shouldn't lead to breaking the plane, as the pilot there isn't able to produce the necessary stick forces.

The 109 pilot needs high speed and trim to break his plane with the elevators.

Just to keep it simple.

The problem that I have is that they didn't break up, there are hardly any examples of this happening.
I have said a number of times that I would expect to find a small number as their could be a number of reasons why an aircraft was weakened resulting in a break up but so far only one has been presented and so much happened to that aircraft before it broke up it was close to a miracle that it stayed together as long as it did.

Find some examples of it happening and we can debate it but without any them there is no reason to include it in the Sim.

That said I do reconfirm that if a pilot doesn't take remedial action almost immediately entering a high speed spin or roll then there should be a chance of break up. Any aircraft stands a chance of breaking up in those situations.

The poor bugger would probably be trapped by G forces even if the plane did hold together

I should add that the Me110 seems to have a much bigger problem than the Spit

[5./JG27.Farber]

I see we are back to the red vs blue tit for tat that doesnt help anyone. We dont need reliability modeled. When we fly we are almost garenteed 100% of the time to have action. If you see how many flights some aces took and the actual percentile of those that resulted in combat you can see that they flew far more non combat sorties than combat ones. We do need correct handling though.

I think finding the data and hashing it out as a respectable debate until we find a general consensus is the best for all. Lets leave our ego at the door and try to get the right evidence for such things and respect each other without emotion.

Yes we know the red pilots are very frustrated. All the flight models have problems and by and far the reds are most in need of urgent attention. However just arguing because you cant get you point through to somone on the net is not helping.

Thats an interesting doc NZtyphoon. Dont suppose you have one for 5./JG27?