News of our Beloved Spitfire?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Mk.Vb:

 

Different Reduction Gear and Propeller

The Merlin 40 series and 50 series had two Gear Superchargers, for improved Low Alt Performance, they didn't boost higher, but the Supercharger was more Efficient. 

4 MGs + 2*20mm instead of MGs only. 

Metal Ailerons for improved Roll Rate

Fuel Tank behind the Pilot Added

Armored Glass upfront as Standard. 

Enlarged Tail Fin. 

[HBPencil]

Any major differences between the Spit I/II and the Mk V?

 

Or is it more or less just a higher boosted engine?

 

Gauges/cockpit roughly the same as a Mk II?

 

I have flown them plenty in Cliffs. Just curious as to how it will compare.

A bunch of small detail changes but with two big differences, the engine and the armament.

 

- The Merlin 45 and 46 (which powered all the Soviet Vb's) had a higher maximum boost than the Merlin III and XII as on the Spit I and II (+16lb vs +12lb) and with different supercharger gearing (still one speed, single stage though) and intake profile with a bunch of detail changes.

 

- With the exception of 94 examples of the Va, all the other Vs and type 'b' and 'c' wings, so the armament was a big change (yes, I know there were cannon armed Mk I and II Spits but they were the minority, not the majority as with the Mk V).

 

- Larger and fully circular oil cooler as opposed to the semicircular one of the earlier Spits.

 

- A whole heap of detail changes depending on the aircraft's date of production and any modifications carried out on it later on. A lot of people tend to think that certain parts and pieces of equipment could only be found on certain mks of Spit but, with the exception of certain major changes (e.g. one and two stage engines), there was plenty of overlap in the use of detail parts across multiple mks of Spitfire which were all date dependent e.g. individual exhaust pipes, style/shape of mirror, internal or external armored windscreen etc.

 

- The cockpits will basically be the same but with detail changes. However what I don't know is what the radio's control unity was like in the Soviet Vb aircraft. Spitfire Mk I and II originally had the TR 9 HF radio set which had a tuning dial in the cockpit, however starting May/June of 1940 the Brits introduced the TR 1133 VHF set which had a push-button control in the cockpit for the pilot to select various pre-set frequencies. But when they supplied those Vbs to the VVS they replaced the TR 1133 with the old TR 9 (hence why the dev screen shots show the radio antenna wire running from the mast to the tip of the tail, something the VHF set didn't have), which raises the question if they also installed the old tuning dial or if they could rig up the push button box to the TR 9 set?

 

Basically the Vb was heavier than the I and II but nevertheless was faster, climbed quicker and had heavier firepower.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

Thanks for the the answers.  Still looking forward to it.......................................................is it here yet?  

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

 

 

is it here yet?

I wish. My game was giving me connection errors earlier today and I thought the patch was out and the game was being updated, but sadly no.  

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That was not a lucky day for a Spitfire

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

And I thought the 109 was the only WWII Fighter to ever Crash on Take Off and Landings. I'm calling FAKE NEWS. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly though, hope the Aircraft will be back soon and that the Pilot saves his Pants as a Reminder of how not to Spitfire.

 

[Jade_Monkey]

That was not a lucky day for a Spitfire

 

Dang!

 

I dont know anything about this incident, but it looks like they either had the brakes on by mistake or they got stuck in the mud.

[HBPencil]

Dang!

 

I dont know anything about this incident, but it looks like they either had the brakes on by mistake or they got stuck in the mud.

+1

 

I just had a quick google and various sites claim the pilot was injured but his status is either 'unknown' or 'ok'. Also, a lady in the crowd was hit by a piece of prop (which isn't surprising given the amount of splinters that were raining down in Hiromachi's vid) but it doesn't say what her condition is.

It's odd, the tail didn't rise violently yet it did seem rather early. In the vid below it does look like he was applying a little forward pressure on the stick but not much so I'm wondering if the brakes were partly on?

[Feathered_IV]

It was almost like he was attempting a carrier takeoff. I hope all concerned escaped serious injury.

