PDA

View Full Version : TEMPEST: Not so bad.



HayateAce
03-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Been flying her a bit lately....and not bad atall. Overlooking the fakish, sensitive twitchy feeling and basketball goal size armor plate, this is the only allied fighter with any armament approaching the blunder-guns of the run-ninetys. Ballistics seem more difficult than the wonder151, but when they connect....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Really fun to get the "how dare you" type comments from 190 players. They've been immune so long, it's quite refreshing.

http://www.aviationart.nl/Hawker_Tempest_mk5.jpg

Plus a little shout-out to the olegster. He did fairly well capturing that odd Tempest howl:

Grrrrr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKq51LdJ-ZU&feature=related)

HayateAce
03-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Been flying her a bit lately....and not bad atall. Overlooking the fakish, sensitive twitchy feeling and basketball goal size armor plate, this is the only allied fighter with any armament approaching the blunder-guns of the run-ninetys. Ballistics seem more difficult than the wonder151, but when they connect....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Really fun to get the "how dare you" type comments from 190 players. They've been immune so long, it's quite refreshing.

http://www.aviationart.nl/Hawker_Tempest_mk5.jpg

Plus a little shout-out to the olegster. He did fairly well capturing that odd Tempest howl:

Grrrrr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKq51LdJ-ZU&feature=related)

gates123
03-27-2008, 03:40 PM
I like'm but they split in half too easily when hit by cannons. Good Dora killers though. Pit details are the best in the game

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-27-2008, 03:47 PM
rear view = teh bad

firepower and speed = teh good

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
03-27-2008, 03:52 PM
Probably had lady luck in my recent sorties. No tail falling off so far, just minor damage. Does seem to take a slug to the engine ok. Flown in pairs, she can take on all comers in a scrap.

What is it with the Brits and aeroplane names. They have it down to an art.

Xiolablu3
03-27-2008, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Probably had lady luck in my recent sorties. No tail falling off so far, just minor damage. Does seem to take a slug to the engine ok. Flown in pairs, she can take on all comers in a scrap.

What is it with the Brits and aeroplane names. They have it down to an art. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They sure do...Fairey Battle, Whitley, Wellington, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I absolutedly agree that the cannons are harder to hit with. I can only suggest that its because there are no machine guns firing at the same time.

I can aim fine with the Spitfire, fw190, Me109 etc, anything with Mgs+cannons is fine, but I have big troulble with cannon only planes like the Tempest and La5.

Kurfurst__
03-27-2008, 04:09 PM
Yeag the Tempest is a lovely plane. Its the Allied fighter that Axis pilots can hop into an enjoy.

R_Target
03-27-2008, 04:10 PM
It's a fine ride, I just never seem to fly it enough. Corsair drivers will feel right at home in a Tempest.

HayateAce
03-27-2008, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I can only suggest that its because there are no machine guns firing at the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now that makes sense. I hadn't thought about that possibility, with my red-tinted spectacles and all. Guess that's why you're the Moberator.

crucislancer
03-27-2008, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
It's a fine ride, I just never seem to fly it enough. Corsair drivers will feel right at home in a Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

I started flying the Tempest after lots of Corsair time, and felt right at home. It's almost like flying the 1C, except for the different stall characteristics.

It's a fantastic plane, really fast, powerful armament, fairly tough provided you don't take a engine hit.

I agree, the cannons are tough to hit with at first. I've been setting the convergence at 200 meters for the Tempest and it seems to work well for me. Jabo work is fun in the Tempest, but sadly the loadout is lacking. I'm not sure if that was historical or not.

Xiolablu3
03-27-2008, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I can only suggest that its because there are no machine guns firing at the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now that makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that in WW2 pilots often kept a couple of mg's for aiming purposes when possible. I am sure I remember reading it. The Hurricane IID 40mm tankbuster comes to mind.

PFS_BlackBird
03-27-2008, 05:05 PM
Tempest gunnery is more difficult because of gun placement.

