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

..............in 4.10 'to be released' fix patch! Pleeeze?..... otherwise I will throw my toys out of the pram! Launched a Dgen campaign for the Seafire this week (in 4.10) and the only thing it had in common with 4.09 is the variant....:evil:

Let me guess... yours flies backwards?

I'm curious... What kind of testing have you done and what are the results. Your complaint is lacking any sort of detail.

Excessive trim needed as mentioned by others, engine performance is down, cornering speed and stall characteristics make it very twitchy compared to 4.09. In a nutshell it doesn't handle as well as in 4.09. I was so suprised that I launched the campaign in 4.09 to compare with 4.10 and it is very different! Why, after 10 years, was it necessary to change the FM of the Spits?

And pleeze......it's not a 'cissyfire' so no derogatory comments.......:grin:

I couldn't wait for this moment since years... :)

And it's only the begin!!! :-D

:-D :-D :-D

yeah......I bet the Yaks and La's don't get screwed and always turn on a dime.....but they're Russian.........:grin:

You're right! Change the LA's FMs too!!! :-)

PS: I'm joking...

You Luftwaffe pilots are soooooo predictable.........:grin:

Its bad enough not having fuel injection.............. I think TD changed the FM's to encourage spitty pilots to buy CoD........:grin:

I dunno what the big deal is, I think they fly fine, The trim issue was discussed and data was shown that it is accurate in another thread. BTW for all the cissyfire people, SISSY is spelled with an S not a C, lol. Okay, now let the sissyfiring continue...

LoL!

Oh my gosh! Please I don't want those Spitfires again in CoD!
I loved that beauty plane before "Oleg's Spitfire" in IL2... :-(

And they all told me the new FM wouldn't make a difference in the way allied pilots fly ... geez I hate being right.

My only issue is that the 1942 models still have negative G stalling problems. It is my understanding that by 1942 this issue was really fixed.

On the whole I'd rather fly a P 40.

Yeah I noticed that too, "Ms shillings oriface" doesnt seem to do much. :razz:

ROTFL :lol:

quoto, quoto

To me the only thing that feels off and way off at that, is the position of the aerilon trim tabs. it always wants to roll, but the opposite way to the torque. At full power it almost reaches the position of not rolling due to the torque, but at any sort of cruise settings the roll is amplified, due to the reduced torque to cancel it out.

still easy to fight in, just much harder to do formation in.

wasn't fixed until the merlin 61, in the first MkIX, and was slightly better again by the merlin 66 (SU carb vs the Bendix stromburg carb)

The russian Lend-Lease spits/hurri's didn't receive that kit. And the kit only worked at full throttle. Nice though, the streaks of black smoke in 4.10. I often see them appear and for a moment I think someone has shot that plane, but it's just the dumb AI doing the negative G's. That's another reason engines had to warm up before take off, you flood that cold block with a sea of petrol and you've got fouled sparky's in no time.

If I had it my way, those engines would've gotten fuel injection right away. No chargecooling in the supercharger that way, but there's nothing wrong with MW50.

ahhh what a feeling, that just made my day:)

Someone moaning about the new Spitfire FM, excellent just excellent! Keep going guys, we axis flyers watch from a distance in an old man's chair with a can of coke, popcorn and laughing:grin: :grin:

Bingo. The elevator trim being needing much more positive input for keeping the nose level is based on credible sources. I do wonder about the aileron neutral trim value tho.

Real spit pilots used to have their ailerons manually trimmed by their 'chiefy' - in the earlier spits with fabric ailerons a piece of cord was doped onto the trailing edge of the aileron on the wing that was dropping too much, thereby causing that aileron to droop slightly and thus lift the wing. How much depended on the length (and therefore weight) of the cord. A system of trial and error was used to get the balance about right.

With the metal ailerons, this was considered a bit old fashioned, and instead the 'chiefy' would give the offending aileron a few hearty wallops with a hide-faced hammer to bend it. If that didn't work, they'd swap round ailerons till they found a pair that gave the pilot the best compromise in the speed range he was happiest. - paraphrasing Tom Neil, Spitfire: From The Cockpit ISBN 0-7110-1918-5

Now, to my taste, the 4.09 had this about right. The spits level cruise about 220mph - 250 mph and that's where i'd want my aileron neutral; below the torque is stonger and you get left wing drop; above and the airflow effect overcomes the torque and you get right wing drop.

At the moment in 4.10 it seems to be down below even the 180mph mark and that means you get substantial *right* wing drop throughout the combat range and even on a shallow climb out - which feels wrong, with the addition that this characteristic effects no other aircraft in game; no other aircraft are neutrally trimmed this way in game, and in all my years of researching spitfire flight behavior I have never seen 'pronounced right-wing drop across all marks across majority of speed range' written anywhere.

If only Il-2 had a 'chiefy'; I'd have him bashing my Spits ailerons!

So good to see the spit FM come closer to reality AT LAST ! Now they'll actually have to learn the basics of flying an aircraft and not a UFO !

I find your attitudes offensive and bigoted.

Some of us have no agenda other than 'getting it right'.

I was there supporting the removal of the Fw190 bar, I requested the MG151/20 loadout for the late 109s many years ago. I also posted recently to get the cockpit view on stock Spitfire Mk Vc's corrected because it currently gives too good a view for deflection shooting.

Your partisanship (and that of others) shows narrow mindedness and is unhelpful to the community as it promotes bickering and marginalises genuine issues by relegating them to Luftwhiner/Sissyfire trash.

So instead of smugly throwing trenchant comments about, how's about you read my above post - particularly regarding the fact that the current aileron trim modelling is questionable - test it by seeing if any other a/c in game suffers a similar problem, then go find some relevent sources to support your findings and make an educated opinion?

My guess is you probably won't.

O.K., been trying the other variants and can live with them so decided to do a wee bit of research on the Seafire L Mk3 (which seems to be underpowered compared to 4.09). It had a Merlin 55 series engine so will do a bit more reading.

I came across this whilst doing a bit of research........can I have one of these instead T.D.? (purely for MP......:grin:)


German Daimler Benz powered Spitfire VB

In November 1942 a Spitfire VB EN830 NX-X of 131 Squadron made a forced landing in a turnip field at Dielament Manor, Trinity, Jersey, under German occupation at the time. This aircraft was repairable and started being test flown in German markings and colours at the Luftwaffe research facilities at Rechlin. There it was proposed that the Spitfire's Merlin engine should be replaced by a Daimler-Benz DB 605A inverted Vee-12 engine; the Spitfire was sent to Echterdingen, south of Stuttgart, where Daimler-Benz operated a flight testing division.[97]

When the Merlin engine was removed it was discovered that the fuselage cross section was virtually identical to that of the engine nacelle of a Messerschmitt Bf-110G. Consequently a new engine support structure was built onto the Spitfire's fuselage and the DB 605 engine and cowling panels added. A propeller unit and supercharger air intake from a Bf 109 G completed the installation.[97]

Other changes made were to replace the Spitfire instruments with German types, and to change the 12-volt electrical system to the German 24-volt type. In this form the Daimler-Benz Spitfire started flying in early 1944. It was popular with German pilots and was flown regularly until destroyed in a USAAF bombing raid on 14 August 1944.[97][98]

Yes, the trim is the wierd thing about these new spits. No joke here.

