Jump to content
hrafnkolbrandr

Spitfire - Maybe a Little Too Good?

Recommended Posts

After several flight and test, i found that the turning performance of this spitfire is far better than what is written in the aircraft specification. for exemple i can do several turn at 0m in 15/16s (and i think it can do more) at 2850 rpm. it can easily out-turn I-16, Yak-1 and Yak-1b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After several flight and test, i found that the turning performance of this spitfire is far better than what is written in the aircraft specification. for exemple i can do several turn at 0m in 15/16s (and i think it can do more) at 2850 rpm. it can easily out-turn I-16, Yak-1 and Yak-1b

Were those sustained turns? Turns where you lose no energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that they were not: I just had a go and I am fairly sure he (Arsenal) would have been slowing down.  

 

The tech specs turns are at 270 kph = 168 mph

 

If you turn at 3000 +9 trying to keep a constant speed and altitude (not an easy thing for a non-robot to do) the turn time is certainly over 20 seconds: hard to measure exactly using just in cockpit instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it elsewhere, dunno where - I'm getting 21s with the M46 and 19s with the M45, sustained at 9lb/3000rpm. I was in the 160-170mph range @200ft, plus/minus 100ft.

 

If you do a sufficient number of turns, start with the desired parameters, keep within a reasonable range of the desired parameters and end with ideally exactly the same parameters you started at, you'll be fairly accurate with the average turn time. You don't have to maintain the parameters to the second digit all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure your result is better - mine was rough and ready just reading the time off the cockpit clock and only a little over 20 secs.  It does not help that the scaling of the throttle seems to be off or at least I cannot get very precise control of it to get exactly +9.   My point is that Arsenal's 15 sec is not comparable with the tech specs time of 22 sec: I am sure he is slowing down.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, to achieve 15s something else must have been involved. Altitude loss, increased boost, winter map ...

 

For testing turn time, I recommend recording a track to separate flying from measuring. If I was checking a clock while turning at sea level, I might actually end up in the dirt. Or water. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From all ive read and heard this is what german 20mm mineshells should perform like - maybe even not that good. And everything else should perform worse to varying degrees IMHO.

MG 151/20 Specs:

 

Muzzle Velocity: 805 m/s (M-Geschoss); 705 m/s (HE-T, AP)

Rate of Fire: 750 rpm

Caliber: 20mm x 82mm

 

Minengeschoss 151 projectile weighed 95g with ~19g of explosive filler

 

HS.404 Specs:

 

Muzzle Velocity: 850-880 m/s

Rate of Fire: 700 rpm

Caliber: 20mm x 110mm

 

20mm HE Mk. I projectile weighed 130g with ~10g of explosive filler depending on if it was incendiary or not

 

So to look at those specs....I see the Hispano as a bigger caliber round that is fired at a higher muzzle velocity with less explosive filler.

 

Why should the Hispano perform "worse"?  Simply because it has 9 less grams of explosive filler?  Or are we going to delve into pilot accounts....which always shows bias towards the weapon they used themselves....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hispano and MG151 should perform very similar - this is according to Tony Williams conclusion - MG151 explosive power offsets Hispano kinetic power so they actually have very similar destructive power.

Edited by CUJO1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MG 151/20 Specs:

 

Muzzle Velocity: 805 m/s (M-Geschoss); 705 m/s (HE-T, AP)

Rate of Fire: 750 rpm

Caliber: 20mm x 82mm

 

Minengeschoss 151 projectile weighed 95g with ~19g of explosive filler

 

HS.404 Specs:

 

Muzzle Velocity: 850-880 m/s

Rate of Fire: 700 rpm

Caliber: 20mm x 110mm

 

20mm HE Mk. I projectile weighed 130g with ~10g of explosive filler depending on if it was incendiary or not

 

So to look at those specs....I see the Hispano as a bigger caliber round that is fired at a higher muzzle velocity with less explosive filler.

 

Why should the Hispano perform "worse"?  Simply because it has 9 less grams of explosive filler?  Or are we going to delve into pilot accounts....which always shows bias towards the weapon they used themselves....

Caliber is the diameter of the round. Both are 20mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the Hispano perform "worse"?  Simply because it has 9 less grams of explosive filler? 

 

Yes, simply because of that.

 

 

Hispano and MG151 should perform very similar - this is according to Tony Williams conclusion - MG151 explosive power offsets Hispano kinetic power so they actually have very similar destructive power.

 

PETN high explosive was extremely powerful.

