PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire: Why so unstable and wobbly?



HayateAce
08-31-2005, 08:01 AM
Oleg and 1C,

Why does one of the finest fighter aircraft in history wobble and behave in a very unstable way? Couple this with the fact that Hispano cannon now has worse ballistic than mg151 and you can see the Spit is less effective than in real life.

Hope you look at this for 4.02. In contrast, me109 is rock stable gunning platform.

http://www.militaryairshows.net/spits/vis2.jpg

Tipo_Man
08-31-2005, 08:11 AM
Here we go again...
How can I argue with so well explained and backed with solid proofs statement, from a so respected memner of the community...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So I'll just remind you that:
More unstable == more maneuvarable.
There is no such thing as a "stable fighter".

Modern fighters (F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-22) are so aerodinamically unstable, that they need electronics and computers to keep them flying.

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 08:52 AM
Loose screw behind joystick resists all attempts at tightening.

Pinker15
08-31-2005, 08:57 AM
Modern fighters (F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-22) are so aerodinamically unstable, that they need electronics and computers to keep them flying.


LOL U have completly lack of knowlage Su 27 is Aerodynamicly stable plane and have no computers or electronics to keep this plane flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Only American planes needs sutch acistance of electronic. Su 27 can even fly afther hydraulic instalation malfunction. Manouverable plane does not allways means unstable. In fact Spitfire was plesant to fly and more stable in shooting than 109.

Tipo_Man
08-31-2005, 09:04 AM
Pinker, please do not comment things you do not understand...

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27.htm
"
The aircraft has a near-zero static stability and thus require a fly-by-wire system. The SDU-10 pitch-only fly-by-wire system controls the pitch of the aircraft to ensure stability and controllability for the pilot, increase aerodynamic performance, limit overload and angle of attack when needed and decrease the airframe aerodynamic load.
"

I think Su-24 was the first soviet plane to introduce the fly-by-wire system back in early 70's

berg417448
08-31-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Modern fighters (F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-22) are so aerodinamically unstable, that they need electronics and computers to keep them flying.


LOL U have completly lack of knowlage Su 27 is Aerodynamicly stable plane and have no computers or electronics to keep this plane flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Only American planes needs sutch acistance of electronic. Su 27 can even fly afther hydraulic instalation malfunction. Manouverable plane does not allways means unstable. In fact Spitfire was plesant to fly and more stable in shooting than 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"The Su-27 airframe was manufactured using an integral configuration with the wing and fuselage forming a single aerodynamically lifted frame. Its longitudinal sections in the form of the wing airfoil ensure high aerodynamic efficiency and high lift coefficient while manoeuvring. To increase the aircraft manoeuvrability, i t is designed statically unstable with artificial stability provided by the remote control system. The fighter is fitted with the analogue quad-redundant fly-by-wire system."

JG53Frankyboy
08-31-2005, 09:06 AM
why a plane with guns and canons out in the wings should be more stable WHILE firing than a plane with all weapons in the central fuselage ?

im just speaking about the time when the weapons are firing...

Pinker15
08-31-2005, 09:08 AM
But Su 27 can fly without computers and F16 can not.

carguy_
08-31-2005, 09:14 AM
I think you might want to apply some filtering.

berg417448
08-31-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
But Su 27 can fly without computers and F16 can not.

Computers are present:

"The Su-27 system designated SDU-27 combines conventional hydro-mechanical controls for the rudders, flaperons, and differential taileron movement with a quadraplex fly-by-wire (FBW) control of taileron movement for control in pitch. The FBW system also provides stability augmentation in roll and yaw. The system uses four computer-controlled channels for control in pitch and three channels for control in roll and yaw. Each computer is fed by a separate data source.

Chuck_Older
08-31-2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Oleg and 1C,

Why does one of the finest fighter aircraft in history wobble and behave in a very unstable way? Couple this with the fact that Hispano cannon now has worse ballistic than mg151 and you can see the Spit is less effective than in real life.