Anyway I'm starting to refly them since 4.10 has given IL2 a new life (wonderful patch).

I'm really curious to see the CoD's Spits.

@Fenrir: are you Fenrir of the Black Dragons? How are you? Where does your squad fly in these days?

Manu, as a Lufty flyer I respect, can you see the issue here with the ailerons?

It also seems to get worse with the more powerful spits, which is counter intuitive; surely, more power = more torque = LEFT wing drop, not right as with the 4.10 spits.

It's been a long time since those halcyon days on Spits V 109s buddy, I hope you are well. :grin:

I'm now a DangerDog, and very well thanks mate. The Black Dragons fell by the wayside after an enforced hiatus, spend most of my time mainly online co-oping with the squad and a very merry, fun loving bunch they are! You still fly Spits V 109s? 4.10 or modded?

Bit over the top TBH and best disregarded, we are talking about the changes in the patch regards the Spits FM, nothing to do with flying skills.........

Nice to see you!

Yes I see the problem and I hope TD can fix it: it's nice to fly against right airplanes (not uber / not nerfed). But anyway it's nice to fly against good pilots like you!

I don't fly anymore in public dogfight servers, usually some of my teammates (the new generation) fly in the BoB server. However we are very active on SEOW: it would be nice if you guys could join the SEOW squadrons (even if it wouldn't be good for the Axis side :-D )

SEOW was the main reason i joined the Dogz! Alas i've never gotten into one yet, but I know there's a history within the squad so i'll rattle some bushes at the squad forums and see what falls out! ;)

You might be seeing me very soon old friend! Stay well and my regards to the rest of your squad!

***thread hijack over***

Lol, sorry!

Thought I'd post a quick note to remind folks - this is not in fact the first large change to any official Spit FM.

Remember 3.04 to 4.01?

I'm sure you old timers do. Not taking a side here. The "feel" of the thread is similar though.

S!

Gunny

Is there any other change in the spits FM apart from the new wing-drop torque thing? I almost never fly red.

Thinking about FM changes in the past: Do any of you remember these "RC" patches? Everyone was happy with red and blue planes back then. Unfortunately they changed it and whining went on...

OMG the 109 can even do a roll in il2 C of D trailer,"thank god for that" in il2 try that & you would pushing *### up hill if ya doing over 400kph lol

I've noticed the CoG seems to be slightly further back and that there is more lateral instability during aileron movements. Some people describe this as "rolling around" but that's inaccurate. Proper trim and rudder coordination and you barely notice it... I didn't right away and instead was enjoying flying the later model Spitfire LF.Vb and chasing down FW190s and Bf109-6s on the deck (boy were they surprised!).

I have been doing more spit-flying since the new patch as well. I most often fly against them, and I think in that realm is where you can really see the changes in the FM. I am of the thought that they don't hold E quite as well in tight turns since it has been a little easier to pull lead and smoke them under the same situation as in 4.09 (FMB Tog-gun style setups).

Granted, I was of the thought that the Spit was over-modeled before, so I feel the new patch has created more of a level playing field. The exact flight dynamics of the aircraft may be a bit off, but the balance of force is not, an abstraction for the sake of overall immersion. I find this more with the older spits, since they should be far from uber planes, they should be breaking even at the most, as we all know they were getting chewed to pieces over the channel during circus operations and such.

Just a note on the "Orifice." I've seen some people complain that the later Mk.V's are still cutting out even with the adjusted engine. They don't. But you can be tricked into thinking that they are.

We're all trained to react instantly to the sound of the engine cutting out, because otherwise you can find yourself flying a very expensive glider. This reaction is what is causing some people to underestimate the effect of the orifice.

If you pull neg G in a later Mk.V you'll hear the standard engine splutter and lose power, If you keep on pulling you'll find that after half a second or so the engine springs back to life and you can carry on pulling neg G with no ill effects.

Since most of us react so quickly to the engine warning, many people aren't waiting long enough to see the effect.

I'm sure TD did lots of research in to the Spit FM and surely it must be correct to historical values?
Not flown the Spit in 4.10,and hardly ever flew it before though.

Why are you laughing, are you not interested in having accurate modelled planes in the game you play? Presumably you're not commenting on the accuracy of the flight model, since you only fly axis planes and wouldn't know much about how the allied planes fly. Those of us that fly both allied and axis planes like them to be as well modelled as is sensible in a game.

Depends what some define as accurate.....with some one has the feeling they read too many fantasy comics or are spoiled by Hollywood.
I think it is time for a whine patch! And it should look like this:
http://data.lustich.de/bilder/l/1278...-schnuller.jpg

Bloody hell guys, I doubt anyone here has ever flown a Spitty or BF to say categorically wether the FM is accurate or not. It's simply a discussion about the differences between 4.09 and 4.10. Some people feel that the changes are for the better and others feel that may be they are not quite correct. People are free to express their views but it is infortunate that some threads just seem to decend into a war of words rather than be informative with a bit of witty banter thrown in for good measure.

LOL, Much talk about realism and not stop to mourn, because their favorite aircraft no longer have a flight mode UFOs, guys if you want to criticize something, please read and investigated from many books and not using a game as a parameter, spitfires still have a lot advantage because it speeds (acceleration time) too fast.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-accel.jpg

In this chart we couldn't see the fw 190 d9, but this plane had a acceleration time like spits xiv

As we could see Fw190A in Il-2 world takes longer to accelerate, if you are in spitfire you could catch a focke wulf in a dogfigth but in the reality not, becouse he accelerates more fast.

So I think if daidalos team did a changes on the spitsfires, its becouse they read a lot and investigated very much. Spitfires it's the most overpowered plane in this game, not sim, becouse had a lot of bugs in fly models.

So I think, daidalos team did a great job in all aspect, they try to come alive this old game, please keep going guys, in pro of realism and accuracy. S!

The Spit wasn't modelled correctly at all before 4.10m anyway. Magic E-Retention, 90° turns in less than one sec at 500 kph, no overheating, ability to keep dogfighting even if full of lead.... The examples are countless. Now at least, they are more close to real physics.

BTW, I fly the 110 for already 4 years now, neraly exclusively. You sure need a lot of trim to have it fly level, and also to counter the torque of he engines. I got used to that. I think Spitfire pilots will just have to learn that too now.

Indeed, and that goes for all planes. The OP has simply said they don't like the new handling, and an axis only flyer thinks that's funny, which I don't really understand.

I doubt the programmers have ever flown one either. They have to base their decisions on a lot of the same information that some of the people here have access to.

Yes I agree. It's interesting to see what people think of the flight modelling of all the planes. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone who likes the game thinks it's laughable than people dislike the flight modelling of a plane that the axis pilot never flies.

I've always had more luck continuing to fight after being shot when in a 109 or 190. I've found the Spit a lot more fragile the the German fighters.
So how are you in a good position to compare the modelling of different fighters?

