Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[JtD]

1+1=10

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by JtD

1+1=10

I stand corrected.. raaaid and JtD!

[macro]

ok maybe i got it completly wrong lol!

i thought the slats were the to give stability at low speeds? but maybe wrong about that also

And i think AoA is correct, math is math. it it adds up it cant be denied.

best get your calculator out mate and get to work cos that sort of math well beyond me lol

1+1=11

[Matt255]

And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read the same 'accounts' and get different results

I wasn't writing that i read the same accounts (no idea what accounts he read anyway, definately never read that the Spit rolls worse than the 109 E at high speed though) or that what i read is (more) correct.

I think these planes are quite well documented, as opposed to WW1 planes for instance. I also wouldn't say that those two planes "feel" totally unrealistic regarding rollrate, turnrate or whatever in CloD, except for the too low speed of these planes, unlikely engine reliability (impossibility to run the Merlin using historical limits) etc.

I don't think we would have many FM discussions, if the speed would be close to the avaliable data.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Matt255

I wasn't writing that i read the same accounts (no idea what accounts he read anyway, definately never read that the Spit rolls worse than the 109 E at high speed though) or that what i read is (more) correct.

Ok, Ill reword it and remove the word 'the same' to read as follow..

And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read 'pilot accounts' and get different results

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by JtD

1+1=10

As you may know, he's counting, correctly, in binary.