Hope you look at this for 4.02. In contrast, me109 is rock stable gunning platform.



Firstly:
Which Spitfire are you referring to?

Secondly, why is the fact that the 109 is stable an argument that the Spitfire should also be stable?

Thirdly, as has been pointed out, fighters are not the most stable things in the air. Any high-response/high-gain machine such as a Spitfire can be expected to have a degree of instability

Fourth, compare two contemporaries in this case: the Spitfire and Hurricane. Of the two, the Hurri was called the "stable gun platform", not the Spit

Now, if you could describe what exactly is so 'wobbly' and unstable, maybe we could begin to figure out the problem and help you fix it, because the Spit isn't wobbly when I tool around in it. You could just need some filtering on your joystick

MEGILE
08-31-2005, 09:55 AM
The F-15 also does not have a digital Fly-by-wire system, like is present in the F-16. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

diomedes33
08-31-2005, 10:01 AM
When an F-16 looses its computers the link between the pilot and airplane is broken. Its not that the plane is so unstable that it can't be flown without the assist, you simply can't move the control surfaces without electrical power. So if all four redundant computers are damaged or an engine goes out you're left with little options.

Look at the F-22, B-2 and F-117 for planes that go ape when they loose stability control systems.

btw I think ALL planes in this game are flaky in yaw. It feels like someone anchored the tail to a bungie cord.

BBB_Hyperion
08-31-2005, 10:20 AM
I heard a spitfire replica crashed a while ago cause it was unstable above trees with sidewind .

BlackStar2000
08-31-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
The F-15 also does not have a digital Fly-by-wire system, like is present in the F-16. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

aand the F18 have it?

FatBoyHK
08-31-2005, 10:38 AM
one thing for sure, modern fighter are all designed to be VERY unstable. The more unstable it is, the more maneuvarable it is. Flight computer on, for exampe a F-16, make 100+ adjustment to the control surface every second. Without this kind of control, F-16 is simplily unflyable.... Same to a SU-27

However, what is the purpose of comparing modern fighter technology with the WWII one? They are not even apple and orange, they are totally two different things, simply not comparable.

Also, stable is a relative term.

Oleg agreed that some planes have to much touque effect while some planes have too little, they will be corrected. I am not sure what plane he is talking about, but I am quite sure that 190 and 190 should have their touque effect bumped up, and most of the Allied plane toned down. It is quite funny to see signifiant touque yaw on a P-47, while it is barely noticable on a BF109...

Hoarmurath
08-31-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
I think you might want to apply some filtering.

This is the rsponsability of the moderators... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HayateAce
08-31-2005, 02:16 PM
Thank you Clash man.

X45 Saitek, used for years in IL2 but after 4.01 Spitfire, seems every MK is wobbly. Maybe it is better described such as poor pitch control where the nose bobbles about like the aircraft has no mass. Much like the problems now with many allied ac such as P47, P51, F4U and so on.

I bring up me109 because since days of Battle of Britain these two fighters are known to be in close competition for TnB European supremacy.


http://photos1.blogger.com/img/99/1439/1024/clash.2.jpg

MEGILE
08-31-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by BlackStar2000:


aand the F18 have it?

Yes I believe the F-18 does have full authority digital FBW

JG7_Rall
08-31-2005, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
one thing for sure, modern fighter are all designed to be VERY unstable. The more unstable it is, the more maneuvarable it is. Flight computer on, for exampe a F-16, make 100+ adjustment to the control surface every second. Without this kind of control, F-16 is simplily unflyable.... Same to a SU-27

However, what is the purpose of comparing modern fighter technology with the WWII one? They are not even apple and orange, they are totally two different things, simply not comparable.

Also, stable is a relative term.

Oleg agreed that some planes have to much touque effect while some planes have too little, they will be corrected. I am not sure what plane he is talking about, but I am quite sure that 190 and 190 should have their touque effect bumped up, and most of the Allied plane toned down. It is quite funny to see signifiant touque yaw on a P-47, while it is barely noticable on a BF109...