Am not really complaining about the new Spitfire FMs, they seem quite reasonable to me, but I have a few issues with your description of the Spitfires flew before 4.10.

First, the E-Retention is not magic, it the result of having a relatively light plane with a large wing area and a reasonably powerful engine. A rare combination in fighters, and something none of the Luftwaffe birds have. Changes in 4.10 are to slightly increase the wing areas to real values, but also make the Spitfires slightly heavier, also in accordance with real values. Effect seems to be that E-Retention is slightly down, but it not a big difference.

Second, if you think Spitfires take damage well I think you need to try flying them yourself ;)

Unfortunately, while altering the FMs, TD doesn't seem to have fixed the problem of the Spit25lbs being about 10mph too slow and missing about 15% of its climb rate at low altitude, but I won't make an issue of it.

I'm a lufty flyer, but i frequently fly spits against my squaddies in our training sessions.

IMO the new spits are a welcome challenge. Before the patch they were ridiculously easy to fly, i was feeling ashamed of flying them, but then the only reason i do it is to give my squaddies a difficult opponent.

However, I really don't like the trim issue.

There are two problems:
1) torque correction via the preset aileron trim is off
2) propwash correction via the preset rudder trim is also off: in a 1943 spitV i often must press the LEFT rudder to avoid sideslipping while climbing at 250kph.

Both trimtabs overcorrect, at full power the plane is neutral at ridiculously slow speeds.

Especially the overcorrected propwash negatively affects flying charcteristics:
imagine yourself in a shallow climb at 350kph. You boot a good amount of left rudder to avoid slipping. Now you enter a maximum performance turn at the same speed, and while pulling on the stick, the propellor-induced gyroscopic precession will pull the nose even further to the right, so you must boot almost full left rudder to avoid slipping. If you allow slipping, you'll stall out early. Overall, the trim issue makes the spit a rather unstable gun platform.

Look I am one of the guys who don't care if the plane if 5km/h faster than the real plane and so on: I'm perfectly aware that the margin of error of 5% is good enough.

But I'm one of those who likes to review the airplanes flying them in battle environments; I fled Spitfire a lot in training sessions and to balance online missions.
I become a Oleg's Spit-hater because of the great differences between this kind of plane and the other in IL2 (above all his counterparts). The Spitfires were incredible.

Then I think you have to understand if some pilots who really has resigned themself to fly a wierd Fw190 (the "bar" is only the peak of the iceberg in that plane, you'll see) now they find "relaxing" that the plane of their nightmare has been tuned down. After years of "luftwhiners" name calling...

You say that it's easier to survive in a 109 and 190: you're right because people must learn to fly the 109/190 the right way while noobs in the old spitfire model could still score many kills against average pilots and sometimes against veterans too since they don't think about their survival. Infact today I usually don't attack a spitfire at my same altitude. Of course there are exceptions like Fenrir and his teammates and one guy in TD (sorry can't remember the name in this moment) and maybe some others: they used the Spitfire in the way a warbird should be used (!energy fighting!) and could not be killed even if outnumbered.

So IMO this is a great patch since also the average Spitfire pilot has to learn the basics of air fighting.

My squad is used to fly training dogfights at 7km with SpitV vs 109F and the first day using the 4.10 Spitfire all the "Red" pilots were surprised and happy at the same time. The common exlamation was "FINALLY!".

Now I can return to love that plane in IL2 too (but Fenrir is right about those issues).

You know, I really don't think the whining is going to stop with COD.

I do hope the Spit was made more realistic in any case.

Amen.

If you lose a fight when you are flying a Spitfire in IL2, it is because you were either bounced or the other guy is a better pilot.

I trust that successive official patches to IL2 Sturmovik are generally for the better. If you want flight models that are poorly researched opinions and magic-wands then use one of the mod packs.

Or get into hacking and make your own magic MODs for IL2, then you and your buddies can start up a server for it, preach it as the gospel, further divide the community and sucker new IL2 pilots into your BS world.

Ever used "dullknife" as an alias?

Since I have no real world data to compare to I can't speak to historical accuracy, but I have tried a couple of quick missions to find out for myself what the spit MkV 1942 and the 109G 1942 can do and despite the fact that the AI can pull more G's than you can I have seen that it is almost impossible to stall the 109, my joystick profile (i flew both a/c on the same one) is aprox. 16 32 65 88 100 100 100 100 for elevators. On the Spit I pulled an easy and a hard loop and it stalled before I got halfway thru the joystick travel at the top of the second and went thru some crazy manuver ending up in an inverted flat spin that I was immediately able to correct but, the 109 I did the same thing and pulled 1 1/2 loops before it started to shudder but it never completely departed. For some the fidelity of the joystick used may be a factor and I have a 2 year old X-52. I tried flying a 109 against another 109 and again the AI can do impossible manuevers to follow but I eventually shot him down. In Spit vs Spit again the AI does things that even though I stayed with him (Barely) I could see he was getting away with what was impossible for me to follow (repeated rolling and switching left to right).
My thoughts, it's a 10 year old sim with amazing detail but also hindered by the degree to which things can be simulated. I hope that in the new sim it will be equally hard to fly either aircraft due to their unique designs and that there will be no uberness to either for people in forums like this to whine about which is verging on the ridiculous. I would be willing to bet that 80% of people whining in here about FM's have never actually flown a real airplane and don't really know what they are arguing about except what they think it should be
I like WWII aircraft, I have built and flown models of them, for me there is no difference to my feeling of awe when I see one - no matter what air forces used them.
Some people on these Forums seem to think because they like a 109 that makes anything else a crap plane compared to it, some folks like to think that Mustangs are the greatest plane ever created. I happen to like Mustangs and won't argue the finer points but we all know that 109's and 190's were their greatest nemesis and they were flown with great skill by the pilots who flew them. The Spitfire is undoubtedly the most beautifully designed weapon of war ever created, an entire nation was saved from extinction by them and by the Hurricane, to me trying to insult people by using derrogatory names shows immaturity and insensitivity to those who fought and died for their country and really is beneath the level of respect most would give if talking face to face. After all when it's all said and done we're talking about a video game, not real life. As much as we want to simulate it, it's still just sitting in front of a computer. Can we all try to act like Adults in our discussions and not act like children trying to instigate a playground brawl?
a quick edit here, I did try this same test in 4.09 and it seems like the roles are slightly reversed, the 109 stalls at about the same point that the 4.10 Spit does

ROFLMAO LOL MDR

At least my plane taught me some skills to defeat better planes. I doubt it happens with the spit.

You draw conclusions to quickly, trigger happy friend ( hence the forum name perhaps?)

Why I'm laughing was not stated, but I guess I can explain it further, I'm laughing because the now improved FM as, TD indicated, is now causing my predicted outcome to be true. That is that folks who fly the spitfire think it is not good and they want there king of the air back. For long enough I've seen axis plane's thread get hi-jacked by "Allied" nuts saying we shouldn't complain and take the ingame FM for granted. Sure thing, if there is something wrong with the new Spitfire FM, it should be fixed, same counts for some flaws in Axis planes. But I've yet to see any official corrections to those FMs in a long while.

