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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

You guys would know better than me but as Robo is a red pilot 1st I thought him offering to add it as a bug / feature ment it was not.

Ive just been thinking about it actually and it applies to a CSP. Is this not an automatic pitch propellor? What mark of engine is this manual for?

Trying to research this myself but red stuff is all new to me, found this:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/batt...ropellers.html

The Pilot's Notes General don't apply to any particular mark or make of engine, they were issued to all pilots and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes issued for different aircraft types and models. The PNs Gen comments on propellers and overspeeding:

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The Pilot's Notes General don't apply to any particular mark or make of engine, they were issued to all pilots and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes issued for different aircraft types and models. The PNs Gen comments on propellers and overspeeding:

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?


Snapper, Dutch and Osprey I take it from your sarcasim that you object to having any negative flight model aspects added even though you constantly cry for a better, truer and more historically accurate flight model. I find it kind of odd when someone else makes a point that might add a realistic characteristic that you belittle the entire thread. Lets just get the facts so we can present them! Not sustain the red vs blue stance.

We can go over the 109 after if you like, I would enjoy that more. The narrow track landing gear physics do not operate as I have read them (when one wheel is on the ground and the other is not which causes the grounded wheel to move toward the centre - turning the aircraft over) for starters.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?

These are the Pilot's Notes General (A.P 2095), 2nd Edition - April 1943. AFAIK the comments on the propellers are the same as those in the first edition from 1940, although that has to be confirmed.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?


Snapper, Dutch and Osprey I take it from your sarcasim that you object to having any negative flight model aspects added even though you constantly cry for a better, truer and more historically accurate flight model. I find it kind of odd when someone else makes a point that might add a realistic characteristic that you belittle the entire thread. Lets just get the facts so we can present them! Not sustain the red vs blue stance.

We can go over the 109 after if you like, I would enjoy that more. The narrow track landing gear physics do not operate as I have read them (when one wheel is on the ground and the other is not which causes the grounded wheel to move toward the centre - turning the aircraft over) for starters.

Point well taken, Farber.

As for the 109, its shortcomings in this sim are well known:

1) it's too slow
2) the stall characteristics are too harsh
3) it's flat spin is not realistic
4) it's too difficult to bring its sights to bear on target
5) it's narrow-track landing gear characteristics is not accurately modelled (as you noted above)
6) prop pitch too slow in changing

Done. Anything missed?

[Crumpp]

After the application of an inertial elevator to fix the longitudinal instability, the aircraft would have NEAR neutral longitudinal stability.



Before that fix, during the Battle of Britain, Spitfires were longitudinally unstable at normal CG.

Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:




That is not representative of an early mark Spitfire.

[Talisman]

When I purchased the boxed version of this sim it included a replica of the historic Spitfire aircraft pilot notes (with the addition of the sim company logo). I therefore presumed that I would be able to fly the Spit in accordance with the reproduced notes provided. However, I have not been able to fly the Spit in accordance with these notes as the sim Spitfire under performs against the information provided in the said notes.
I am not sure whether anyone has ever managed to get the Spitfire to fly as per the notes provided, but I would be very surprised if they have. I feel somewhat let down by this and hope to be able to fly a more accurate representation of the Spitfire soon. In the mean time, I very much appreciate the efforts of those who have put the time and effort in to genuinely help the developers of this sim to achieve as near as possible historic values for the Spitfire and all the other aircraft involved.

[Glider]

Crumpp
A couple of comments on your positing 288

1 The observation that the US were talking about the Lateral and Yawise coupling. A good point but as far as I can see they do not mention any of the problems that you keep raising. Can you point out where these are highlighted

2 The observation that they were not talking about the Spitfire. I disagree they were making a general comment about fighters of the period and this would have included the SPitfire. I don't see where they exclude the Spitfire from that statement, again could yo point that out to me. It would be appreciated

3 Adding Inertia weights to Spit 1 in July 1941. This I agree is a very good point but I don't see the relevence to the BOB. Between the BOB and the adding of the inertia weight a number of other changes were made, in particular:-
a) adding firproof bulkhead behind pilot
b) adding electron lower fuel tank
c) changing the Merlin to a Merlin 45 as used in the Spit V
All these would have added weight and impacted the handling quite possibly necessitating the introduction of the inertia weights in July 1941. In other words the Spit 1 in July 1941 was a very different animal to the one in the BOB, it was more like the Spit V.

I also note that not all these changes were implemented a good example is the deletion of 4 x LMG and their replacement by 2 x 20mm in July 1940 which clearly didn't happen.

I would like to digress a moment and concentrate on the areas where we do agree. It have been pointed out to me in a PM exchange that these have been missed. If people can agree on these at least it will give the Developers somehting to work on while other areas are finalised.

Gun Platform.
I beleive there is a greement that the SPitfire was not as good a gun platform as the Hurricane. Its well documented and shouldn't be made impossible but more difficult

Tightening up in a high speed turn
Again I don't have a problem in making the pilot have to take action to counter this trendency. In the real world its almost instictive and I wouldn't expect a pilot to have any difficulty dealing with it but it a difference

Loss of lift when flying in turbulance
All aircraft lose performance when flying in turbulance and this should be reflected in the model.
regarding how to model it in the ideal world everyone whould have a feedback stick and feel it but a lot of people don't have this. I would suggest that a visual shaking on the screen piture be built in.

'Overcooking it' when in turbulance
If someone in a Spit is in turbulance, ignores the warning and tries to tighten the turn further I totally agree that the plane should flip and go into a spin.
Note - I do disagree that the plane should break up in the spin for the simple reason that examples are very rare and often had other factors which almot certanly played a part. Some examples I am sure exist but they are hard to find.

Hope that helps

[bongodriver]

Crumpp....have you read all of that modification list? the 30 Gal wing tank...... yeah that was a fleet wide modification wasn't it? I think you will find that list of modifications was not a list of universaly applied mods but rather just a list of things that were tried.

You will also realise the need for an elevator mod was for the same reason it the MkV had one, with all the extra equipment being fitted to Spitfires the CoG was changing.

[Crumpp]

Bongodriver,

Read please:

Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Bongodriver,

Read please:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:

Why are we bothered about 'long' period oscilations? you have said it yourself enough times this is just not worth bothering about, are you really suggesting the bob weight was to fix the long period oscilations?

also can you tell me exactly what effect your game controller is having on the perceived stability in game? have you considered the center spring is actually responsible?