All fighters need their torque brought up...its just that the German ones need theirs brough up more than the allied ones. Torque, although it is finally now existant, is still a joke in this game.

Da_Godfatha
08-31-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Here we go again...
How can I argue with so well explained and backed with solid proofs statement, from a so respected memner of the community...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So I'll just remind you that:
More unstable == more maneuvarable.
There is no such thing as a "stable fighter".

Modern fighters (F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-22) are so aerodinamically unstable, that they need electronics and computers to keep them flying.

Proof? I remember when there was pages and pages of "Proof" about the .50 cals and nothing happened. Proof means nothing here Bubba. 1C and OM says it should be that way, then it makes no differance what proof is given. Look at the Laser beam 30mm. Wrong, wrong and double wrong. The "proof" is that the 30mm was a slow firing weapon used against bombers, NOT fighters. Most LW aces did NOT use them when they knew that they mighttangle with fighters, i.e. the eastern front. All you need to do is "Google-it" and you will find pages and pages of proof.

This "Proof" crutch is getting a little tiresome there M8.

Just my 2 cents.

JG54_Arnie
08-31-2005, 02:48 PM
Flew the V version yesterday. It was very stable actually. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
08-31-2005, 03:25 PM
stability is mainly from side area, thats why planes get bigger and bigger rudders, finlets etc.

the hurri and spit are different to control. in hurri u push the stick about, its all about deflecting (moving) the stick, a spitfire on the other hand is all about pressure, u hardly move the controls. as the french commentator said at duxford, u simply dream a manover and its done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i cant see a reason why the 109 is SO stable vs its contempories.

perhaps oleg mistakenly took in the size of the pilots head for side area, and for some 109 drivers, thats a **** big head http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

no one has mentioned teh 109 being better at everything yet, so i feel its my duty to say it.

teh 109 was better than the spit in stability, be sure.
and turn, handling,looks etc
infact, teh 109 outclassed every ww2 plane, at everything http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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

ploughman
08-31-2005, 03:33 PM
Isn't Oleg toning down the Spit's 'shake' when firing in the 4.02 patch? Or maybe I was trolled when I read that. Otherwise, the VIII and IX's are nice and stable but I find the V a bit more inclined to go into a spin now than 3.4 which doesn't mean it shouldn't be that way of course.

Chuck_Older
08-31-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Thank you Clash man.

X45 Saitek, used for years in IL2 but after 4.01 Spitfire, seems every MK is wobbly. Maybe it is better described such as poor pitch control where the nose bobbles about like the aircraft has no mass. Much like the problems now with many allied ac such as P47, P51, F4U and so on.

I bring up me109 because since days of Battle of Britain these two fighters are known to be in close competition for TnB European supremacy.




I suspected it was pitch related

I agree with Carguy- sounds like you might want to try some filtering

In every version up to 4.01, I never had to look at the joystick inputs in-game. When 4.01 came out, I had such a problem taking off it was incredible: the nose bobbed up and down so much, the plane was impossible to control

Pitch axis filtering solved the issue

p1ngu666
08-31-2005, 03:58 PM
try a 109 g6, then a spit. g6 has no handling problems at all tbh

JG53Frankyboy
08-31-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Here we go again...
How can I argue with so well explained and backed with solid proofs statement, from a so respected memner of the community...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So I'll just remind you that:
More unstable == more maneuvarable.
There is no such thing as a "stable fighter".

Modern fighters (F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-22) are so aerodinamically unstable, that they need electronics and computers to keep them flying.

Proof? I remember when there was pages and pages of "Proof" about the .50 cals and nothing happened. Proof means nothing here Bubba. 1C and OM says it should be that way, then it makes no differance what proof is given. Look at the Laser beam 30mm. Wrong, wrong and double wrong. The "proof" is that the 30mm was a slow firing weapon used against bombers, NOT fighters. Most LW aces did NOT use them when they knew that they mighttangle with fighters, i.e. the eastern front. All you need to do is "Google-it" and you will find pages and pages of proof.