Well, it's more of a discomfort thing than a pilot skill thing. Having the aileron trim tabs set to neutral in the wrong speed range is bloody annoying, I'm sure. I wonder though if those complaining are testing at low enough power settings? I haven't checked it in any detail myself.

Well, I don't think DT did the *wrong* thing, per-se. The maximum economical cruising speed for the Spit IX (from the manual) is 170mph, so they clearly went toward making those long missions more comfortable.

"The recommended speed for maximum range is 170 m.p.h. (147 kts) I.A.S. if the aircraft is lightly loaded. At heavy loads, especially if the rear fuselage tanks are full this speed can be increased to 200 m.p.h. (172 kts) I.A.S. without incurring a serious loss of range."

"On aircraft not fitted with interconnected throttle and propeller
controls
(a) With the supercharger switch at MS fly at the maximum
obtainable boost (not exceeding + 7 lb./sq.in.) and obtain the
recommended speed by reducing r.p.m, as
required.

NOTE.— (i) R.p.m should not be reduced below a minimum of 1,800. At low altitudes, therefore, it may be necessary to reduce boost or the recommended speed will be exceeded.

(ii) As the boost falls at high altitudes it will not be possible to maintain the recommended speed in low gear, even at maximum continuous r.p.m, and full throttle. It will then he necessary to set the supercharger switch to AUTO. Boost will thus be restored and it will be possible to reduce r.p.m, again (as outlined in(a) above).
(iii) In both low and high gears r.p.m, which promote
rough running should be avoided. "

The La's and Yaks are the most stable but presenting an argument that Spitty pilots (or Russian for that matter!) are therefore less competent isn't really useful or accurate. I just had a most enjoyable hour on the 'BOB' server.....in a 'Spitty' of course and I make no aplogies for that! :grin:

Hi all, new to the forum but not to the sim. Thought I'd chime in on this. There were many changes in 4.1, many I do not like but I'm dealing with them.
I fly both red and blue, predominately on WC or Sv109 and due to the new damage model on fw I have changed to flying the 109 almost exclusively. I always felt that the spitty had been way too good at e retention prior to 4.1 and we always "killed the spitty first" Some of the things I have noticed is that many of the regs that fly the spitty seem to stall much more often than they used to and probably does get really frustrating. Now to qualify my statements I DO NOT fly the spitty often and can't say what has changed by flying them, but I AM qualified to see that while fighting experienced spitty drivers that they seem to be having much more difficulty. From my pov only it seems that the planes are much more evenly matched and for that I am happy. As to the person who said that the 109 doesn't stall nearly as fast as the spitty, it's due to the complete concrete elevator that the 109 has (not really and advantage :grin:)
I will continue to fly this game as I love it!!! reguardless of how much the new FM or DM has changed. Haven't we figured it out yet that noone is ever going to be totally happy LOL. We all can remember all the spitty drivers in the previous patches calling us luftwhiners. Nowadays I do fly more blue than red, but that's because I always join the outnumbered team, and with 4.1 that is almost always blue, usually due to everyones love affair with the new 51 FM, but that's another post entirely.
~S~ all see u in the air!
CIA_KC
Jeff Mc.

Guys, can i make a request that we stop attacking people and making synde remarks regarding pilot skill just because of the plane someone chooses to fly?

It's snobbery of the highest and most disgusting order, and no-one should be maligned in this community for choosing to fly their favourite plane.

Do I malign 190 pilots for choosing a plane with awesome firepower? No.

Do I insult 109 pilots for having a plane with excellent lateral stability at the stall? No.

Do I attack either for their ability to outrun (with a couple of exceptions) the equivalent Spitfire Mk of that theatre/year? No.

Yes, the Spitfire is one of the easier planes to fly and fight - which is historically and prototypically correct btw; a vast majority of former WW2 pilots and modern day operators will attest to that- but having flown the equivalent various Mks of 109 and 190 myself, against Spits, these planes have their advantages, tho small I warrant you, and a good pilot will use them to his advantage.

I suspect too many of you Luft-fans are wandering into fights co-alt or below -I avoid them even in the spit - and you fight on it's terms. No wonder you get pwned so often.

If you have a problem with FMs then fine, but leave us the operators out of it - we don't design the flight models, we like you are just trying to get them to a stage where it reflects what we read and can find documented.

It's funny btw, that no Spit pilot here has complained about the percieved e-retention change; we just want an aircraft that doesn't constantly roll right throughout the majority of it's fighting speed range. It's all the Lufties who have jumped on there particular agenda yelling about that. Funny, eh?


And for those who didn't see it earlier, here's some documented fact by a spitfire pilot who flew Mks I - XIX:

So theoretically I should be able to CHOOSE the aileron neutral trim point of my spitfire.

All the nasty "sissyfire" quotes make you a liar.

Svend.

? I don't quite understand, what sissyfire quotes did I made again?
I can make a quote if you want, If I remember right this is what a spitfire pilot said in an interview: "The spitfire could be flown by any idiot."
In that point of view IL2 got it spot on, the plane is meant for idiots.

Getting back to the thread direction, which seems to be ailerons, I think I'm going to take the Spit for a ride, had too much Ju-88 A17 practise, time to do something different.

S!

This thread delivers. Can't wait to see the amount of whinery when IL-2:CoD is out. Then each and every armchair combat ace pilot X or Y is like a kid with a lollipop pulled out of their mouth when their fabled plane does not act like a X-Wing or TIE. This same crap discussion about Spit vs 109/Allied vs Axis has waged on since first flight sims from stone age and only between the GAMERS..or should use word lamers. This pathetic horde of "know it all sim pilots" are like kids on a sandbox arguing who's daddy has biggest epeen. And of course everyone here knows better how it was and should be, than the real vets, for sure. We would beat them vets all if given chance..right? This never ends..and you still wonder why no-one wants to make a flight sim?

I bet every "Mr.Pompom" / "Herr Bratwurst", depending on color orientation blue/red, would whine even given a chance fly the real plane and it would not fly up to expectations :rolleyes: Please, bring on CoD and the new evolution of whinery:-P

That's a big subject but you're right on the money. I won't repost everything from the other thread about the AI, but a lot of imbalances in IL2 (perceived or real) and departures from what people expect to see based on historical knowledge, are the result of the simplified engine management mechanics of a 10 year old gaming engine.

Just because there's a Spit +25lbs doesn't mean it can run that for ages like it does in the sim and this goes for every other plane too, regardless if it's allied or axis. You know what the maximum continuous power was for most Spit Mk.IXs? A mere 8-9lbs of boost! Anything higher than that was unsustainable and pilots had to be closely monitoring the coolant temperature when they exceeded it...if the coolant in the radiators exceeded 100-something degrees celsius and the water-glycol mix started boiling, bye bye cooling and welcome bubbles in the liquid clogging up the system and making cooling inefficient, even busted heat pipes due to expanding steam with resulting loss of coolant and eventually engine seizure.
Similar restrictions apply to every other aircraft in the game, whether it is a Pony running 70 inches of manifold pressure all day long, or a 190 that does the same at 1.45 Ata or whatever it is they run ;)

Having all that spare power is meant as a "reserve bank" to use in high altitudes for when the available ambient air pressure the engine draws from is reduced, plus emergencies or delaying that stall for a few seconds in order to take a firing opportunity when you are climbing vertically behind your target.
It's definitely not something that could be used almost 24/7 in real life like we do in the sim and in that regard, it makes perfect sense that the real life aircraft wouldn't have their trim adjusted by the ground mechanic for a speed range that was unsustainable due to engine restrictions.