[Bearfoot]

And I thought the 109 was the only WWII Fighter to ever Crash on Take Off and Landings. 

 

I know this is in jest, but would like to say that in DCS, it took me a while to get the hang of consistently successfully taking off in the Spit.

 

Whereas the 109's, both in DCS and IL2, were a cinch. 

 

Also, IIRC (it's been a loooong while), I do not know if I ever managed to come to grips with taking off in the Spit in COD. I might have gotten off the ground a few times ... but not something in manner that would get me a commendation from the squadron leader. E.g., after ground-looping a couple or couple of dozen times and veering off the runway, as usual, I would sometimes find that instead of flipping over into a burning pile of wreckage, I was still running more or less evenly at a decent speed. And so, I would decide to just go with the flow, gun it and see if I could get this puppy up. Of course, by now I would have not only veered off the runway, but very likely strayed off the airfield altogether and was trundling across the village green toward Mrs. Mannersworth's country cottage, so it really was a race to get airborne before I crashed, literally and figuratively, poor Mrs. Mannersworth's tea party. And, on some rare but wonderful occasions, I was actually successful ...

 

So, all in all, despite the 109's fearsome, well-deserved, historical and virtual reputation as a take-off demon, for some reason, I find the Spit the real bugbear in this regard, whereas with the 109's --- I can do it twice before schnapps on Sunday and not think once about it ...

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bearfoot

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

I know this is in jest, but would like to say that in DCS, it took me a while to get the hang of consistently successfully taking off in the Spit.

 

Whereas the 109's, both in DCS and IL2, were a cinch. 

 

Also, IIRC (it's been a loooong while), I do not know if I ever managed to come to grips with taking off in the Spit in COD. I might have gotten off the ground a few times ... but not something in manner that would get me a commendation from the squadron leader. E.g., after ground-looping a couple or couple of dozen times and veering off the runway, as usual, I would sometimes find that instead of flipping over into a burning pile of wreckage, I was still running more or less evenly at a decent speed. And so, I would decide to just go with the flow, gun it and see if I could get this puppy up. Of course, by now I would have not only veered off the runway, but very likely strayed off the airfield altogether and was trundling across the village green toward Mrs. Mannersworth's country cottage, so it really was a race to get airborne before I crashed, literally and figuratively, poor Mrs. Mannersworth's tea party. And, on some rare but wonderful occasions, I was actually successful ...

 

So, all in all, despite the 109's fearsome, well-deserved, historical and virtual reputation as a take-off demon, for some reason, I find the Spit the real bugbear in this regard, whereas with the 109's --- I can do it twice before schnapps on Sunday and not think once about it ...

 

I'm in the same boat as you. 109 and 190 in DCS were both a cakewalk to takeoff and land but the Spit was an entirely different beast. The DCS Spit is the only aircraft in any sim I've had to dedicate hours and hours to takeoff and landing practice just to even get to a point where it's a 50/50 chance it will work out.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Y-29.Sulaco

[Trooper117]

That's flight sims for you... thank god in real life the Spit was not as dicey as it is in DCS.

If for real it was 50/50 whether a pilot successfully took off and landed, the RAF would have been in a right fix.

[Herne]

I'm in the same boat as you. 109 and 190 in DCS were both a cakewalk to takeoff and land but the Spit was an entirely different beast. The DCS Spit is the only aircraft in any sim I've had to dedicate hours and hours to takeoff and landing practice just to even get to a point where it's a 50/50 chance it will work out.

Seen documentaries with spit pilots saying how easy she was to fly, including take offs and landings. Having to spend hours in DCS practicing just doesn't seem to ring very true.

[Trooper117]

Well, I can take off easy enough with the DCS Spit... I have the MkIX manual and followed it to the letter, no problems.

Landing however is a different matter.

I suppose we should also take into account what HOTAS we are using and what settings we are employing for it.

[Ribbon]

Dang!

 

I dont know anything about this incident, but it looks like they either had the brakes on by mistake or they got stuck in the mud.

I saw video of this incident recorded from another angle (front side and much closer) and it seems his right wheel brake has stuck (not completley but still braking) and in combination with full throttle which caused tail up/nose down and propeller kissing ground with shown result. Edited June 12, 2017 by redribbon

[Livai]

He was not born to fly. Wanted to be the hero of the neighborhood.  Poor plane + crap pilot = 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AhBrUoA7_E

Edited June 12, 2017 by Livai

[Herne]

 

Saw this in recent searches, I do apologize if I first saw it from a link earlier in this thread, my memory isn't what it used to be

[Herne]

And this how I'm going to feel when I get to fly this bird in VR

[Feathered_IV]

 

Saw this in recent searches, I do apologize if I first saw it from a link earlier in this thread, my memory isn't what it used to be

 

An oldie but a goodie.  Proof of the aphrodisiac qualities of the Spitfire. 

[Trooper117]

lol... I've still got that clip on my hard drive 

[marklar]

 

 

Well, I can take off easy enough with the DCS Spit... I have the MkIX manual and followed it to the letter, no problems. Landing however is a different matter. I suppose we should also take into account what HOTAS we are using and what settings we are employing for it.

 

Or maybe ground handling physics are badly modeled in DCS Spit. This module is still in beta stage.

[DD_Arthur]

It's odd, the tail didn't rise violently yet it did seem rather early. In the vid below it does look like he was applying a little forward pressure on the stick but not much so I'm wondering if the brakes were partly on?

 

This is not the first time something like this has happened to this very same aircraft.

 

In the UK Griffon engined Spits are only operated from tarmac strips.  Also, remarkable lack of crowd control, ambulance and fire cover at this event.

[Bearfoot]

Seen documentaries with spit pilots saying how easy she was to fly, including take offs and landings. Having to spend hours in DCS practicing just doesn't seem to ring very true.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that people you heard speak in those documentaries had dozens of hours of personal training in the Spit (on top of any previous aircraft), which included not only general instructions, but detailed, specific and custom suggestions/critiques/fixes/advices for the particular pilot take-off/landing/flying style before the pilot was allow to attempt anything by himself in the cockpit, no?

 

Following this, I am going to suggest that it is very, very, very, very, silly to suggest that "having to spend hours in DCS practicing doesn't seem to ring very true" in that regard, especially when said practice is without benefit of instruction?

 

Following this, I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to stop being silly.

 

Stop being silly.

[Herne]

well those same documentaries, talk about 10 hours spit conversion before going to front line squadrons. Which in the grand scheme of things makes her seem pretty reasonably easy to handle to me.

 

[Bearfoot]

I'm in the same boat as you. 109 and 190 in DCS were both a cakewalk to takeoff and land but the Spit was an entirely different beast. The DCS Spit is the only aircraft in any sim I've had to dedicate hours and hours to takeoff and landing practice just to even get to a point where it's a 50/50 chance it will work out.

 

So, I eventually figured out the trick ... don't "hang" on a boost setting, but advance it forward relentless at a fairly quick pace.

 

With the (DCS) 109, I would roll on the ATA slowly, and once it was enough to just start rolling, would build up speed pretty gradually and in stages. In particular, I would "ride" a low ATA until I built up sufficient speed to gain rudder authority (correcting with brakes till then) and only then push the the ATA forward to take-off (and even then, I don't hit the max ATA). I am not saying that this is the correct way to take-off in the 109, just one of the ways that I know works, because it worked for me.

 

With the spit, on the other hand, it is a constant, consistent (and actually fairly quick, though not crazy quick) increase in boost, no slack, no pause.

 

My full take-off notes/recipe:

 

1. Set elevator trim to neutral. By default it is up a bit. You can still take-off with this, but you will violently pitch up and it looks very bad even if you manage to tame it under control.
2. RPM full
3. Stick firmly/considerably aft and slightly right
4. Rudder slight but firmly right
5. Then: increase boost gradually but constantly (i.e., without pausing at any boost level or holding at any boost level for any length of time), building up speed steadily and relentlessly, controlling yaw with mostly rudder (and only light touch of brake)
6. As with other aircraft, the trick is to deal with the lag: anticipate the correction before it is needed (because by then it will be too alate), apply the correction and back to neutral before you see the full effects of the correction (because by then you will have over-corrected). Learning the amount of lag and factoring it, including the amount of correction and when to relax the correction comes with practice/time.  

So, basically, forgetting what I learnt in the 109, and learning to take-off the spit as a spit brought me around the corner with this bird.

well those same documentaries, talk about 10 hours spit conversion before going to front line squadrons. Which in the grand scheme of things makes her seem pretty reasonably easy to handle to me.

 

 

 

10 hours of flight practice in real life with an instructor is worth many, many, many, many, many more armchair hours in front of a monitor or in a VR headset. Not just for the instruction, but also the "seat-of-the-pants" feel 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Livai]

I still say it every plane is easy to fly if you are born to fly 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h89GRPFUhaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMrhLG3tM4

 

BTW I like to watch how many overheat his engine on the ground because the single radiator powerful engine are very hot engine!!!

 

 

 

[Herne]

So, I eventually figured out the trick ... don't "hang" on a boost setting, but advance it forward relentless at a fairly quick pace.

 

With the (DCS) 109, I would roll on the ATA slowly, and once it was enough to just start rolling, would build up speed pretty gradually and in stages. In particular, I would "ride" a low ATA until I built up sufficient speed to gain rudder authority (correcting with brakes till then) and only then push the the ATA forward to take-off (and even then, I don't hit the max ATA). I am not saying that this is the correct way to take-off in the 109, just one of the ways that I know works, because it worked for me.

 

With the spit, on the other hand, it is a constant, consistent (and actually fairly quick, though not crazy quick) increase in boost, no slack, no pause.

 

My full take-off notes/recipe:

 

1. Set elevator trim to neutral. By default it is up a bit. You can still take-off with this, but you will violently pitch up and it looks very bad even if you manage to tame it under control.
2. RPM full
3. Stick firmly/considerably aft and slightly right
4. Rudder slight but firmly right
5. Then: increase boost gradually but constantly (i.e., without pausing at any boost level or holding at any boost level for any length of time), building up speed steadily and relentlessly, controlling yaw with mostly rudder (and only light touch of brake)
6. As with other aircraft, the trick is to deal with the lag: anticipate the correction before it is needed (because by then it will be too alate), apply the correction and back to neutral before you see the full effects of the correction (because by then you will have over-corrected). Learning the amount of lag and factoring it, including the amount of correction and when to relax the correction comes with practice/time.  

So, basically, forgetting what I learnt in the 109, and learning to take-off the spit as a spit brought me around the corner with this bird.

 

10 hours of flight practice in real life with an instructor is worth many, many, many, many, many more armchair hours in front of a monitor or in a VR headset. Not just for the instruction, but also the "seat-of-the-pants" feel 

 

You need to take a break and go outside --- you are confusing reality and non-reality.

 

I'm not confused at all mate, just drawing on real world flight experience, and referring to how fondly the pilots that flew the spit remembered her.

 

VR in IL2 has done an awesome job in my opinion of conveying the feeling of flight with their flight models, so much so, that I get almost as much satisfaction from flying these birds, as I used to back when I used to fly.

[dburne]

 

VR in IL2 has done an awesome job in my opinion of conveying the feeling of flight with their flight models, so much so, that I get almost as much satisfaction from flying these birds, as I used to back when I used to fly.

 

 

 

Nice testimonial to the job the devs have done and to VR.

[Bearfoot]

I'm not confused at all mate, just drawing on real world flight experience, and referring to how fondly the pilots that flew the spit remembered her.

 

VR in IL2 has done an awesome job in my opinion of conveying the feeling of flight with their flight models, so much so, that I get almost as much satisfaction from flying these birds, as I used to back when I used to fly.

 

Fair enough.

 

I am saying that comparing the learning curve of a couple of dunderhead virtual pilots sitting in their studies/living rooms/basements with the learning curve of students in real-world cockpits with experienced instructions coaching them and expecting them to be the same makes little sense. Furthermore, beyond the instruction there is "seat-of-pants" inertia. VR does nothing to convey inertia. An inertia is key to detecting and responding with needed micro-corrections before they are needed. 

 

(and p.s., apologies for asking you to check outside. It's Monday here, and I realized that I have not stepped out in 24 hours. I have no business asking anyone to check in with reality.)

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Herne]

Fair enough.

 

I am saying that comparing the learning curve of a couple of dunderhead virtual pilots sitting in their studies/living rooms/basements with the learning curve of students in real-world cockpits with experienced instructions coaching them and expecting them to be the same makes little sense. Furthermore, beyond the instruction there is "seat-of-pants" inertia. VR does nothing to convey inertia. An inertia is key to detecting and responding with needed micro-corrections before they are needed. 

 

(and p.s., apologies for asking you to check outside. It's Monday here, and I realized that I have not stepped out in 24 hours. I have no business asking anyone to check in with reality.)

 

No need for an apology I have no idea of your personal background or experience, but thought that you might be surprised to learn that modern military simulators for the longbow Apache aren't even on hydraulic jacks. Obviously in VR you don't actually feel any kind of force acting upon your body, but playing back OBS capture of some of my own flights, I can hear myself struggling to breath in a tight turn, in the same way I would in an aircraft pulling in excess of 5G.

 

I don't know why that should be, maybe it's just my mind playing some kind of trick I really don't know. 

 

@livai thanks for posting those vids, I was searching for something along these lines earlier

[Bullets]

Had been out all day today away from a PC and was hoping for a nice surprise for when I got back..

Just got home and now my evenings been ruined   

[Tag777]

Well, according to today's Developer's Diary we might expect its deployment for next week 

 

Or earlier     

[Finkeren]

I'll say probably a week later than that. 2.011 is only just about to go beta.

 

27th to 29th of June seems likely.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Finkeren

[Bearfoot]

Yes!

 

Here is something that was new to me:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTrygZfC-g

 

The comparison categories are rather simplistic, IMHO --- "handling", for e.g., is a complex issue, because different aspects have different winners/losers, though perhaps the idea that while both were equal in the hands of a capable pilot, the Spit (I/II) was easier on average/mediocre pilots probably has merit. And while they talk about the Bf-109 actually being at least as good a turner as the Spitfire in the hands of a capable pilot but the Spit was easier for an average pilot to get into the turns, they do not talk about the fact that where the Spit really shines over the Bf-109 is not so much instantaneous turns but retention of energy through continuous, sustained turns over an extended period of time. The firepower test was disappointing --- while the verdict was correct, the demonstration of punching through metal sheets did not really show the true difference that exploding shells could do make over solid pea shooters in an airframe with engine, spars, hydraulics, etc. etc. Despite my nit-picky negativity, all in all, I enjoyed it. My favorite part was when they got each veteran pilot to sit in the cockpit of their opposite numbers and give their impressions. Really nice!

Edited June 16, 2017 by Bearfoot

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Apparently they crashed another one today. Gear collapsed on landing but everyone appears to be ok.

 

https://www.facebook.com/aerolegends/photos/a.1450436901883787.1073741828.1442356079358536/1872909189636554/?type=3&theater

 

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

Awww  I assume it will be repaired?

[TP_Silk]

Apparently they crashed another one today. Gear collapsed on landing but everyone appears to be ok.

 

https://www.facebook.com/aerolegends/photos/a.1450436901883787.1073741828.1442356079358536/1872909189636554/?type=3&theater

 

 

This will be a familiar sight for my squadron mates once I get my hands on the Spit in a couple of weeks

[Jason_Williams]

The Spit just entered Beta. It's fun and looks awesome. :-)

 

Jason

[keeno]

Whoo Hooo,

 

one of the mostly hotly anticipated planes of the sim...... well for me anyway!

 

Cheers

[=gRiJ=Roman-]