 

AFAIK Tony Williams never meant that, he did an article comparing the relative effiency of various well known aircraft gun. There are many methods for this, and Tony himself admitted that the method for 'destructiveness' its not a very scientific approach, but a very, very rough approximiation. He simply describes destructive effect as a factor of KE, and KE gets a bit of boost if there is a chemical component, i.e. a HE shell. 

 

The problem with this approach is that (i) Chemical Energy is totally unrelated to KE of the shell. For example a Hispano or a Mauser shell standing on a table (v=0m/sec) makes just big of boom as if it has just levead the barel at 700-800 m/sec. In Tony's model the shell standing on your table and exploding should do zero damage, because it's KE is zero and zero multiplied by x is still zero. (ii) Potential chemical/explosive energy is far, far in excess that of kinetic energy, and not a tiny fraction of it as in Tony's simplified model.

 

PETN is of course very powerful as an explosive, about the same or slightly less poweful than Hexogene (or RDX) in the mine shells. Trouble is, the mine shells pack almost 3 times as much as a typical Hispano HEI (which was a mix of PETN HE charge and incendiaries).

 

The difference is also in the working. The mine shells are designed to rip off the skin of the aircraft and by cumulative damage make it depart from controlled fligth. It almost doesn't matter where they hit for this reason. The Hispano shells OTOH were basically fragmentation shells with a tiny explosive filler and some incendinary material, with the hope placed that the tiny fragments would pierce something important like the fuel, coolant or oil lines and/or set nearby stuff on fire.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AFAIK Tony Williams never meant that, he did an article comparing the relative effiency of various well known aircraft gun. There are many methods for this, and Tony himself admitted that the method for 'destructiveness' its not a very scientific approach, but a very, very rough approximiation. He simply describes destructive effect as a factor of KE, and KE gets a bit of boost if there is a chemical component, i.e. a HE shell. 

 

The problem with this approach is that...

 

Can you link to that article?  I have found his site and a couple of his articles about guns, but none of the ones I found contain a model that multiplies KE by a factor for chemical energy.  If he did use such an approximation, this would not be as stupid as your example makes out: obviously the millions of AA cannon shells fired at aircraft in WW2 were not actually standing on tables.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

Power = mass * muzzle velocity * (1 + HE-content * 10)

 

Example: 100g shell (0.1 kg), 750m/s, 10% HE/incendiary content (0.1)

 

Power = 0.1 * 750 * (1 + 0.1 * 10) = 0.1 * 750 * 2 = 150

 

It's an approximation that doesn't mimic the physics, but might still be an appropriate estimate. You'll also have to consider that the relation between the destructiveness of shells varies greatly with what target they hit - a fabric covered steel frame behaves completely different than an aluminium monocoque. So there are neither correct absolute nor correct relative figures for cartridge destructiveness or gun power.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you link to that article?  I have found his site and a couple of his articles about guns, but none of the ones I found contain a model that multiplies KE by a factor for chemical energy.  If he did use such an approximation, this would not be as stupid as your example makes out: obviously the millions of AA cannon shells fired at aircraft in WW2 were not actually standing on tables.    

 

Its admittedly an  arbirtrary, working model. Its basically momentum + (chemical charge / projectile weight * 10). Quite obviously such model would favor projectile weight and kinetic energy, and IMO disporpotiately so. Its also beyond discussion that such model has very little roots in actual physics.

 

I do see that the example of a shell with 0 muzzle velocity proved confusing, perhaps a better example is to ponder on why in such model, the same Mine shell fired from the MG FF should do less "damage" than one fired from a MG 151 with higher muzzle velocity. Does the 18 gram Hexogene filling goes a bigger bang when its fired at a 200 m/sec higher velocity? I do not think so. 

 

It is also admitted in full honesty that it is a "simple comparison", though some guys obviouslly take it as gospel.

 

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

 

"For all of these reasons muzzle energy (one half of the projectile weight multiplied by the square of the velocity) has not been used to calculate kinetic damage as this would overstate the importance of velocity. Instead, momentum (projectile weight multiplied by muzzle velocity) was used as an estimate of the kinetic damage inflicted by the projectile. It might be argued that even this overstates the importance of velocity in the case of HE shells, as noted above, but the effect of velocity in improving hit probability is one measure of effectiveness which needs acknowledging, so it is given equal weighting with projectile weight.

 

Chemical energy is generated by the high explosive or incendiary material carried by most WW2 air-fighting projectiles. First, there is the difference between HE and incendiary material, which were often mixed (in very varying proportions) in the same shell. HE delivers instant destruction by blast effect (plus possibly setting light to inflammable material within its blast radius), incendiaries burn on their passage through the target, setting light to anything inflammable they meet on the way. The relationship between the effectiveness of HE and incendiary material is difficult to assess. Bearing in mind that fire was the big plane-killer, there appears to be no reason to rate HE as more important, so they have been treated as equal.

 

The comparison between kinetic and chemical energy is the most difficult and complicated subject to tackle. This complexity is revealed by the example of a strike by a delay-fuzed HEI cannon projectile. This will first inflict kinetic damage on the target as it penetrates the structure. Then it will inflict chemical (blast) damage as the HE detonates. Thirdly, the shell fragments sent flying by the explosion will inflict further kinetic damage (a thin-walled shell will distribute lots of small fragments, a thick-walled shell fewer but larger chunks), and finally the incendiary material distributed by the explosion may cause further chemical (fire) damage.

 

There will therefore always be a degree of arbitrariness in any attempt to compare kinetic and chemical energy, as it all depends on exactly where the projectile strikes, the detail design of the projectile and its fuze, and on the type of aircraft being attacked. To allow a simple comparison, we will reduce all these factors to an increase in effectiveness directly proportional to the chemical content of the projectile. We assign to projectiles that rely exclusively on kinetic energy an effectiveness factor of 100%. For projectiles with a chemical content, we increase this by the weight fraction of explosive or incendiary material, times ten. This chosen ratio is based on a study of many practical examples of gun and ammunition testing, and we will see below that it at least approximately corresponds with the known results of ammunition testing.

 

To illustrate how this works: a typical cannon shell consists of 10% HE or incendiary material by weight. Multiplying this by ten gives a chemical contribution of 100%, adding the kinetic contribution of 100% gives a total of 200%. In other words, an HE/I shell of a given weight that contains 10% chemicals will generate twice the destructiveness of a plain steel shot of the same weight and velocity. If the shell is a high-capacity one with 20% chemical content, it will be three times as destructive. If it only has 5% content, the sum will be 150%, so it will be 50% more destructive, and so on."

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks JtD - yes it is not really a physics number, more of an index such as economists use when trying to weight a number of variables that are not directly fungible.  Hit the wing with solid shot, goes straight through with little effect, hit the engine or pilot, goes straight through.......

 

edit also thanks for link Kurfurst.  If you write as you have, with a + then the whole "on a table" issue goes away. :)   I would not really describe his approach as giving "a bit of a boost" for HE content, if he is multiplying by % weight HE times ten, he is giving a 10% HE shell double the destructiveness of a practice solid shot - which the RAF used well into the war in their belting.

 

I think it is a reasonable idea, but you cannot expect it to be reflected in the results every time you score hits - when you have the exact location of each hit and the round type in the belt forming a huge matrix of possibilities, judging trends from a few hits observed from a distance is problematic.  But that is human pattern recognition/over-fitting for you.  

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I missed the KE part from the equivation I think. Oops  :wacko:

 

Anyway, do not take that as if I am not criticizing Tony, I am not, . Furthermore, the model work quite well for generic purposes, and as long as the projectiles are similar. After all, most generic cannon HE shells worked similar, you had a shell that delivered a relatively thick fragmentation body with a small bursting charge, it broke up the body accelerated the fragments which continued to rely on KE to do the damage, in essence, multiple tiny projectiles that derived all their - still kinetic - energy from the burster charge and the remaining velocity vector of the shell. 

 

Its the special nature and damage mechanics of mine shells that are the fly in the soup, since it doesnt rely on fragments (it doesnt have much, as it does not have shell material, its just mostly the remains of the fuse and the base of the shell) but blast pressure instead to wreck the aerodynamic surface of the aircraft. The reasoning behind that is exactly as you pointed out, hits will occur all over the place and will be sometimes effective (hitting the or close to "vitals" of the aircraft) and sometimes not at all (when hitting empty structure). Mine shells will however blow panels off all the time and are statically more reliable to deliver consistent results - loosing a square meter of skin to five 20 mine shells, no matter where they hit is likely make you depart controlled flight, whereas the results are much varied between more five rounds into the engine/pilot and five rounds into the other wing.

 

Bottom line, for human comprehension it is complicated to account for all sort of variables or the damage matrix, but good damage model should take into account all this. For example, damage to "aircraft skin" component could be differentiated between AP and HE/Mine rounds, with consequent changes to lift/drag of the component, and control issues, same with coolant, oil and fuel systems. I am not sure what depths Il-2 engine goes when modelling this, hopefully, its not just "right wing" has "x" amounts hitpoints and then KE (solid round / fragmentation KE damage) is applied. Because this latter system would not work very well with Mine rounds if they are just simulated fragments.

 

IMO an optimal DM would take into account the skin of the aircraft, record the loss of skin at pre defined points and then send the results to the FM so that it could calculate the loss of lift and increase in drag in that section. But it would handle other structures like spars or systems like radiators separately, with less of the catastrophic wing loss we see occurring. Some fairly spectacular results could be achieved this way...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 less grams of explosive filler?

 

 

9 gramm less  - or with 10g only 52% ... of 19g:)

Pretty HUGE diffrence IMHO.

Edited by Irgendjemand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a large difference in blast effect, which is what Kurfurst is saying the mine-shells were optimized to do.  

 

But it means that you will get inferior fragmentation effects. Not only is the weight of the fragments correspondingly less, but since a higher HE content increases the number of fragments, on average each fragment will be smaller, and there will be far more very small fragments. 

 

In an anti-personnel setting that is what you want, about 1g being optimal, but to damage machinery you need larger fragments.  

 

Having twice as much explosive might be better - or it might be worse, depending on where you hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mineshell is not based on fragmentation, it's using the blast effect of the explosion to overstress parts of the aircraft structure, hence the very large filler in a thin walled shell. For fragmentation purposes the MG FF/M & MG 151/20 fired other rounds, such as the Panzersprenggranate, Brandsprenggranate, etc.

Edited by JG4_Karaya
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mineshell is not based on fragmentation, it's using the blast effect of the explosion to overstress parts of the aircraft structure, hence the very large filler in a thin walled shell. For fragmentation purposes the MG FF/M & MG 151/20 fired other rounds, such as the Panzersprenggranate, Brandsprenggranate, etc.

 

I am completely aware of that fact - but when comparing a mineshell with a conventional shell with a lower HE proportion, you still have to take into account both effects in assessing it's overall effectiveness. After all, the Hispano HE shells also created blast, and the mineshells also created fragments. 

 

A mineshell at 95g and 19g of HE will still create 76g of fragments.  Hispano at 130g and 10g of HE produces 120g of fragments. It is about the relative weighting, not an absolute either/or proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a lot of hot air later we will reach the same conclusion Tony Williams did: MG151 and Hispano will be similar in effectiveness all things considered.

 

It's been rehashed for over 14 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Flying spifire, a snap shot and German plane is finished. Flying German, most of the time, you need several snapshots to take down your opponent. Hs really strong in the game

Edited by JAGER_Kampf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that the way it fly is pretty good, a bit simplified but the feel is spot on. T

 

I think he is right, a bit simplified it is for all planes. Everybody flying the Spitfire said the same thing, you became one with the airplane once she took off, maybe it is so that the developers nailed it this time.

There are people actually thinking they know how a high powered taildragger is to fly in combat. We can only assume how it was, Except the few like DB here witch had a taste of it that lucky b.... :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Well I for one am very happy with the Spitfire from a handling perspective and at the risk of repeating myself: Take a look at these Me-109 and Yak-3 videos: Very little adverse yaw and no wobblying. Almost like on rails. I fully agree with Zacharias post here: More difficult is not necessarily more realistic and if the Spitfire handles better than the other planes right now is most likely because its powered by a later generation IL-2 FM. However, that being said, I have high expectations that the current Me-109 "wobbliness" will be gone in 2.012 but until then I really don't see the point in criticizing the current Spitfire FM since it should be judged alongside the FM’s for the other planes in 2.012 so why not wait until then before passing judgement?

 

Comparing real-life flight footage to computer simulations regarding handling smoothness is always a moot point. Even the most sensitive short sticks on the market cannot replicate the precision of long-arm stick in an actual WW2 fighter. The difference between 16-bit sensors and real life is probably like switching from 8-bit sensors to 16-bit sensors - or maybe even bigger. Even the most quirky fighter could be smoothly handled by a skilled pilot and I believe if somebody gets to fly a warbird nowadays, his skill is impeccable. If we take those fighters and put them into a computer game, where our peripherials limit the precision so much, both due to sensors and to much shorter sticks, only those fighters that were the smoothest of them all would actually handle smoothly and the differences become much harder to overcome. That is unless the simulation doesn't fly solely by the input, but corrects it so the plane behaves more or less like it would in hands of a real pilot sitting in the cockpit, gripping that long stick in his hands.

 

That's actually a philosophical dillema regarding sims, what realism actually is:

  • when a plane flies exactly as it would based on input (even though the input's precision is limited on peripherials' side)
  • when a plane flies exactly as it would if the player was the pilot (correcting the lack of precision caused by limitations of the peripherials)

If this wasn't an issue, the whole sensitivity setting wouldn't be needed.

Edited by Stelcio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying spifire, a snap shot and German plane is finished. Flying German, most of the time, you need several snapshots to take down your opponent. Hs really strong in the game

That's because the Hispano shells are so much bigger than the German cannon shells. They are strong because it's correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because the Hispano shells are so much bigger than the German cannon shells. They are strong because it's correct

 

German 20MM and Hispano should do similar damage, but by different methods - one chemical and one kinetic. It's pure science and there's not really much to debate.

 

They do NOT do similar damage in the game, where the Hispano is much more powerful. Hispano in game is essentially a one-hit wonder weapon like 23mm, whereas Spitfires, Yaks, LaGGs all may endure multiple firing passes from German 20mm.

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

The simple fact is, the FW-190A-3 and A-5 in real life had much greater hitting power than any Spitfire Vb.

 

Yet we see over and over in the sim that Spitfire hitting a 109 or especially a 190 with the Hispano and they literally fall to pieces, whereas Yaks, LaGGs, and Spitfires may endure multiple firing passes from even a FW-190. I have many recorded tracks from both online and offline showing exactly this happening.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone can think the Hispanos are quite right. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I don't think I've seen anything survive a pass with them.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German 20MM and Hispano should do similar damage, but by different methods - one chemical and one kinetic. It's pure science and there's not really much to debate.

 

 

If its pure science please explain it.. Until then but sorry I can't see how a smaller round with less explosive going slower can possibly do a similar amount of damage to its opposite??  :huh:   Look at this image showing the two rounds.. 

 

ZFu2awl.jpg

 

 

If anything maybe the standard 20mm rounds (german & russian) do not do enough damage but i would definitely say the Spitfires Hispano's do the right amount of damage (very similar to the VYa 23mm rounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its pure science please explain it.. Until then but sorry I can't see how a smaller round with less explosive going slower can possibly do a similar amount of damage to its opposite??  :huh:   Look at this image showing the two rounds.. 

 

Size of the rounds have nothing to do with, that is another type of contest. And you are not even looking at the size of the rounds but the size of the cartridge. The cartridge never hits the target though.

 

The Hispano HEI contains about 6,9 grams of high explosives, the 2 cm Mine shells contain cc 18.6 grams. 

 

Explain in scientific terms how cc. 7 grams of high explosives is more than 18.6.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for the Hispano HE filling I have found different values, some 7 g, others with 11g and with 14g. Also with different fillers, TNT or Tetryl... which one of these is correct? :scratch_one-s_head: Or are they from different shells, like HEI, pure HE, etc?

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hispano HE contained iirc roughly 10 grams but it was not used much since it was not very effective otherwise, the standard British belting during the war for Hispanos were 50-50% SAPI and HEI (which contained cc 7 grams of explosives - tetryl or PETN, the US ones used tetryl or even Comp A I believe) and ca 3-4 gram incendiary material. 

Edited by VO101Kurfurst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its pure science please explain it.. Until then but sorry I can't see how a smaller round with less explosive

 

 

 

This is where you are confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing real-life flight footage to computer simulations regarding handling smoothness is always a moot point. Even the most sensitive short sticks on the market cannot replicate the precision of long-arm stick in an actual WW2 fighter. The difference between 16-bit sensors and real life is probably like switching from 8-bit sensors to 16-bit sensors - or maybe even bigger. Even the most quirky fighter could be smoothly handled by a skilled pilot and I believe if somebody gets to fly a warbird nowadays, his skill is impeccable. If we take those fighters and put them into a computer game, where our peripherials limit the precision so much, both due to sensors and to much shorter sticks, only those fighters that were the smoothest of them all would actually handle smoothly and the differences become much harder to overcome. That is unless the simulation doesn't fly solely by the input, but corrects it so the plane behaves more or less like it would in hands of a real pilot sitting in the cockpit, gripping that long stick in his hands.

 

That's actually a philosophical dillema regarding sims, what realism actually is:

 

  • when a plane flies exactly as it would based on input (even though the input's precision is limited on peripherials' side)
  • when a plane flies exactly as it would if the player was the pilot (correcting the lack of precision caused by limitations of the peripherials)
If this wasn't an issue, the whole sensitivity setting wouldn't be needed.
It's not a problem of input sensitivity. The point is that real aircraft just don't wobble. At least the ones that make it into wider production. Even if you really force it, they don't. I've tried "the wobble" with several aircraft. Then they take at maximum one additional swing. This one is typically rather slow. But for your purposes, they just don't wobble. The only oscillation that is substained is the "Dutch-roll", and this one has nothing to do with the "wobble" here. Remember, it can only swing arond an axis if you do that at the frequeny of the pendulum. For a 3 ton, 10 meter object, a frequency of something below 1 second would also not be plausible. Especially if it was induced from a small, slightly erratic stick input.

 

I see "the wobble" as a plain sim artefact, originating for not not simulating proper dampening of the oscillation. Not a trivial thing to do.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spit also can just deploy flaps and power up and pull up to 4 g's. Perfectly stable and no energy loss in vertical zooms with flaps deployed. Try the same thing in German planes and you will fall off the sky almost immediately instead of gaining energy. Even no rudder is necessary  to counteract the propeller's yawing moment at very low speeds. You just cannot have both 1440 hp and no yawing at slow speeds, and no energy penalty from deploying flaps.

 

As it is subtle for the user base, I cannot prove it, just making remarks, and by all means spitfire pilots can use it. It is not as objective as top level ground speed. And even there people will tell you that you are wrong no matter what evidence some players bring about it.

 

Even if most of the user base is not so much FM sensitive when people get over-performed like that most of the time they just quit.

And yes 30 % of the players won't consider flying for the VVS.

Edited by JG27_Kornezov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect to my fellow pilots, i think you are overreacting. Since Spit was released, and reading again the whole thread, you are complaining about:

 

-boost management,

-engine power,

-flying stability,

-turning rate,

-high g force turns,

-strong frame and high resistance to hits

-too powerful weapons

-flaps usage and no lost of energy

-no yawing

-...

 

It looks like the only thing that remains to be complained about is paint colour and gear!.

 

Jokes aside, i think to a certain point, some claims could be "understandable", and maybe you are right on one of them, but complaining about every aspect of this plane (still is a inferior plane to LF bests 109 and 190) is result of an overreaction caused by the appareance of a new plane that and gives a ride for their money to LF pilots, changing the usual status quo to a new scenario with a upper level of difficulty fot LF. 

 

As said at the beginning, just my thoughts, with all respect to my fellows usual LF pilots

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your list of complaints is very good and correct and all those aspects need objective and impartial revision.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news then from the accuracy perspective - roll rate is fairly accurate over a wide speed range.

 

And good news from the it's-just-too-good perspective, too - it's not a IX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It looks like the only thing that remains to be complained about is paint colour and gear!.

 

Not so fast, IMHO Spit camouflage paint is at least 35% too effective compared to the real life. This is killing the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your list of complaints is very good and correct and all those aspects need objective and impartial revision.

 

He was being sarcastic... Its literally as if the serious lufty boys cant allow the reds to have one nice toy  :lol:  :dry:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spit also can just deploy flaps and power up and pull up to 4 g's. Perfectly stable and no energy loss in vertical zooms with flaps deployed. Try the same thing in German planes and you will fall off the sky almost immediately instead of gaining energy. Even no rudder is necessary  to counteract the propeller's yawing moment at very low speeds. You just cannot have both 1440 hp and no yawing at slow speeds, and no energy penalty from deploying flaps.

 

As it is subtle for the user base, I cannot prove it, just making remarks, and by all means spitfire pilots can use it. It is not as objective as top level ground speed. And even there people will tell you that you are wrong no matter what evidence some players bring about it.

 

Even if most of the user base is not so much FM sensitive when people get over-performed like that most of the time they just quit.

And yes 30 % of the players won't consider flying for the VVS.

 

Do you take into consideration that flaps are not deploying above a given speed, or only partially deploying ?

The yawing moment it's there for sure.. What I find almost inexistent is the rolling moment, but I've been thinking about it and the wing used in the Spitfire can well be a good explanation...

Whenever I enter a MP server, I chose the side based only in equilibrium ... Even if I am willing to fly VVS, I pick Axis and fly mostly the 109s, but also the 190 and the Caproni, and, I can easily beat the Spits - at least as easily as when I fly a Spit against those aircraft... 

I honestly see no favouritism in the way the aircraft is implemented.

Most of the time I pick the P40E when flying VVS though - it became my preferred VVS fighter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...