That kind of engine limitations is one of the things i most eagerly await in the new sim, because it doesn't only add a new layer of realistic challenges but also gives us new things to occupy ourselves with. Today a good virtual pilot is one who flies well, shoots well, is a solid tactician or a combination of the above...with the arrival of CoD a good pilot will also be the one who knows how much he can stress his aircraft's subsystems without breaking them.
For example you could be bounced by a player in a superior performing plane but the added workload alone might eventually turn the tables on him, since just because some plane is more maneuverable or faster doesn't mean it was easy to be flown that way.

I expect a lot of the match-ups will be totally changed in regards to that. For example, when the new series branches out into 1943-late war it will be great fun learning the ropes all over again, with the better performing but exclusively manually controlled allied fighters versus the lesser performing but fully automatic axis ones.

this and
this are commendable posts. obvious desire for accuracy borne out of flying both sides.

however this,
isn't. i cannot understand folk who fly only one side, or only one plane, and then decide to deride their opponents as either idiots or inferior in skill for their choices. it smacks of the same snobbery and high horsed-ness that some full switch flyers exhibit.
and this hardly gives you a qualified opinion does it?
tbh i'm pretty firmly of the opinion that spitfires may be easy to fly, but they are hard to excel in. i find 190s are far deadlier, either in my hands or in those of my opponent. i find spitfires irritatingly hard to get guns on, but as long as i am not being stupid i don't fear them as much as a 190. i also try not to attack people at my altitude, but that's in any airframe barring possibly a 190, where i can rely on the heavy armament and a reasonable speed/dive advantage. overall... hell i don't know, i'll get used to it! however i would say if you take damage in a spitfire it robs you of it's main, defensive, tool - a stable fast rate turn. a 109 or 190... couldn't turn in the first place, so nose down and flee.


lol. sure it does, being pinned to the deck by a faster 109 or 190 being flown by someone with two brain cells to rub together. but then that's a lesson in defeating better pilots.

funniest post of my day:-)

I doubt that pilot meant it in the way you have interpreted. For sure, there will be testing times for Spitty/Hurricane pilots in CoD with a/c that have inferior firepower and requires utmost concentration when engaging the Bf's. A wise pilot will not try and follow it in a dive and neither will he be able to match it in a climb. He will certainly need to manage his energy trade off in T&B and deal with the carburretor float problem - these facets alone require the pilot to have the necessary awareness and skills that an 'idiot' would hardly posses. We will see in March - hopefully........:grin:

The 4.10 Spits are great! MkV don't have to turn in circles. :)

Hopefully many other planes will be updated in 4.11.

Fascinating. 7 pages in a little more than 24 hours.

You gotta love this game.

and guess who's bloody fault that is......lol.....:grin:

And you interpreted my way wrong, that's why we should stop interpreting. The pilot obviously meant flying the plane not mastering it, that's something totally different. The plane was meant for idiots ( read fresh pilots, as the Spitfire pilot obviously meant.)

Indeed, take-off power for any mark of Spit is usually about +7-+9 pounds per square inch of boost. Doesn't work in the game, but never mind. That's more a question of the scales on the gauges not really matching up with the throttle axes the way they ought to because it's just a sim.

I assumed you were just being silly with that comment, but...

Er, what? Are you for real? It was designed as an interceptor, with good climb rate and high manoeuvrability.

You think the Spitfire was designed primarily with fresh pilots in mind (so it could have been better if designed with experienced pilots in mind). You're either trying to stir up an arguement, or you're clueless. It's impossible to argue that the Spitfire wasn't highly capable in real life dogfights.

So the real Spit was designed for idiots, and consequently those idiots never learnt to defeat better planes. It's a wonder any Spit pilot scored a kill.

I like to fly Spits and although I've flown 109s and 190s a lot, I flown Spits a lot more. But I get more kills more easily in a 190. Fly high, drop down and boom, there's nothing of the opponent left, even if they're in a well armoured IL2. And if a pair of Spits are on your tail, into a gentle dive and bye bye Spits. When flying a Spit against a couple of 109s or 190s though (lets say one of each in this example) it's a different matter. Running is not an option. You'll probably get shot down, but you'll learn a fair bit along the way, and when you win the fight it feels good. Meanwhile the 190 pilot learns that he's going to have to completely blow the Spit up to stop the 109 stealing the kill, and the 109 pilot learns to cut in.

"Er, what? Are you for real? It was designed as an interceptor, with good climb rate and high manoeuvrability."

I never said it wasn't?

"You think the Spitfire was designed primarily with fresh pilots in mind (so it could have been better if designed with experienced pilots in mind). You're either trying to stir up an arguement, or you're clueless. It's impossible to argue that the Spitfire wasn't highly capable in real life dogfights."

It is a good and easy highly capable fighter, that's why it could be flown by even idiots, that's totally right, what are you trying to say? Every plane which was very succesful in combat was produced in large numbers was easy enough to let even raw pilots get off in the air, otherwise it wouldn't have been a succesful plane wouldn't it? That's exactly what the Spitfire pilot meant, a good front line fighter, as it's intercepting role of bombers was given to the hurricanes.

I think you made a mistake on your last quote, since I never wrote it:???:
Oktoberfest was the author I believe. Am I trying to get into an ever lasting argument or are you? This all doesn't makes much sense to me.

The Making Sense Forums are on another website, sorry

Roger that, however there's a massive difference between 170mph at 3000rpm and 170mph at the most economical rpm; around about 1800.

The torque effects will be VERY different.

If the current flight model is geared for this figure at 3000rpm then it's wrong - the best cruise settings for the Mk V (I don't have the data for the IX) were:

- 230mph IAS, +2.75lb, 1800rpm @ 2000ft = 35 gallons per hour
- 200mph IAS, -1.5lb, 1800rpm @ 10,000ft = 29 gallons per hour
- 250mph IAS, +3.75lb, 2000rpm @ 10,000ft = 42 gallons per hour
- 200mph IAS, -1.75lb, 2200rpm @ 20,000ft = 36 gallons per hour
- 230mph IAS, +1.5lb, 2400rpm @ 20,000ft = 46 gallons per hour
- 180mph IAS, -3.25lb, 2850rpm @ 30,000ft = 41 gallons per hour

It seems that a minimum of 200mph was recommended, with 230-250 preffered. This represents cruise over friendly/neutral territory; there's no way any self respecting Spitfire pilot wandered around over enemy ground at 170mph - combat cruise should be faster still than even these airspeeds I have given, and at higher revs and boost. I'll see what figures I can find for that, if any.

My point still stands which is - as you can see - even at these higher speeds we're not at full rpm so torque effects are reduced again, therefore, less need to correct for it in the airframe.

I suspect that TD have gotten their spits set up incorrectly on 2 counts:

1) a/c inherently trimmed at far too low a cruise speed

2) compounded by these being attained at much lower rpm in reality - therefore TD are correcting for too much torque at that airspeed.

Cheers.

True words.

Now THAT's realistic! Ask your chiefy.

Hope Oleg thought of that for the COD War.

Anyway some of the 'finer FM points' arguments are probably wasted on us average pilots.

Of course the faster plane is the better one for survival, and I'm aware that Spitfires can take a great punishment by a single 20m (sure they are not Las or "Emmental" Yaks). However there is the thing called "ambush". You can kill a Fw190 with an Hurricane if you bounce it. But in all my hours of flight on dogfight servers the number of times I have found Spitfires higher than me is something like 10 (to be positive!). A lot of P47s, many P51s... but usually the Spit are on low/medium altitude. Usually you find them following a enemy without checking they six (and then some hilarious guys call the DnB a blue tactics, like P51 couldn't do it) or chasing a smoking plane in the enemy base (I'm quite sure that many complains by P51's pilot about the inadequacy of the brownings in IL2 were because they couldn't score kills: they damage the 109, that 109 go home but a Spitfire get him "winning" the 100 points ). Why do I find them always at 300m in furballs? It's like fishing in a bathtub! Go in the BoB dogfight server, it's an example.

The times I had Spitfire higher than me, even if I was not ambushed (one single ambush of Jaws had taught me in my first days.. now I'm paranoid):
- I had to extend home since I could not touch it
- to kill the good Fenrir in his single Spitfire at 6km my squad needed of four 190s (Spitfires climb better and can stay in the zone at lower speed, Fenrir knew it well)
- another time 5 Doras couldn't not touch another guy at 7km.
And when you have an enemy over your head you can't do your job because your SA is always busy (and the other guys on the targets can do more damage... Tempest?).

What if they weren't alone but there were four coordinated Spitfires? A good thing of Spitfires is that they can stay on the zone of action since they don't rely on high speed to be fled (do you remember the Galland's quote?) and so they can provide a wonderful air superiority on the front.

To me their main problem is the ammo quantity but without the "engine radar" limit of IL2 that would not be a real issue(infact in IL2 it's a problem for both the sides).

However I know that diving is better in the german planes but still diving is a defensive manouvre who actually take them OUT of action... after the dive you have to go away and regain energy (altitude). Instead the Spits can turn hard staying at the same altitude; 190s can't sustain more then 2 pass on the same Spitfire. This is the reason they are really good air superiority planes (not like the P51s of course because of the fuel issue) but again people don't use it in the way they should.

I was scared of moment the majority of Spitfire pilots were to learn this: luckly in 4.10 Spitfires are not the amazing things they were in 4.09. Finally I can take a SpitV in a climbing contest knowing that in thin air their energy management can be affected too!

agreed 100%

this is my only issue with the spit in 4.10.

the aerilon roll that just wasn't the case irl.

before anyone jumps on me for be being a spitwhiner, ask fenrir what my favourite plane is...(clue, it's blue);)

i want the Fw's (not my fav, but up there) acceleration to be accurate, i want the spits to be able to cruise without ludicrous aerilon input.

i've never bought into the whole red/blue thing, because i think that all who do are idiots (of which there are many in this thread), who deny themselves half the game, whatever half.

fools.

+1

So, make that request here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18260

I'm sorry boys, but this argument is getting a bit silly. I ran into my longtime nemesis the other night, him in a Spit V, me in a 109F. The outcome was exactly the same as it usually is, we both limped back home after a 20 min dogfight smoking and nursing damaged aircraft but still alive. I'm just not sure what, on balance has changed. (outside of the trim thing, and perhaps some adjustment of flying style). BTW, the other outcome is usually that I make a mistake first and he as the better pilot exploits it and gives me an overdose of Hispano.

All of the bitching and moaning (on all sides ) is just getting to be too much.

Edit: After reading the last couple of pages, this thread has turned a bit (just a bit) more sensible. Just wanted to say that.

lol, i remember that fight and arthur saved your butt twice, before you met Mr P:cool:

Agreed. Unfortunately the Spit IX manual only mentions the MP/RPM settings for most economical cruise speed...no doubt operational settings were discovered by the same method, however, setting +7 boost and reducing RPMs to achieve the desired cruising speed.

I am far of being a good pilot, just curious.

How does the lack of pilot fatigue to high Gs affects tactics?.

Is it more important than this new adjust to the FM?.

Pulling 2+ Gs and indeed high stick-loads for extended periods is absolutely exhausting, by all accounts. That would affect a pilot's vision, resistance to blackouts and their ability to pull the lbs needed to make such high-G turns in the first place.

It seems as you are guessing. Manual clearly sais 170mph lightweight, up to 200mph loaden. Spitfire is a warplane, I don't think, manual were written for flying on sundays-tours. :rolleyes:

If you find valuable references for your estimations, also for Mk.VIII/IX etc., then we would be happy to make it that way.

BTW: Spitfires didn't have fixed trim tabs as such. I got told, that they used textile patches on the ailerons, but I've seen no proove for it yet.

Maybe we should also include the issue with the bending wingtips due too high aileron input and thus leading to reverse roll action? Now that would be fun! :grin:

I'm talking about Oleg's spit, which was modelled very far from the real spitfire.

The new Spit FM is great: now we can stall and even enter in a flat spin with it! I like it!

And I still entering in any MP arena and easily killing or put in a run ANY german 109 or 190 with one "match" Spit and same energy in start of fight. The Spit still turning better, climbing better, and the 25lbs can race one 190.

And still a good pair of 109s using tactics providing great trouble. WWII air combat is about TACTICS and TEAMPLAY, not "Unreal Tournement" online or bad flying in SP. People thing to much about "FMs" and forget the tactics. People don't like to fly togheter.

That's why I like MP with comms and training: better experience, more fun, less whinnig about FMs!

Funny, this change was awaited for years and i'm glad it really happenned, i only regret the spit's fm was changed only a few months from the release of il2/SoW/BoB/CoD.

And if our friend FC99 read this, i would add that:
"MAN, you forgot to change 2lines in the BMW_800_Series"

1° Carburetor 1, WTF? still the same error? you're jocking me :grin:
2° EngineAcceleration 3.0 WTF again?!? FC, do you search the fight?:mrgreen:

It would be nice to hear from the TD chap who must have spent hours researching and then implementing his findings in making the changes to the FM.

Could we please have a detailed response from TD?

From my point of view, I tried to find something from within 4.10 that would help try and fly this new FM with more success.

One of the new additions is the ability to set the value of trim input from within the arming page by selecting a joystick profile (if you are lucky enough to have an X52 or similar with trim input via a wheel and are able to assign an axis). I therefore set about building a joystick profile specifically for the early MkV.

Starting with rudder trim profile (to try and counter the new and very sensitive lateral instability) I ended up with my sliders for rudder trim all set at 35. This enables the use of full right rudder trim for take-off as IRL pilot's manual entries. This also provides a far less sensitive in-flight trim input reducing oscillation. Although not ridding the aileron trim issue problem, it does seem to provide less stick input once a fine rudder trim setting is achieved.

For elevator trim settings, I ended up with the left slider at 40 and the last slider at 85 with a straight line between. This also gives a reduced trim sensitivity and the last setting of 85 gives a stick free approach speed of around 1.3VS (80-90mph) in the landing configuration with approach power of 25-30%.

These settings seem to help provide a profile tailored to the new FM and I am now using them for all the variants.

Until we hear a detailed description of how TD came to produce this new FM, it seems sensible to try and work around it and try and see from their point of view how allowing up to 4 joystick profiles helps to enable one set of controls to fly all the varying aircraft types with all their various trim requirements.

Please TD....could you give us more depth in your reasoning for the changes and help to satisfy the huge interest in this subject.

Thanks...

Nicholaiovitch:)

I wasn't referring to your comments. Sven was saying that the real plane was meant for idots - which in his words meant fresh pilots.

Given that you almost exclusively fly German bombers, I don't think you're in a great position to comparing the modelling of the Spit against the other fighters in game.

Now I remember! It's FC99 the guy who fought alone in a Spit against 5 Doras and kicked our a$$.

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... )

Interesting point, I do find MP very solitary and 'every man for himself'. I would appreciate some info on 'teamspeak' as I know very little about that facility and my typing skills are not good enough to use the chat window effectively but that is for another thread. Flying and communicating with (and against) others would make on-line play far more interesting and enjoybale.

There have been some very interesting posts, some of the technical arguments beyond me but much appreciated. O.K., there have been a few jibes but to be expected and understandable . Many thanks to TD for taking an interest too...................

don't talk about it added it, this would be great

Totally agree, if it can be done add it.

I don't care about whether changes to the FM improve or decline the capability of a particular plane.

As long as the information is researched and presented as a basis for a FM decision.

We might disagree, but at least we will have an understanding of why an maybe learn something at the same time. :grin:

In regard to the control reversal. One source of information is from Jeffrey Quill, who wrote about how aileron reversal affected the Spitfire;

"...had we, in 1941, been able to produce a design of aileron capable of allowing much greater control displacements at very high speed we should soon have been in serious trouble with what was known as 'aileron reversal' arising from lack of torsional stiffness of the wing. In other words the load applied to the wings by more powerful ailerons would have caused the wings to twist, thereby nullifying or reversing the effect of the ailerons and, incidentally, causing damage to the structure itself"(Quill; Spitfire: a Test Pilot's Story; 1983 pp.272-273)

Note that he quite definitely states that the problem would have manifested itself had the ailerons been capable of greater control displacements ie: aileron reversal was not a big problem, although the Spitfire was "teetering on the edge" of suffering from aileron reversal.

Quill goes on to say that the theoretical speed at which reversal would have occurred was 580 mph - still well above normal combat speeds and one only likely to have been exceeded in a prolonged and steep dive.

With all due respect caspar, and I respect you TD guys enormously, I get the feeling you're being facetious, when all I'm trying to do is help you guys get the Spits as accurate as possible.

The fact is that 170mph at 1800rpm is MAXIMUM ECONOMY CRUISE: used for extracting every last mile from the petrol tank at the expense of speed and being able to to accelerate quickly. You would fly at these settings for long range ferry flights, or on the initial part of a long range combat mission in areas where enemy air interception is negligible. You couldn't cruise in a combat area in that state:

To quote Tom Neil in 'Spitfire: From The Cockpit' ISBN 0-7110-1918-5, p 40:

"...It was a very odd chap indeed who chose to roam about over enemy territory with his engine operating at it's most economical setting! Except on navigation or reinforcement flights, it invariably became necessary to use the engine at wide throttle openings..."


From Spitfire In Action, ISBN 1-85648-015- 1, Dr Alfred Price p.192 Chapter 26 Correct Engine handling - Key to Survival

"In August 1942: the Air Tactics department at the Air Ministry issued the document which follows, as a guide to Spitfire pilots on the optimum engine settings to use when flying over enemy territory. Long range sorties had to be planned to meet the diverging requirements of fuel economy, and the need to maintain the highest possible cruising speed in areas where formations were liable to to encounter enemy fighters. If the Spitfires were 'bounced' while flying at low speed it could take up to two minutes for them to accelerate to maximum speed during which time they were extremely vulnerable. To reduce the risks while over enemy territory formation leaders were advised to cruise at speeds considerably higher than those for optimum fuel consumption.... at 10000ft.... maximum continuous cruising speed 331 (True) [thats 295 IAS - Fenrir] with +6lb boost and 2650rpm, consumption was 70gal/hr.

Memorandum:

HOW TO MAKE FULL USE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SPITFIRE V, VI AND IX <-[HEY! Will you look at that! Fenrir]

1. This memorandum is intended to bring to the notice of all concerned the necessity of making full use of the power available in our Spitfire aircraft. It applies equally, in principle, to all our fighter aircraft operating against an enemy whose performance is equal or superior to our own.

2. At the present stage of the war the enemy in France is equipped with the FW 190, a fighter with an excellent rate of climb and good acceleration. To defeat this aircraft and to avoid casualties on our side, our aircraft must fly as fast as possible whenever they are in the combat zone.

3. In the past pilots have been told to fly at low rpm and high boost to economise in petrol. All pilots must know the correct rpm and boost at which to fly to obtain the longest duration of flight or range; a Table at appendix 'A' gives the various durations at different adjustments of rpm and throttle for the Spitfire VB & VC (Merlin 45 and 46).

4. Wings must still fly at the most economical rpm when they are flying under the enmy RDF [radar] screens but it is essential, as soon as they are liable to be detected, that they open up to maximum power for formation flying.

5. The acceleration of the Spitfire is relatively poor. It is therefore dangerous to cruise at say +2 boost and 1900rpm when the Hun is about because the time taken in accelerating to maximum speed will allow him quickly into firing range.

6. 7. & 8. - [tho of passing interest are somewhat superfluous for our argument - Fenrir]"

You noticed the figures I posted for the Mk V? These are the recommended settings from this document

Now extrapolate the fact that the Mk IX was a Mk V airframe with the Merlin 60 series engine.

Why would you give an airframe a more powerful engine, with it's accompanying effect on cruising speeds and hamstring it by giving it a nominal cruising speed of 170mph, when all operations before that point, prove that combat cruise is only safe around or above 230?

Caspar, we are both interpreting data, neither of us has a definitive statement which will read "The aileron neutral trim speed of a Mk (x) Spitfire is xxxxx" - and more's the pity.

Your marker is the max economical cruise speed.

I'm a fighter pilot at heart which means when I fly 400+ mph fighter plane, designed to fight other enemy aircraft I personally would want it aileron neutral trimmed within the speed range of which I am fighting so that gunnery, and flight characteristics are least affected. You said it best:

I couldn't give two hoots if f I've got to fly one wing low when ambling about on a long range navigational ex, or ferry flight, cos it's not an area of the flight envelope I'll spend much time in. Does no-one else feel the same?


See my earlier post on how Spitfire ailerons were trimmed on the ground.

I have no source for this, first I've heard. What's your evidence?

Between one guy who has the nothing but the fidelity of this simulation in mind to another, will you please consider my argument and in the meantime I'll see what I can do regarding some extra research? I'll see if I can contact the BBMF for clarification on aileron neutral rpm/speed settings.

Regards, Caspar, and thanks for your continuing work on the Il-2 series.

Some great research there mate. I couldn't agree more with your attitude to trimming aircraft in general, not just the spit. But It makes sense to trim for combat zone cruise power settings while in formation so you can spend less time checking instruments, and less time concentrating on keeping plane in formation and more time scanning the skies.

I've always had to apply a bit of aileron in the spit at full power, which I'm sure 99% of us use 99% of the time given the turn and burn nature of most online games. I'm also contantly applying trim for any given air speed, It's only when I'm flying with a formation that i'm interested in having a lower workload.

Pilots spent 95% of their time getting to and from combat, not in actual combat, and we very rarely fly in formation unless in offline campaign mode. So the planes should be set for a compromise between getting fatigued from a high pilot workload getting to combat at cruise power, and a lower pilot workload at combat zone power so you can concentrate on spotting enemies.

The ultimate answer is to allow a fixed trim setting for non-adustable surfaces in plane loadout screen for planes that actually had set and forget trim tabs. (not just the spit BTW)

I have learned to fly the new spit FM with negative 40% elevator trim to fly straight and level, bit I still think that is way too much. The plane still needs negative elevator trim even at low power setting at sub 200MPH which just doesnt feel right.

I hope the DT guys will take this on board and consider some more real data rather than some visual references that they have eluded to earlier about elevator position in flight.

I have been to many airshows in Australia and regularly attend the Temora Aviation Museum where we have a couple of operational spits (mk VIII & XVI) that i have seen up close and personal on the tarmac and flying in formation at low alt. These aircraft are flown every 3-4 weeks or so. Next time im at the next showcase I will try and speak to the pilots and get 1st hand comments and I'll even record what they say.

We have 3 spitfire outings before April so I will try and get to all 3 and also take a bunch of pics. I already have a few hundred pics, and use pro camera gear so I will get some great pics.

February 19th, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - V-12's and Trainer Spitfire, P-40, Tiger Moth, Wirraway, Ryan
March 5th, 2011 No Showcase due to TAM support of Avalon Airshow
March 19th, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - Bomber/Attack Hudson, A-37B, T-28, Spitfire
April 2nd, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - Jet Fighters Meteor, A-37B, Sabre
April 16th, 2011 Aircraft Showcase - Piston Fighters Wirraway, Spitfire, P-40
My grandfather and his brother both flew a mix of allied plans in combat in the pacific campaigns and I have just requested both of their complete service records from the national archive. There may be some interesting notes to look through.

Ultimately I want the modelling to be accurate, so If I and the handful of people who have commented on the spitfire flight models are wrong after more data is revealed, Im sure we will be hapy to eat our hats! We just want the emperical data to back up the FM changes!

Cheers TD and S! to all.

FS~Phat - Fire Squadron

Temora Spitfire MK VIII Specs
 

http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/air...ges/Lspit4.jpg

Temora Spitfire MK VIII Specs
Specifications

Engine
Rolls-Royce Merlin 70
1710 horsepower (1275.66 kW)
27 Litre liquid cooled V-12 piston engine equipped with a two speed, two-stage supercharger.

Propeller
Rotol Constant Speed
10'9" diameter (3.22m)
An engine driven propeller governor hydraulically controls four wooden blades.

Fuel


Aviation Gasoline 100 Octane
Fuselage Tank Capacity:
90 Imperial Gallons
409 Litres
108 U.S. Gallons

Wing Tank Capacity (2):
30 Imperial Gallons
136 Litres
36 U.S.Gallons

Dimensions

Wingspan:
36' 10"
11.23 m

Length:
31' 3 ½ "
9.54 m

Wing Area:
242 sq. ft
22.50 sq. m

Height:
12' 7 ¾"
3.85 m

Weights
Empty:
5,805 lb
2,633 kg

Maximum Takeoff weight:
8,021 lb
3,638 kg


Armament
Two 20mm Hispano Cannons.
Four .303 in. Browning Machine Guns.
Provision for one 500 lb (227 kg) or two 250 lb (114 kg) bombs.

Performance
Maximum Speed:
361 knots
416 mph
669 km/h

Cruise Speed:
220 knots
253 mph
407 km/h

Temora Spitfire Mk XVI Specs
 

http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/air...s/P4100246.JPG

Temora Spitfire Mk XVI Specs

Specifications

Engine
Rolls-Royce Merlin 266 built by Packard in the USA
1700 horsepower (1245kW)
27 Litre liquid cooled V-12 piston engine equipped with a two speed, two-stage supercharger.

Propeller
Rotol Constant Speed
10'9" diameter (3.22m)
An engine driven propeller governor hydraulically controls four wooden blades.

Fuel
Aviation Gasoline 100 Octane
Fuselage Tank Capacity:
48 Imperial Gallons
218 Litres
57 U.S. Gallons

Wing Tank Capacity (2):

37 Imperial Gallons
168 Litres
44 U.S.Gallons


Dimensions

Wingspan:
36' 10"
9.93 m

Length:
31' 4"
9.55 m

Wing Area:
242 sq. ft
22.50 sq. m

Height:
12' 7 1/2"
3.85 m



Weights
Empty:
5,985 lb
2,715 kg

Maximum Takeoff weight:
8,700 lb
3,946 kg


Armament
Two 20mm Hispano Cannons.
Provision for one 500 lb (227 kg) or two 250 lb (114 kg) bombs.

Performance

Maximum Speed:
361 knots
416 mph
669 km/h

Cruise Speed:
220 knots
253 mph
407 km/h

You're not helping.

You have correctly understood that aircraft could be pre trimmed on the ground, even though your understanding is limited to the Spitfire. However, this has never been a part of il-2. If you want that different, make a feature request, posting in a Spit FM topic is a waste of time.

Currently the aileron pre trim is that the plane can fly hands off stick with no slip in a shallow climb. It requires a little slip to fly straight and level hands off stick over most of the speed range. Your personal preference is different. Tough luck. That's all there is to it.

If you've never heard about aileron reversal in Spitfires, that's probably what you should research next. Don't waste it on researching individual Spitfire aileron trim settings, 20000 have been built, flown by lots of different pilots under lots of different circumstances, each with individual trim settings. Posting slip free hands off stick speed range for individual planes is therefore meaningless.

And therefore it would be great if we can choose our own standard trim settings, so we can leave these discussions behind.

Always amusing to read what someone who's never flown a real spitfire in wartime trim considers how it should fly.

One of the most repeated omg its been nerfed! posts, ever.

who says history never repeats.

Unless you have -actually flown- a spit, you're just interpreting someone else interpretation. Your opinion is in no way based on fact. Yet you demand a change when you have no idea what the accepted standard actually is.

Same old same old.

Seems fine to me in game.