Xiolablu3
03-27-2008, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFS_BlackBird:
Tempest gunnery is more difficult because of gun placement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can hit fine with the Spitfires wing cannos+mg's.

I still have problems with the La5's nose mounted cannons, which have no mgs to sight with.

thefruitbat
03-27-2008, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFS_BlackBird:
Tempest gunnery is more difficult because of gun placement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can hit fine with the Spitfires wing cannos+mg's.

I still have problems with the La5's nose mounted cannons, which have no mgs to sight with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, i'm the opposite, love nose mounted cannons full stop. one nose monnted mg151 is all you need, more is a bonus.

With the spitfire, I can hit fine mgs, or cannons, but both, no chance.

odd how it works for different people http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

fruitbat

MB_Avro_UK
03-27-2008, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yeag the Tempest is a lovely plane. Its the Allied fighter that Axis pilots can hop into an enjoy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Maybe it's close to the FW 190 in certain ways?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

crucislancer
03-27-2008, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yeag the Tempest is a lovely plane. Its the Allied fighter that Axis pilots can hop into an enjoy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Maybe it's close to the FW 190 in certain ways?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 190 has the advantage in roll rate and armament, but the Tempest is faster, in top speed and acceleration, much better elevator authority as well. I think the Tempest can go a bit higher, but I never seem to take it above 12,000 feet so I don't know.

Xiolablu3
03-27-2008, 05:53 PM
Its interesting that Hawker and Focke Wulf came up with such similar designs for a fighter independantly, as in the Typhoon/Tempest and the Fw190A/D.

Very similar types of planes, heavier than previous fighters, with 4 cannon and higher wingloading than most previous designs.

VW-IceFire
03-27-2008, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PFS_BlackBird:
Tempest gunnery is more difficult because of gun placement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can hit fine with the Spitfires wing cannos+mg's.

I still have problems with the La5's nose mounted cannons, which have no mgs to sight with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have to agree with you...the Tempests greater spread on account of its wing cannons makes it a bit easier for me to hit and the rapid fire power of the Hispano V certainly helps a bit here too.

Glad you've recognized the Tempest Hayate...its a good fighter and well worth some flight time.

HayateAce
03-27-2008, 10:58 PM
I've always enjoyed the looks, but it seems my gunnery, pp and use of boost/rad are finally all coming together.

One note, the Tempest is much more effective on servers with at least external views turned on. Levels the playing field back to where the basketball goal doesn't get you killed.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Mr_Zooly
03-28-2008, 01:15 AM
IRL the Tempest cannons were of a lower muzzle velocity when compared to the Spits, not sure if that is modeled in the game though.

WOLFMondo
03-28-2008, 02:19 AM
Tempest is great. Makes you wonder what a true Sabre IIB powered model would fight like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
IRL the Tempest cannons were of a lower muzzle velocity when compared to the Spits, not sure if that is modeled in the game though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not an easy thing to confirm. The Hispano MKV has a higher RoF and marginally less muzzle velocity but I think someone tested it and there was no difference between them.

DKoor
03-28-2008, 04:25 AM
I'd trade muzzle velocity for more RoF anyday. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Tempest is not "not so bad" but an ultimate fighter in this game in late WF.

M2morris
03-28-2008, 04:45 AM
After seeing this thread I gave the Tempest a try and I think it as a beautiful plane, wow. What a cockpit model, looks great. Had to get used to the counter clockwise prop rotation, all the effects are reversed, took a minute to adjust to that, I mainly fly the Corsair. But, I like at alot. Set up AI aces KI-100 and KI-84 coming after me right after my take-off and I came back alone and greased the landing sa-weet.

WOLFMondo
03-28-2008, 04:52 AM
Its not like the Hispano MKV had a low muzzle velocity. 840m/s compared to 880m/s but the additional rate of fire means a extra round per second is fired, or there abouts. I'd say the main benefit was probably the complete enclosure of the cannon within the wing eliminating drag from the MkII's stubbs.

JG53Frankyboy
03-28-2008, 05:06 AM
the question is actually if MAddox realy made a difference in the Canons of the Temepest and lets say the Spitfre IX....................

having other simplifications in mind Maddox did in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - espacially in gun modelling.

DKoor
03-28-2008, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
having other simplifications in mind Maddox did in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - espacially in gun modelling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

They simplified the guns... previously we had different MG151/20 in nose and different MG151/20 in wing gondolas for years http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

JG53Frankyboy
03-28-2008, 05:15 AM
german MG-FF in japanese Zeros
german MG131 in japanese Zeros and rumanian IAR80s
...............................

Phil_K
03-28-2008, 05:46 AM
I dunno, I find the Tempest dead easy to score hits with. It's probably the plane I'm most accurate in. And one burst is generally all you need.

The rearview isn't too bad with Shift+F1. Better than all the Razorbacks, esp. the MC205. It's landing the bleedin' thing that causes all the problems for me.....

CloCloZ
03-28-2008, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phil_K:
It's landing the bleedin' thing that causes all the problems for me..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've just finished the (wonderful and highly advisable) "Storm Clouds - Part One" offline campaign by IceFire (many thanks to him! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) .
Well, I lost four time more Tempests in crashed landings than by being downed by LW fighters or by the flak!

I hope that going on with "Part Two" could help me in improving my landing skill ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crucislancer
03-28-2008, 11:42 AM
I think I crash 4 out of 10 times on landing, the rest are bouncers, though. I really need to work on that.
The most perfect landing I made in the Tempest was a emergency, which was quite funny. I was playing a Dgen campaign over Normandy (Modified Battle Over Europe one), and I had to attack some vehicles. I made my attack, but took a minor hit to a fuel tank. Didn't really think about it, and continued my attack. I was just about out of ammo when I looked at the fuel gauge. Nearly empty. Fortunately, the closest Allied airbase was close enough to see, so I made a bee-line for it. Came in, made a perfect landing, and ran out of fuel just as my tail touched the tarmac.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Phil_K
03-28-2008, 12:39 PM
I think that with landing the Tempest, you always need to be going faster than you think you ought to be. That stops the bouncing.

Unfortunately, if you don't touch down right at the very start of the runway, you soon run out of tarmac!

crucislancer
03-28-2008, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phil_K:
I think that with landing the Tempest, you always need to be going faster than you think you ought to be. That stops the bouncing.

Unfortunately, if you don't touch down right at the very start of the runway, you soon run out of tarmac! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point on both. I tend to come in on my final at 90-100 knots, I'll play around with landing a little faster.

BTW, does anyone know why the speedometer on the Tempest is in Knots? I thought the RAF used MPH for their aircraft.

waffen-79
03-28-2008, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yeag the Tempest is a lovely plane. Its the Allied fighter that Axis pilots can hop into an enjoy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Maybe it's close to the FW 190 in certain ways?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't agree more

TEMPEST is one of the few allied planes I made a custom skin for...enough said

CloCloZ
03-28-2008, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phil_K:
I think that with landing the Tempest, you always need to be going faster than you think you ought to be. That stops the bouncing.

Unfortunately, if you don't touch down right at the very start of the runway, you soon run out of tarmac! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point on both. I tend to come in on my final at 90-100 knots, I'll play around with landing a little faster.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually land at about 190-200 km/h (118-124 mph).
Official "Pilot's Notes for Tempest V" landing speed instructions says 120 mph IAS at Outer Marker on Q.D.M. and 110-115 IAS mph at Inner Marker on Q.D.M., so I think it should be OK.

A big problem is when I follow an AI in landing: he makes, as usual, a perfect landing touching just at the beginning of the track and I always risk to bump into him (and sometimes it happens)!
Maybe I had to be more patient and wait more time circling around ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyhow, I agree with Phil_K: with the Tempest it's better to make a faster landing and even to risk to run out of tarmac than a slower landing and risking a crash for a stall just a few meters above the track.
Of course, I frequently still forget that when landing ...

WOLFMondo
03-28-2008, 06:58 PM
As the pilots joked, the Spitfires cruising speed was the Tempest landing speed....

Manu-6S
03-29-2008, 02:36 AM
IMO Tempest is a wonderful warbird in RL and ingame: his only problem here is the ugly rear view similar to all the planes contained in that package (patch).

But sure I think Tempest's FM prove that something is wrong in Oleg's engine: if real pilots were ordered to not stall below 3km maybe it was really a dangerous manouvre... in IL2 you see people spinning at 200m and autorecover (B25s too).

That remember you that it's a game; but I remember too that in the first IL2 the things were different... probably because now I'm experienced or maybe because the "game" was more a "sim" at that time...

joeap
03-29-2008, 04:26 AM
Actually I disagree, maybe it's my flying but I have stalled out and crashed at low altitude in the Tempest and I find it is dangerous in that respect.

Anyway I am certain you are more experienced, and I think it always was a game just like most of the others out there. I would love to see the different hazards some planes were known for made more apparent in SOW, and those planes known to be docile and easy also modelled that way.

HayateAce
03-29-2008, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
IMO Tempest is a wonderful warbird in RL and ingame: his only problem here is the ugly rear view similar to all the planes contained in that package (patch).

But sure I think Tempest's FM prove that something is wrong in Oleg's engine: if real pilots were ordered to not stall below 3km maybe it was really a dangerous manouvre... in IL2 you see people spinning at 200m and autorecover (B25s too).

That remember you that it's a game; but I remember too that in the first IL2 the things were different... probably because now I'm experienced or maybe because the "game" was more a "sim" at that time... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Yes, everything from 109s to p51s to B25s are doing the autorecover® dance. As you say, really makes the "sim" feel gamey.

bolox00
03-29-2008, 04:58 AM
wrt asi being in knots, iirc RAF changed to knots ~1946 as standard. can only assume reference aircraft had been updated or restored using a later gauge. many many restored examples use later versions of instruments.
there's a couple of other 'interesting' ingame instruments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Phil_K
03-29-2008, 07:02 AM
The spin in the Tempest is more dangerous than say the F4U, which autorecovers very easily.

But then again, in real life, a plane that doesn't autorecover only 1 in 10 times is still a very dangerous plane. We get loads of opportunities to stall and spin and find the best ways out of it. RL Tempest pilots only got one chance...

VW-IceFire
03-29-2008, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CloCloZ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Phil_K:
It's landing the bleedin' thing that causes all the problems for me..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've just finished the (wonderful and highly advisable) "Storm Clouds - Part One" offline campaign by IceFire (many thanks to him! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) .
Well, I lost four time more Tempests in crashed landings than by being downed by LW fighters or by the flak!

I hope that going on with "Part Two" could help me in improving my landing skill ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Glad you enjoyed it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The landing is a bit tricky as the Tempest seems to want to bounce a bit. It also wants to go faster than you want it to on landing I find...best to fly the length of the airfield, do a break turn, then line up and get the full flaps down once the speed is low enough. Let the plane hover a bit before trying to get close to a three pointer on the ground. You may need to flare just a bit with some extra engine power at the last minute...its kind of a balancing act as you could spin it with too much torque http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
03-29-2008, 08:03 AM
What you have to remember with the Spin height limits IRL is that a pilots life was at stake - therefore the limits are at their most strict, to cater for very new pilots who have to learn howe to get out of a spin for the first time.

It probabaly was possible to recover from a spin with little height lost, if you were a very experienced pilot on the type and had spun before, but there are always times when a pilot may not be able to recover the plane, maybe through inexperience, or through the spin being particularly bad.

We have to remember that if a pilot is 'practising' recovering from a spin, then he needs plenty of height to do it, as his life is at stake. He cannot simply hit 'refly'.

'Spin recover height' will be at the very highest in the manual, so as to cater for new pilots and particularly bad spins which are hard to recover from.

We have all seen new pilots online in a spin and unable to recover through lack of experience.

Bremspropeller
03-29-2008, 08:16 AM
As for alt-loss:

On a glider, one spin-rotation takes you 70-100m of alt.

The F-4 dash one says, if below 10,000ft and in a spin, eject!

CloCloZ
03-29-2008, 10:22 AM
I stalled and entered an unrecoverable spin at the very first sharp turn I tried with IL-2 Tempest! (well, I was used to the much easier CFS3 Tempest ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)
Now, I'm usually able to recover almost any spin (provided that I have at least 700-800 mt of altitude, of course!).

It's not an easy plane to fly and easily spins if you try short radius turns under 300-350 km/h.
Maybe in IL-2 it's easier to control the Tempest spin than in RL, but I'm not so persuaded of that.

I remember that Clostermann wrote that Tempest's spin was "one of the most dangerous things" because the pilot was slammed all around the cockpit during the spin. He seems to suggest that in other planes the action was softer.
So, maybe the danger lied just partially in Tempest's flight characteristics.
Luckily (or not? ...), Oleg hasn't been able to simulate spin-generated physical slamming for armchair pilots like us ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tempest's spin in RL for sure had to be problematic.
"Pilot's Notes for Tempest V" says:
"Spinning is not permitted pending results of spinning trials. Recovery from inadvertent spins to be in accordance with A.P.129 Flying Training Manual, Chapter III, paras. 197 205".

But other nimbler planes had their problems, too.

From "P51B Spin Tests":
"It is recommended that no intentional power-on spin should be attempted with this airplane. If power-on spin is entered from any position, the power should be cut immediately and recover controls applied."
(and this even if the P51B spin characteristics were declared "satisfactory for this type of airplane" in the same document).

From "Pilot's Manual for Supermarine Spitfire IIa and IIb":
"Spins are not to be started below 10,000 feet. Recovery must be started not lower than 5,000 feet."

and from "Spitfire IX, XI & XVI Pilot's Notes":
"Spins are not to be started below 10,000 feet. Recovery must be initiated before two turns are completed."

Bremspropeller
03-29-2008, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Luckily (or not? ...), Oleg hasn't been able to simulate spin-generated physical slamming for armchair pilots like us .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just tighten the straps and you're not gonna be thrown around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Most pilots preferred to fly with untightened shoulder-harnesses, as this would give them a better possibilitiy to trn their bodies and look at their 6.

Manu-6S
03-29-2008, 11:03 AM
IIRC the 109 was a real beast to recover in the first edition of IL2, when La7 could stall too...

The same for the snap roll spin of the 190s and I remember the P39 was really-REALLY dangerous (and still is now if in flat spin).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But then again, in real life, a plane that doesn't autorecover only 1 in 10 times is still a very dangerous plane. We get loads of opportunities to stall and spin and find the best ways out of it. RL Tempest pilots only got one chance... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still have in my eyes one guy in WF who evaded my attacks 5 times spinning (trying to jinking too hard I guess) starting from 1000m to 100m and every time it almost caused an overshoot opportunity... you know, it's really pissing when you are trying to do correct manouvres to keep your energy while he can catch you by shaking his stick.

I tested that you can recover a stalled B25 less than 1000m starting from a low speed stall (after I did a pure vertical zoom from 50m). No wonder there are some people who use A20 like fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have all seen new pilots online in a spin and unable to recover through lack of experience.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For auto-recover I mean when you leave the stick and the plane points the nose down itself or stays in air with 50km/h of speed in case of low speed stalls. But the for auto-recover I mean also when the pilot pulls too much the stick and the plane flips for a too high AOA.

Of course noobs shake their sticks when they enter in a stall... no way to recover.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As for alt-lost:
On a glider, one spin-rotation takes you 70-100m of alt.
The F-4 dash one says, if below 10,000ft and in a spin, eject!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
What is the Wing loading ratio of a glider?

F4, Phantom or our Wildcat?

Bremspropeller
03-29-2008, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is the Wing loading ratio of a glider? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif