The announcement of the bubble canopy Spit XIV prompted me to fly the standard model some more.

[Avimimus]

11 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

If only some experienced pilots in WWII were tasked with analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of new aircraft and had spent time directly comparing the Mk IX with the Mk XIV.

Hmmmmm

 

 

 

Interestingly, in spite of concluding that the Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in a number of areas the report states:

 

"Conclusion

37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste."

 

I wonder if this advice could be applied by forum members more generally? ?

Edited May 23, 2022 by Avimimus

[oc2209]

42 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Interestingly, in spite of concluding that the Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in a number of areas the report states:

 

"Conclusion

37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste."

 

I wonder if this advice could be applied by forum members more generally? ?

 

I find a Spitfire IX more enjoyable to fly than a Mustang, but there's clearly a performance gap.

 

A P-51B (or D to a lesser extent) offers a superior flying experience to a Spitfire XIV. But then the XIV has cannons and a better climb rate.

 

So, yeah, it comes down to taste.

 

I can see the merits of the XIV in spite of its flaws; however, it's also a tough plane to love because it has all the old Spitfire's flaws along with some new ones.

 

Whereas the P-51B is just all-around nice. No vices on the runway or in the air.

[thrila]

20 hours ago, theRedPanda said:

IIRC the XIV is based on the VIII airframe which has reduced aileron size and loss of roll rate.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8tac.html

One thing to be aware of in that report is that the spitfire tested was not a typical spitfire VIII.  It had extended wingtips so doesn't represent what a spitfire VIII with standard wings would achieve. 

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

"With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies."

 

Luckily, in the sim we have no such limitations.

 

Using a P-51B and a Spitfire XIV versus the 109K with the best engine, both Allied planes proved about equal in ability to stay with the 109 throughout a variety of defensive maneuvers.

 

However, when facing each other, I found the P-51B much easier to shoot down while piloting an XIV, than vice versa. This is mainly due to the Spitfire AI choosing to keep an altitude advantage and circle tightly over me.

 

There were no circumstances in which I was able to rapidly shoot down a Spit XIV in the Mustang. It was always a bit of a chase lasting 4-6 minutes.

 

This is an example of how quickly I could get on the tail of a P-51 while in the Spit:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Starting altitude is 4000m; both planes at about 50% fuel loads; no 150 octane for either; E-wing for the Spitfire; best engine for the P-51.

[easterling77]

13 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

I find the XIV swings less than the IX or Vb  Getting it on the runway, however...!  In my experience the XIV will happily float 1m above the runway at 80mph until which point you either give a bit of nose forward pitch, or she just drops like a rock, and then she'll spring back up to 9m to have a fun little hop along down the rest of the runway.  As soon as I finally have all three wheels on the ground, then it's flaps up and brake, and she barely requires any rudder input to keep her straight.

 

Just my Feeling about it.

 

I may have to do more spit flying to shake up the rust...to be honest, didnt't flew her for a couple of time

[Livai]

10 hours ago, oc2209 said:

This is an example of how quickly I could get on the tail of a P-51 while in the Spit:

 

Against Ai not the best example. Already at 0:36 the Ai in the Mustang start to circle like a fish in a barrel when you are behind their tail. In the Mustang as soon you have someone behind your tail you are close to Game Over. In the Mustang you can't fly circle all the time how you can do it in the Spit. What you can't do in the Spit is climb and circle around at the same time. The Mustangs needs some energy advantage the Spit not.

[Aurora_Stealth]

On 5/22/2022 at 9:41 PM, Algy-Lacey said:

IIRC then Spitfires should have very good energy retention in turns, better than a P-51 anyway. This certainly seems to be true (in game) for the Mk Vb and Mk IX, less so for the Mk XIV. Can this be put down to the higher wing loading of the Mk XIV?

 

From my experience of flying the Mk XIV in game, it didn't 'feel' right, roll response seemed to be less than a Mk IX (even though the Mk XIV had redesigned ailerons and should have better roll rate) and it didn't turn as I expected it would. Also, in low speed / high throttle situations, it departed (into a spin) very easily, I even managed to get it into inverted flat spins (!). I have no idea if this last point is realistic.

 

I believe that @ZachariasX has actually flown a Spitfire and he said (my own memory, not a quote) that the Mk XIV should respond to elevator input instantly and directly, which is certainly not what we have in game.

 

If the Spitfire Mk XIV is slow to respond to elevator stick inputs then this should be corrected by the developers. Perhaps whilst they work on the 3d model of the bubble canopy Mk XIV they can tweak the FM.

 

Maybe we should start a petition / poll?

 

Algy-Lacey

 

The wing loading is indeed higher and I'm sure that plays a part, but its also carrying considerably more drag due to those much enlarged radiators among other things. It also has a shifted C-of-G due to the Griffon engine installation which makes its manoeuvring harder to coordinate and control. So it makes sense why sustained manoeuvres are going to leave you feeling more short changed and vulnerable after a few turns than it might in a Mk IX.

 

I'd say the Mk XIV is a bit like marmite... it is still capable of turning hard in instantaneous performance; and does still have many of the hallmarks of the IX; but that extra weight (wing fuel tanks, engine) and drag creates a more sluggish control response. Once you run out of emergency power - you're going to feel left in a more vulnerable state than the Mark IX because you're left with the extra drag and weight that the IX doesn't have and you can't rely on the IX's sharper handling and responsiveness to get out of trouble.

[RyanR]

The Mk XIV is still insane compared to late-war opponents. Especially with the G-limit endurance dialed back in a recent update, it's "so good" as to not be any fun in offline play. You can pick up bad habits really quick when you can out climb, out turn, out accelerate, and out run almost everything when it matters. The Tempest was bad enough in this regard, that I quit on a late-war career. The Mk XIV is more potent in this regard. The 190A's are easy lunch, the Doras less so, and the Griffin engine will fly at its limits for much longer than a 109.

 

The same problem is what sucks the fun out of a Luftwaffe career. Leave with eight 190A-8's, and everyone but you dies when you run into XIV's.

 

-Ryan

[LukeFF]

3 minutes ago, RyanR said:

The Mk XIV is still insane compared to late-war opponents. Especially with the G-limit endurance dialed back in a recent update, it's "so good" as to not be any fun in offline play. You can pick up bad habits really quick when you can out climb, out turn, out accelerate, and out run almost everything when it matters. The Tempest was bad enough in this regard, that I quit on a late-war career. The Mk XIV is more potent in this regard. The 190A's are easy lunch, the Doras less so, and the Griffin engine will fly at its limits for much longer than a 109.

 

The same problem is what sucks the fun out of a Luftwaffe career. Leave with eight 190A-8's, and everyone but you dies when you run into XIV's.

 

-Ryan

 

Sounds a lot like the real air war in late 1944-45. ?

[RyanR]

Just now, LukeFF said:

 

Sounds a lot like the real air war in late 1944-45. ?

 

 

Yup.

 

-Ryan

 

 

[Art-J]

Since pilot's recollections abut XIV have become an important part of this thread, and bubbletop is coming, I guess this article will fit here too ? :

https://vintageaviationecho.com/spitfire-mkxiv-mv293/

Edited May 24, 2022 by Art-J

[Cravis]

2 hours ago, RyanR said:

The same problem is what sucks the fun out of a Luftwaffe career. Leave with eight 190A-8's, and everyone but you dies when you run into XIV's.

 

It's not just XIV but IX as well. The issue here seems to be less about the good performance of the Spitfire and more about the habit of AI to rate fight everything.

 

Anyway cool to see the bubble canopy XIV coming to the game. Must have for me for sure.  I second the sentiment that I need to get into the XIV.

Thus far my experience has been similar as the OP, the XIV just feels sluggish to me compared to the IX despite being the better plane on paper. But I put that down to my lack of understanding and practice.

[Algy-Lacey]

3 hours ago, Art-J said:

Since pilot's recollections abut XIV have become an important part of this thread, and bubbletop is coming, I guess this article will fit here too ? :

https://vintageaviationecho.com/spitfire-mkxiv-mv293/

 

Thanks for sharing that link, it was a cracking good read. It makes me want to take my time to properly learn the Mk XIV. My problems with controlling her are probably a lot to do with not flying with the ball centered. The Mk V and Mk IX let you get away with flying without doing much with the rudder, I think with the XIV you have to use the rudder a lot more pro-actively.

 

This article also answered my own question about energy retention and wing loading of the Mk XIV. I think I have understood correctly that an eliptical winged Mk XIV will bleed more energy than a Mk IX and a clipped wing XIV even more so.

 

Great stuff! Thanks again

 

Happy Landing!

Algy-Lacey

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, Algy-Lacey said:

This article also answered my own question about energy retention and wing loading of the Mk XIV. I think I have understood correctly that an eliptical winged Mk XIV will bleed more energy than a Mk IX and a clipped wing XIV even more so.

 

I have an instinctive aversion to ever using a clipped wing Spit for this reason. Even at low altitude.

[ZachariasX]

21 hours ago, Art-J said:

Since pilot's recollections abut XIV have become an important part of this thread, and bubbletop is coming, I guess this article will fit here too ? :

https://vintageaviationecho.com/spitfire-mkxiv-mv293/

Good article! There is a lot in there that I can relate to, Flying the Mk.IX and the Mustang.

 

Note, the following is a personal subjective impression, not a call for changes! Opinions welcome.

 

TL;DR: I think airframe drag at increased AoA are significant and separate planes with lower wing loading at speeds below 250 mph very drastically from planes with high wing loading.

 

Most important takeaway for me is the effect of high(er) wing loading on the (usually later) warbirds: While they gain in speed and nominal climb, there is a "cliff" around 250 mph (for high g turn better 300 mph), where the heavy fighter will excessively bleed energy during a turn compared to a lighter fighter, meaning a high powered heavy fighter will struggle to turn with a lighter loaded fighter despite considerably more engine power. At higher speeds, the drag increase due to AoA is much smaller (as you have much less AoA for the same g you are pulling) and energy retention is FAR better in high powered, heavy fighters.

 

The pilot I have spoken with that also flew the Mk.XIV (the same Spit as mentioned in the article) specifically mentioned that. It is mostly apparent (as the article says) when flying in formation with all different (and usually lighter) aircraft that aircraft like the Mk.XIV start to struggle to follow the other aircraft in turns. It could easily turn with the others, but it had to do so at a pace the other aircraft cannot follow. The geometry of the flight path changes way more than nominal turning time (that might actually be constant!).

 

And it is in this light that I see the Mk.XIV "not being as maneuvreable as the Mk.IX". In fact, you can do any maneuver in it as you can do in the Mk.IX, but you have to maintain a faster trajectory. And it can give you just that. It is a beast for a reason! In most cases, the high power, heavy planes handle better at high speeds than the light ones that are actually not designed for the pace of the high powered ones.

 

As the baby-Spit handles more like "a Chipmunk" (as stated in the article, or a Cap10, according to the pilot I've spoken to; still same message), this means the baby Spit really feels like a grossly overpowered aerobatic GA aircraft, rather than something heavy. It even flies almost GA patterns. This lightness in handling is remarkable. It really keeps its energy up, even in slow speed maneuvering. In the heavier aircraft (like the Mustang, and certainly the Mk.XIV, Tempest, P-47 etc), at a slow enough speed and AoA, you reach a drag that cannot be overcome even by full power. At this slow speed, control authority also becomes limited such that the engine torque can exceed a stabilizing input, yet it is not enough to pull the aircraft to a fast speed anymore. Welcome coffin corner.

 

It is quiet clear that in this regard, I would see a baby Spit (Mk.II) dominate a 109E is a slow speed defensive contest (we see them online so often) for the simple reason that the higher AoA of the 109E will act as an airbrake in a way that it cannot follow a Spit. The Spit with 17% lower wing loading will have a shallower AoA and thus considerably less drag. In this sense, in this I see the "Kings of the one circle fight" in this game, the Friedrich and the Emil, very generously represented in this game, as they work very, very well at slow speed and high AoA. But this may be so. The situation I am talking about here is mainly a Spit pulling a tight circle on the deck, until the pilot senses the buffeting and just holds her there even as the speed drops. I would expect the 109E bleed speed significantly faster and fall out of the contest much before nominal turn times make the Spit sit on the tail of the 109.

 

In the game, I don't really see that kind of punishment !when you are below! best turn speeds or above corresponding AoA. Hence the popularity of going slow in most aircraft, except the P-47. But this is important, as slow defensive scissoring is what is used most in competitive 1 vs. 1 multiplayer. In the real aircraft, it is VERY noticeable, how much more the P-51 bleeds speed when getting slow than the Spit IX. You have to ease pull on the stick quickly if you see you're getting slow in the Mustang. The Spit is largely unimpressed if you take her in a slow turn, she just keeps going. And this despite the fact that the Mustang is obviously aerodynamically cleaner then the Spit. But one ton more weight makes itself felt in slow turns. At higher speed, you feel nothing of that weight in the Mustang. Going slow in a turn, the Spit will pull away. Conversely, I'd see a Zero with its moped engine just walk away from the Spit in a slow turn. It doesn't just "turn tighter", I'd expect it to be faster in the turn as well.

 

In reality, I find this effect drastic in such a way I would never have thought it would be. (Same as opening the rads is like pulling the handbrake on your car.) In the real world, you'd not be tempted to do slow speed scissoring with a heavy, although high powered aircraft vs. a light, lower powered one. You'd always be slower and you'd be less maneuvrable. But go fast and tables turn.

 

In this sense, for instance I don't think that above 300 mph, the P-40, P-47 and the P-51 differ much in "maneuvrability". They all follow just stick inputs (that require way more strenght than a desktop joystick) and the P-40 is probably the one with the best roll, but the fastest (or: the one with most excessive energy in a given high speed menauever) is the "winner". But as soon as you go slow, things change and wing and power loading (assuming about similar span loading) sets them apart. And the P-47 is just the first victim and there is nothing it can do except going fast again. And there, being heavy is a burden.

[easterling77]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Good article! There is a lot in there that I can relate to, Flying the Mk.IX and the Mustang.

 

Note, the following is a personal subjective impression, not a call for changes! Opinions welcome.

 

TL;DR: I think airframe drag at increased AoA are significant and separate planes with lower wing loading at speeds below 250 mph very drastically from planes with high wing loading.

 

Most important takeaway for me is the effect of high(er) wing loading on the (usually later) warbirds: While they gain in speed and nominal climb, there is a "cliff" around 250 mph (for high g turn better 300 mph), where the heavy fighter will excessively bleed energy during a turn compared to a lighter fighter, meaning a high powered heavy fighter will struggle to turn with a lighter loaded fighter despite considerably more engine power. At higher speeds, the drag increase due to AoA is much smaller (as you have much less AoA for the same g you are pulling) and energy retention is FAR better in high powered, heavy fighters.

 

The pilot I have spoken with that also flew the Mk.XIV (the same Spit as mentioned in the article) specifically mentioned that. It is mostly apparent (as the article says) when flying in formation with all different (and usually lighter) aircraft that aircraft like the Mk.XIV start to struggle to follow the other aircraft in turns. It could easily turn with the others, but it had to do so at a pace the other aircraft cannot follow. The geometry of the flight path changes way more than nominal turning time (that might actually be constant!).

 

And it is in this light that I see the Mk.XIV "not being as maneuvreable as the Mk.IX". In fact, you can do any maneuver in it as you can do in the Mk.IX, but you have to maintain a faster trajectory. And it can give you just that. It is a beast for a reason! In most cases, the high power, heavy planes handle better at high speeds than the light ones that are actually not designed for the pace of the high powered ones.

 

As the baby-Spit handles more like "a Chipmunk" (as stated in the article, or a Cap10, according to the pilot I've spoken to; still same message), this means the baby Spit really feels like a grossly overpowered aerobatic GA aircraft, rather than something heavy. It even flies almost GA patterns. This lightness in handling is remarkable. It really keeps its energy up, even in slow speed maneuvering. In the heavier aircraft (like the Mustang, and certainly the Mk.XIV, Tempest, P-47 etc), at a slow enough speed and AoA, you reach a drag that cannot be overcome even by full power. At this slow speed, control authority also becomes limited such that the engine torque can exceed a stabilizing input, yet it is not enough to pull the aircraft to a fast speed anymore. Welcome coffin corner.

 

It is quiet clear that in this regard, I would see a baby Spit (Mk.II) dominate a 109E is a slow speed defensive contest (we see them online so often) for the simple reason that the higher AoA of the 109E will act as an airbrake in a way that it cannot follow a Spit. The Spit with 17% lower wing loading will have a shallower AoA and thus considerably less drag. In this sense, in this I see the "Kings of the one circle fight" in this game, the Friedrich and the Emil, very generously represented in this game, as they work very, very well at slow speed and high AoA. But this may be so. The situation I am talking about here is mainly a Spit pulling a tight circle on the deck, until the pilot senses the buffeting and just holds her there even as the speed drops. I would expect the 109E bleed speed significantly faster and fall out of the contest much before nominal turn times make the Spit sit on the tail of the 109.

 

In the game, I don't really see that kind of punishment !when you are below! best turn speeds or above corresponding AoA. Hence the popularity of going slow in most aircraft, except the P-47. But this is important, as slow defensive scissoring is what is used most in competitive 1 vs. 1 multiplayer. In the real aircraft, it is VERY noticeable, how much more the P-51 bleeds speed when getting slow than the Spit IX. You have to ease pull on the stick quickly if you see you're getting slow in the Mustang. The Spit is largely unimpressed if you take her in a slow turn, she just keeps going. And this despite the fact that the Mustang is obviously aerodynamically cleaner then the Spit. But one ton more weight makes itself felt in slow turns. At higher speed, you feel nothing of that weight in the Mustang. Going slow in a turn, the Spit will pull away. Conversely, I'd see a Zero with its moped engine just walk away from the Spit in a slow turn. It doesn't just "turn tighter", I'd expect it to be faster in the turn as well.

 

In reality, I find this effect drastic in such a way I would never have thought it would be. (Same as opening the rads is like pulling the handbrake on your car.) In the real world, you'd not be tempted to do slow speed scissoring with a heavy, although high powered aircraft vs. a light, lower powered one. You'd always be slower and you'd be less maneuvrable. But go fast and tables turn.

 

In this sense, for instance I don't think that above 300 mph, the P-40, P-47 and the P-51 differ much in "maneuvrability". They all follow just stick inputs (that require way more strenght than a desktop joystick) and the P-40 is probably the one with the best roll, but the fastest (or: the one with most excessive energy in a given high speed menauever) is the "winner". But as soon as you go slow, things change and wing and power loading (assuming about similar span loading) sets them apart. And the P-47 is just the first victim and there is nothing it can do except going fast again. And there, being heavy is a burden.

good point's Sir!

 

I didn't find the time to read the article till now but saved the link and hopefully tomorrow - I can dive in the matter for these insights are very interesting and I'm hooked on to get better in the Spit.

 

Cheers

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It is quiet clear that in this regard, I would see a baby Spit (Mk.II) dominate a 109E is a slow speed defensive contest (we see them online so often) for the simple reason that the higher AoA of the 109E will act as an airbrake in a way that it cannot follow a Spit. The Spit with 17% lower wing loading will have a shallower AoA and thus considerably less drag. In this sense, in this I see the "Kings of the one circle fight" in this game, the Friedrich and the Emil, very generously represented in this game, as they work very, very well at slow speed and high AoA. But this may be so. The situation I am talking about here is mainly a Spit pulling a tight circle on the deck, until the pilot senses the buffeting and just holds her there even as the speed drops. I would expect the 109E bleed speed significantly faster and fall out of the contest much before nominal turn times make the Spit sit on the tail of the 109.

 

I've always felt that the Spitfire was the western equivalent of the Zero, in the sense that it is essentially impossible to defeat 1v1 without the aid of pilot error.

 

Of course, few engagements in real life are perfectly clean (no bounce, no starting advantage to one pilot over the other, etc) duels.

 

The major caveat is the period when the Fw-190 overwhelmed the Spitfire V; but the IX regained parity well enough.

