SPIT MK I/II and over boost

[TomcatViP]

Well AoA I won't make any comments on the SPit in IL2. It's way out of topic and CoD does not deserve that with all the efforts they hve made to make it credible

But I figure you never attempted to B&Z a spit in Il2. My personal safety minimal margin was 500 meters to regain after each pass to find myself still above the free ballooning alt of the beast

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Not during zoom climbs.

realitive to IAS TAS increases with altitude..

Thus if you 'climb'

TAS will be increasing

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by JtD

Regarding acceleration in a climb

I think I found the source of our miscommunication?

I am talking about a ROC test

Where there is no acceleration!

The speed (BCS) is kept as constant as it can be kept (humanly possible) during a WWII style ROC test

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Well AoA I won't make any comments on the SPit in IL2. It's way out of topic and CoD does not deserve that with all the efforts they have made to make it credible

I only brought it up because you were saying the IL-2 Spit and the CoD Spit have the same problem..

Or did I misunderstand you when you said the following?

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

The prob with the Spit in old Il2 was not so much with the numbers but with its relaxed "E-liability".

Somehow the very same happen here for now.

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

But I figure you never attempted to B&Z a spit in Il2

You figured wrong

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

My personal safety minimal margin was 500 meters to regain after each pass to find myself still above the free ballooning alt of the beast

Which IMHO says more about the relative pilot skills than the FM and thus is not proof that the Spit is ignoring the laws of physics

[JtD]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

...The speed (BCS) is kept as constant as it can be kept (humanly possible) during a WWII style ROC test...

As an example of WW2 climb tests, look at table I in this Spitfire IX test, you can see a constant IAS up to FTH and a constant TAS above FTH. Il-2 compare will always give you constant TAS, which will give you the somewhat higher climb performance below FTH, about 100 fpm in this case. Less than 5% obviously, and all I wanted to say.

[klem]

Originally Posted by SEE

The technical theory FM arguments are way over my head but I appreciate everyones input. I just read Cambers post (excellent too!) and it refers to the Acusim modelling of the Spit.

I asked someone who has this installed how the Spit compared to the one in CloD regards handling? His opinion was that it was very similar (better in some aspects regards performance).

I appreciate that it has little significance in contributing to this discussion but I would be interested to know if there is a marked difference between the FM modelling given to us by MG and another such as Acusim both of whom I would imagine are researching and using the same data.

The A2A Spifire is sweet to fly and similar in handling to the CoD although to me it 'feels' nicer. The IIa seemed to me to have better acceleration but I haven't done any comparative tests. The A2A Spit Ia only comes with the fixed 20' pitch wooden prop or the DH5-20 2 position three bladed prop (like the DH5-20 in CoD). It does not come with a CSP. It is more sophisticated that CoD in that the engine is more prone to lasting damage through mishandling, e.g. overheating is not only hard to overcome but with Accusim modelling it causes lasting damage to the engine which stays with you on the next flight unless you put right 'in the hangar'. If looked after properly it is just fine.

I'll try to find time to compare level speeds and climb to height in the two DH5-20 versions.

[SEE]

Cheers Klem! From your observations, apart from CEM/performance, etc, the handling characteristics are at least reasonably similar which is re-assuring.

[TomcatViP]

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation. So that's not really a good comparison for CoD.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Whatever talents AcuSim has, Microsoft flight SIm has (traditionally)one of the worst FM in plane simulation.

Got data to back that statement up?

[TomcatViP]

No really, you can't feel it ?