Merlin negative G cutout too quick?

[II/JG54_Emil]

You can read some very bad comparisons in this thread.
My take on this is the attempt to improve the FM of a favored AC, no matter if the comparison relates or not.

Anyway I just had to smile.
Just ignore my post.

I´ll listen to what Sternjaeger has to say.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

You can read some very bad comparisons in this thread.
My take on this is the attempt to improve the FM of a favored AC, no matter if the comparison relates or not.

Or to worsen the FM of a hated AC, in this case the door does swing both ways..but you are quite correct.

Nothing speaks louder more than documentational fact as opposed to opinion.

Originally Posted by Moggy

Or to worsen the FM of a hated AC, in this case the door does swing both ways..but you are quite correct.

Nothing speaks louder more than documentational fact as opposed to opinion.

yes and no... it depends on the nature of the documented fact and the opinion..

[rollnloop]

Beta patch seems to improve the cutouts. 0G<Instant G<1G = no cut out, instant G<0= cut out, as far as i can say without ingame gmeter.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

yes and no... it depends on the nature of the documented fact and the opinion..

Oh absolutely it does, but having documentational evidence puts the ball squarely into the other court and says "there you go fella, let's see what you can do with that."

I think the RAF\Supermarine ran negative G tests sometime pre-war at Martlesham Heath or Boscombe down. I truly believe the answers lay there in those records.

Originally Posted by Moggy

Oh absolutely it does, but having documentational evidence puts the ball squarely into the other court and says "there you go fella, let's see what you can do with that."

I think the RAF\Supermarine ran negative G tests sometime pre-war at Martlesham Heath or Boscombe down. I truly believe the answers lay there in those records.

I still believe that better than papers and talk it's the real deal that solves any doubt. Even papers, made by men, could have been "retouched" in favour of this or that person/situation etc.. (think of aerial victories reports..),whilst first hand experience does hardly lie at all..

Having said this, it'd be interesting to read these records.

[klem]

Oh Gawd,

this is getting more surreal by the minute.

Common sense guys, do you really believe the MoD/RAF would have put it's most cutting edge fighter into service with an engine that persistently misfires in level flight with its normal turbulence and undulations.

Push-overs, yes, that's well reported on by the people that flew them but problems in normal flight? None that I have ever read and lets be honest no-one here has ever pushed one of those Merlins into negative G, you all only have your various written references to go by and so far I don't think anyone has found a report of the time or operation of those engines that says normal flight is a problem. Lets stay away from conjecture, guesswork and revisionism.

So, feet back on the ground (no pun), the model is too sensitive in normal flight, I leave it to the devs to determine where negative G effects should have an effect but atm its just plain daft.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by klem

Common sense guys, do you really believe the MoD/RAF would have put it's most cutting edge fighter into service with an engine that persistently misfires in level flight with its normal turbulence and undulations.

Is the issue about believe or about knowledge?