 

Point being: once you have a plane on your ass that can climb well, turn well, and doesn't stall easily; your defensive options become rather limited. Diving to escape is pretty much it.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

Point being: once you have a plane on your ass that can climb well, turn well, and doesn't stall easily; your defensive options become rather limited. Diving to escape is pretty much it.

If the other plane is lighter and has the same power loading, then even that is a questionable option. But that is why they have wingmen. It essentially negates you following the assailant and are forced to remain defensive.

 

The 190 probably has - maybe same as the Mustang - less energy bleed at higher speed turns than the baby-Spit. Hence, together with a wingman, a zoom climb after the attack run will always result in a net energy advantage for the 190. Having a wingman pretty much negates the Spit the option of taking a snapshot at the 190 when it is passing for the zoom climb.

 

All the Spit can do in this case is fight for a draw. The 190 on the other hand can fight to win. And it seems that was what they did. Fast passes followed by zoom climbs. While in principle, the Spit is still safe in a draw, in practise it is dead (enough). Only the Mk.9 finally allowed a climb out of a defensive situation and fight for a win. The slow speed climb is such that even a fast 190 is hard pressed to keep momentum after an unsuccessful attack run. On the other hand, the Mk.9 finally can play the 190s game and put that one in the position formerly the baby Spit found itself. The extra power was really a game changer here.

 

I find the game here replicates that pretty well.

[RossMarBow]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:25 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

What am I doing wrong?   Compared to my normal late war ride, the P51B, this thing feels like a slug.  It is a light airframe, and had at least 300+ more BHP than the Merlin powered Mustang, but I can't get the thing to get out of it's own way.  I'm normally good with engine management, but I can't make the "fourteen" sing.  I realize the Spitfire is not as aerodynamic as the Mustang, but it feels like trying to push a barn door through the air.  I'm at a dead end with her, any suggestions?

Keep it fast

If you get too slow it dies 
It gains a lot of power with its short timers, but is under powered on its long timers 
The climb and speed is the best, but only during the short timers 

TLDR don't fly it like a spit, treat it like a muscle car

Edited May 26, 2022 by brahguevara

[Avimimus]

Isn't there a saying which goes something like 'Anyone who had more than 3500 hours flying the Bf-109 preferred it to the Fw-190'? Something to meditate upon.

[FeuerFliegen]

Not sure if it's been mentioned before as I didn't read the whole thread, but at slower speeds, you practically need -100% (left) rudder trim.  I think if you don't pay attention to your plane being coordinated with it's rudder, you won't be able to take advantage of it's power.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Just to update this thread:

 

I believe the elevator input lag on the Spjt XIV has been fixed. Stick response now feels instantaneous to me. Can anyone else confirm?

[RossMarBow]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:25 AM, BlitzPig_EL said:

What am I doing wrong?   Compared to my normal late war ride, the P51B, this thing feels like a slug.  It is a light airframe, and had at least 300+ more BHP than the Merlin powered Mustang, but I can't get the thing to get out of it's own way.  I'm normally good with engine management, but I can't make the "fourteen" sing.  I realize the Spitfire is not as aerodynamic as the Mustang, but it feels like trying to push a barn door through the air.  I'm at a dead end with her, any suggestions?

If you are not inside the short 5 min? timer it's just not very good engine performance wise.
Inside its short timer it is a beast though.
You also can't get slow with it like you can the spit9.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

22 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Just to update this thread:

 

I believe the elevator input lag on the Spjt XIV has been fixed. Stick response now feels instantaneous to me. Can anyone else confirm?

 

It's still the same as before. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

 

It's still the same as before. 

Did you re-test? 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

8 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Did you re-test? 

Yes, it's the same as in my previous posts in this thread.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Many times during thigh low speed dogfights I asked myself  how planes without energy are so maneuverable , not lost control.  Then i read paper made by Yak Panther where he proved that the control surfaces are overly effective due to propeller wash. He stated that control surfaces are  3 to 4 times more effective in some flight conditions compared to real data. If that would be fixed,  the difference how we fight  either  in angle or energy aircraft would change significantly and be more realistic. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk