British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Engine damage in seconds from lubrication starvation, in a Merlin or any other engine. Bearing coatings burns away, piston's are scored...would be nice to have engine proper use pilot notes posted. Many here push well beyond manufacturer use recommendations, that I'm sure of

I'm sure it happens - what is needed is some empirical data to show how long it takes for the oil pressure to drop below the minimum safe level. How much negative g is needed to lower the oil pressure enough to cause damage? The Pilot's Notes General, for example, describes one condition imposing too much negative g is a succession of slow rolls - so how many pilots are going to indulge in successive slow rolls during combat? What other combat conditions will impose enough negative g for long enough to damage the engine?

The normal oil pressure for the Merlin is 60lbs/sq.in, with a working minimum of 30lbs/sq.in. For gameplay a rough rule of thumb could be anything below 30lbs and the engine begins to suffer progressive wear (according to the Pilot's Notes General it doesn't take long for damage to occur once the oil pressure drops below the minimum).

[Crumpp]

Klem says:
I admit the amplitudes began to decay

That is the key feature that did not exist in the early mark spitfire. All oscillation had to be controlled by the pilot as the airplane was neutral to unstable.

I agree that others should test it as well.


It is really not that hard to test. A stable airplane will seek what ever speed it is trimmed for so there is no need to "precisely trim". The airplane will move to trim speed by design if it is stable.

The amplitude will grow smaller and finally disappear as the airplane arrives at trim speed.

It is really easy to test. Just get the airplane in a sembelance of level flight, pull back on the controls and let go.

If the airplane is stable, the blue and green will stop changing proportions in the windshield after a few minutes. If it unstable, the proportion of blue and green in the windshield will increase until you see all blue or all green.

Osprey says:
if you think the Spitfire is overmodelled then that's laughable, overall it definately isn't.

Well, start laughing because the in game Spitfire is modeled as a stable airplane where the real airplane was neutral to unstable.

It means the game shape is easier to precisely maneuver and get guns on a target than the real aircraft.

Is that overmodeled in a game? When something has a capability or feature that did not exist in reality? I think so.....

What do you think?

Will it will be more representative of the actual airplane when it is made to be faster, turns better, climbs better, AND is stable??

[klem]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is the key feature that did not exist in the early mark spitfire. All oscillation had to be controlled by the pilot as the airplane was neutral to unstable.

I agree that others should test it as well.


It is really not that hard to test. A stable airplane will seek what ever speed it is trimmed for so there is no need to "precisely trim". The airplane will move to trim speed by design if it is stable.

The amplitude will grow smaller and finally disappear as the airplane arrives at trim speed.

It is really easy to test. Just get the airplane in a sembelance of level flight, pull back on the controls and let go.

If the airplane is stable, the blue and green will stop changing proportions in the windshield after a few minutes. If it unstable, the proportion of blue and green in the windshield will increase until you see all blue or all green.

.......................[/B]

Crumpp the whole point of my producing that test mission for you was so that YOU could prove your point. My test was only a quick and dirty. Why aren't YOU taking the trouble to do some of the work yourself?

[JG52Krupi]

I have flown the spit a few times these past few days and it certainly is a very stable aircraft it's a joy to fly compared to the 109, that said I did but it into a flat spin which I could not get out of last night after pulling off a unsuccessful manouver trying to hit a 109.

The lack of speed does suck but so does the 109 it's got the flight model of a 104 star fighter while the spit is more like a sopwith pup

From my brief flights with the spit here is my cons and pros for both aircraft.

Spit

Pros

Very stable
Easy to aim
Amazing turning
Very tough (need more flight time to confirm this)

Cons

Very slow
Slow rate of climb
Lack of ammo

109

Pros

Fast
Fast rate of climb
Good armament

Cons

Very unstable/easy to stall
Hard to aim due to above (more of a personal problem I imagine )
More prone to damage

Summary

Both aircraft need a lot of work but it's fair to say that anyone in there right mind in a 1v1 fight would opt for the 109. Even with its bad FM the 109 will win most fights hand down unless out numbered and even then it can just nose down and run for home.

The damage model is screwed up IMHO the spit can take much more damage than the 109 for sure, for example I was hit by flak in a spit and didn't feel any effects from 3 HUGE holes in my wing I didn't the 109 would have lost a control or would have to rtb from such damage.

From what I have read about the early spit vs 109 the two were a clos match with the 109 with slight advantages.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

I have flown the spit a few times these past few days and it certainly is a very stable aircraft it's a joy to fly compared to the 109

Well Krupi, I have to say I personally don't share your opinion all that much. I always feel like I used to borrow dad's 'proper' car when I switch to the 109 regarding the handling etc. Stability is certainly not the strongest point of the Spitfire for her nose dances all around the place (compared to the Hurricane or 109) and she's very difficult to to control and aim, especially at slower speeds and / or in the climb. For me personally it's the matter of rudder response I guess. It's not so bad in mid to high speeds. Also, the stability of 109 got slightly worse in recent beta patches, or so it seems to me. Maybe it's also about flying style etc...

Lack of ammo is mater of what you're used to I suppose, when you adapt it's plenty. I agree it's very tough sometimes, that concerns mainly wings DM from visual point of view. You will find that if hit hard, this is no longer a fighter aircraft, like everything else in game. For flak damage, you also get lots of 'control lost' situations. The holes in the wing are not matching the actual FM imho, that's more of a visual bug. Just like Hurricane or 109 fuel tank explosion - funnily enough you almost never blow up the Spitfire, something is wrong in there!

Your summary is spot on of course, don't get me wrong, just correcting the stability issues for slower speeds, I find Spitfire much harder work in that kind of fight. Try the Hurricane if you care, that IS a very stable gun platform.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by klem

Crumpp the whole point of my producing that test mission for you was so that YOU could prove your point. My test was only a quick and dirty. Why aren't YOU taking the trouble to do some of the work yourself?

Just for interest here is what the NACA engineer (William Hewitt Phillips)
who compiled the report on the Spitfire VA


later wrote about the stability of many of the fighters tested, including the Spitfire:

The Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

...these modes did not concern the pilot because his normal control reactions prevented the modes to a point where they were noticeable. That is the planes were spirally unstable but the rate of divergence was small enough that it was not discernible to the pilots.

(from NACA Monographs in Aerospace History Number 12)

If Crumpp wants to continue with his time wasting obsession over the Spitfire's elevators that's fine - it gives him something to do. There are more important issues to deal with, mainly the shortfalls in relative performance.

Incidentally the NACA report on the control characteristics of the Hurricane is available here

[JG52Krupi]

Tbh i have yet to fly the 109 in the latest beta patch but certainly in the previous beta patch the 109 was a terrible gun platform and from my experiance the spit is the better of the two so i will try the 109 tonight, I agree with you about the hurri its the best gun platform.

[winny]

I also found this, it's an explaination of the requirements set by NACA when testing. It explains why they tested for instability, what they were looking for etc.

Written by Robert R. Gilruth 1941 Requirements for Satisfactory Flying Qualities of an Airplane

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/19...report-755.pdf

[ATAG_Bliss]

Just wanted to post about the oil pressure / engine damage thing:

A standard engine isn't going to be hurt from decel with momentary loss of oil pressure. What I mean by decel is, the engine went from having fuel and cylinders firing to running out of fuel and engine taking a few seconds to come to a stop. A thin layer of oil is around the main/rod bearings to absorb the punishment of the piston going into its compression stroke only to be exploded the opposite direction with combustion. This is violent on the bottom end as all the preload for the rod bearings and that particular connecting rod go from the bottom side of bearing(s) to, when combustion happens, to the top 1/2 of the connecting rod bearing(s) ( all in a split second). Without combustion, freewheel, all you have is the compression stroke causing stress which is absolutely nothing in comparisone to the grenade in the hole slamming the piston down that is called combustion. The biggest chance for airated oil to cause damage is when you regain fuel and the motor kicks back in again, but even then you would have had to fly in such a way that when you ran out of fuel and the engine is on decel to a stop, that you had enough neg g's or were inverted enough that oil never came back into the sump in the 1st place before you fired back up. Kinda like firing up your car after an oil change. Either way, I think if this was to be modeled it would be such a rare occurance that it wouldn't even be worth doing. Basically putting this in the bug tracker isn't correct IMO.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

Just wanted to post about the oil pressure / engine damage thing:

A standard engine isn't going to be hurt from decel with momentary loss of oil pressure. What I mean by decel is, the engine went from having fuel and cylinders firing to running out of fuel and engine taking a few seconds to come to a stop. A thin layer of oil is around the main/rod bearings to absorb the punishment of the piston going into its compression stroke only to be exploded the opposite direction with combustion. This is violent on the bottom end as all the preload for the rod bearings and that particular connecting rod go from the bottom side of bearing(s) to, when combustion happens, to the top 1/2 of the connecting rod bearing(s) ( all in a split second). Without combustion, freewheel, all you have is the compression stroke causing stress which is absolutely nothing in comparisone to the grenade in the hole slamming the piston down that is called combustion. The biggest chance for airated oil to cause damage is when you regain fuel and the motor kicks back in again, but even then you would have had to fly in such a way that when you ran out of fuel and the engine is on decel to a stop, that you had enough neg g's or were inverted enough that oil never came back into the sump in the 1st place before you fired back up. Kinda like firing up your car after an oil change. Either way, I think if this was to be modeled it would be such a rare occurance that it wouldn't even be worth doing. Basically putting this in the bug tracker isn't correct IMO.

+1

Without any proper data as to when and how damage will occur nothing much will be accomplished by attempting to replicate such a condition.