CoD Spit Mk.I 100 oct vs. Real World Spit Mk.Ia +6 lbs

[winny]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The constant-speed propeller on N3171 made a big difference in take-off distances (225 vs 320 yards, 370 vs 490 to clear 50 ft screen) and rate of climb. N3171 was fitted with the windscreen, 3mm alloy sheet (not armour) over the fuel tank and domed canopy. Once fitted with armour and IFF the rate of climb would have gone down as would the top speed.

That aside the real problems still lie in CLOD performance below 10,000 ft using +12 lbs boost, which has not been modelled properly:


© ACE-OF-ACES INC. 2012

True, and when you take into account that the first production batch had a take-off run of 420 yards, there's a reduction of almost 200 yards. Rate of climb to 20,000 fell from 11 min 18 sec to 7 min 42 sec, and max speed increased by 4 mph simply from changing the prop. And yes, there seems to be a distinct lack of 'oomf' low down.

Sometimes I get the feeling that with Spitfire's there's too much information!
It's always the centre of attention. Never seen a 93 page thread on a hurricane or 109.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by winny

Never seen a 93 page thread on a hurricane or 109.

Wait until I upload my 109 and 110 testing!

[Crumpp]

It does not do any good to model an aircrafts speed, climb, and turn performance but not reproduce it's flying qualities.

You are not "simulating" anything.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It does not do any good to model an aircrafts speed, climb, and turn performance but not reproduce it's flying qualities.

You are not "simulating" anything.

But the correct speed, climb and turn performance are a good start to the ''simulation'' process, are they not?

[Crumpp]

But the correct speed, climb and turn performance are a good start to the ''simulation'' process, are they not?
__________________

Depends...

Right now the relative performance is pretty much spot on. The margin of error is pretty much the same across the board for all the major SE fighters.

If you go increasing one airplane model so that it's margin of error is reduced, then the balance is upset.

Especially if you go making some fantasy airplane with the raw performance numbers that is unrealistically stable.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Depends...

Right now the relative performance is pretty much spot on. The margin of error is pretty much the same across the board for all the major SE fighters.

I see what you're saying but unfortunately it seems that it's especially the relative performance is way off to start with. There would be far less complaints if what you stated would be true.

I agree that the flying qualities (incl. stability) are just as important and should be adjusted in the same time. Let's see what we'll get in the next patch...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Robo.

But the correct speed, climb and turn performance are a good start to the ''simulation'' process, are they not?

Not a good start..

A must have!

In that getting the performance right is the 'basics'..

Nothing else maters without the basics being right in a simulation!

I mean what good is it if the simulated 'buffet shake' flying qualities is historically correct if the stall speed at which it occurs is simulated incorrectly!

[JG52Uther]

Cut out the personal attacks. One and only collective warning.