This "Proof" crutch is getting a little tiresome there M8.

Just my 2 cents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, pls, convince maddox to give the G14 and G10 a MG151/20 as default weapon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
08-31-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Here we go again...
How can I argue with so well explained and backed with solid proofs statement, from a so respected memner of the community...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So I'll just remind you that:
More unstable == more maneuvarable.
There is no such thing as a "stable fighter".

Modern fighters (F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-22) are so aerodinamically unstable, that they need electronics and computers to keep them flying.

Proof? I remember when there was pages and pages of "Proof" about the .50 cals and nothing happened. Proof means nothing here Bubba. 1C and OM says it should be that way, then it makes no differance what proof is given. Look at the Laser beam 30mm. Wrong, wrong and double wrong. The "proof" is that the 30mm was a slow firing weapon used against bombers, NOT fighters. Most LW aces did NOT use them when they knew that they mighttangle with fighters, i.e. the eastern front. All you need to do is "Google-it" and you will find pages and pages of proof.

This "Proof" crutch is getting a little tiresome there M8.

Just my 2 cents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...I can claim anything I like because there happen to be inaccuracies in this sim? C'mon now. You're debunking proof as a concept? Sorry, I can't quite swallow that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Sun_Ra
08-31-2005, 04:41 PM
YayateAce, I have to ask you where you got that Clash poster? I ask cause I'm from Seattle and remember the noisy local band the Fartz that are on the bill. Wasn't at that show, should have gone. I guess I'm showing my advanced age.

Of course you have rudder and elevator trim on a rotary knob.

Luftwaffe_109
08-31-2005, 04:53 PM
This "Proof" crutch is getting a little tiresome there M8.

Just my 2 cents.

Presumably making unfounded and biased statements is a much better way of debating than asking for solid arguments and evidence.

Who needs proof when we have dogmatic belief!

vanjast
08-31-2005, 04:59 PM
The Me109 and FW190 are one of the most stable/predictable a/c to fly..period! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

StellarRat
08-31-2005, 06:54 PM
Only one comment here: If you are having problems hitting things because of yaw or shake you're shooting from too far away, be sure. Anyone that has flown a small plane will tell you that nose drifts around. Whether it's too much in IL2 is hard to say.

VW-IceFire
08-31-2005, 06:56 PM
1) Check your joystick settings.

2) Not worth posting details on how its not wobbly and that you need to work on pilot skill when it won't be read by the original poster.

p1ngu666
08-31-2005, 07:16 PM
ice, try a g6, really easy. *REALLY*

try IX/p51 after...

Grey_Mouser67
08-31-2005, 07:34 PM
Ice knows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Everyone knows http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

The only question is will Oleg do something about it.

I just got done flying the Mustang online...at speed, I am continually amazed at just how UFO like the pitch is...and I don't want to hear about joystick settings unless oleg allows us plane specific settings and they actually work.

Mustang is worst in pitch, followed by Lightning, Jug and Spit in that order with no control dampening. I haven't even included the Corsair and Hellcat and they fit in there too.

Yaw is bad in all the above with gun firing yaw being worst in Spit and then maybe Jug, and other six gun US planes.

Please fix...I'd like to be able to track and kill a target in a Mustang as easily as I can do it in a Fw or Bf-109...in terms of stability and control dampening...and I'd rather see the above planes stabelized as opposed to destabilizing the Luftwaffe planes....but some like harder FM's so not all would agree.

No need for the continual disparity in these subjective characteristics.

fordfan25
08-31-2005, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by diomedes33:
When an F-16 looses its computers the link between the pilot and airplane is broken. Its not that the plane is so unstable that it can't be flown without the assist, you simply can't move the control surfaces without electrical power. So if all four redundant computers are damaged or an engine goes out you're left with little options.

Look at the F-22, B-2 and F-117 for planes that go ape when they loose stability control systems.

btw I think ALL planes in this game are flaky in yaw. It feels like someone anchored the tail to a bungie cord.

agreed. feels like the plane is fighting me every step of the way. some of the changes in the FM in 4.01 i liked others like the wobbly effect i dont care for.

FlatSpinMan
08-31-2005, 08:15 PM
I don't fly the spit often but last night I tried it out and have to agree that it was very wobbly - I had to keep a really steady pressure on the stick to avoid slipping down to one side and firing caused really large shudders. Don't know if that is real or not but it makes it hard to fly compared to say the P-40s and 109s which i find to be quite stable in the air.

Seawolfrpf
08-31-2005, 08:41 PM
yes the spitfire stalls out too easy in the game. The 109 out turn it which is garbage. the plane is suppose to be the most manuvable plane in the war.

p1ngu666
08-31-2005, 08:46 PM
it effects other planes, including the zero...

but planes like 109, u just get in and fly, its that simple, with others your fighting it atleast some of the time

i dont wanna adust my stick to one plane, as i fly everything..

Badsight.
08-31-2005, 11:10 PM
lets not exaggerate problems bigger than what they really are

Spitfires were much more user freindly in the previous patch , as well as E retention , they lost some of that stability they had when throwing them around in a DF

now they feel more "ready-to-stall" & you have to control them with greater care when riding the envelope in v4.01 , as compared to the previous patch v3.04

if you think thats ok so be it , but please dont try & deny it

RE : the Mk-108 is a lazer beam .

no

RE : the Bf-109 will out-turn Spitfires

no

not in sustained turns especially , but the 109 is more stable from manouver into manouver than Spitfires are in v4.01

HayateAce
08-31-2005, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:


No need for the continual disparity in these subjective characteristics.

This speaks right to the heart of the issue(s).

As PingU says, fly P51, SpitIX then tryout the 109s....

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

FatBoyHK
09-01-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
All fighters need their torque brought up...its just that the German ones need theirs brough up more than the allied ones. Torque, although it is finally now existant, is still a joke in this game.

Well, as I said that the feeling of torque effect is RELATIVE, I actually agree with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gkll
09-01-2005, 12:19 AM
My son and I do some 1v1 on a LAN. Been off flying for summer, but recently we got on for an hour or two... and tried out a G2 and G6/AS against a clipped spit VIII, just to see what all the fuss is about....

Spit owns 109s TnB. Main problem with Spit after Co-E merge is what to do with all the extra E... don't black out chasing the poor slob in the 109..... so it seems like the old days pretty much.

We're pretty low-hour compared to many or most who frequent these boards, however we are pretty fair 1v1, not just a mindless lufbery although we both favor a pretty close style. Anyways after 10 goes at it you get a feel for the relative TnB balance between the two and it honestly doesn't seem a lot different... and I am a spit whiner of the first order. My 2c

Maybe the problem is coming to grips with new FM mods?

RedDeth
09-01-2005, 12:27 AM
number one. badsight...the spitfires are now completely unstable. just flying and tring to do a basic turn at 350kph they want to spin out of control. they were a dream to fly compared to most fighters. there is a problem.

rall...your quote..."All fighters need their torque brought up...its just that the German ones need theirs brough up more than the allied ones. Torque, although it is finally now existant, is still a joke in this game."


rall no insult intended as i know you have not done this but. if you were ever flying in any ww2 era prop plane you would realize you are wrong. the T6 Texan is an easy dream to fly. and its harder to fly than a P51 Mustang.

so your statement is completely and toootally wrong.

all planes do NOT need more torque effect. ive read all the stories in books about torque on fighters...and ive also been in and flown T6 TEXANS myself. which are more difficult to fly than mustangs.

trust me i did loops barrel rolls u name it.... ZERO TORQUE effect. true only 600 horsepower but when i say zero torque i mean none at all. it was easier to do acrobatics in than driving my ZX10R down the freeway.

ploughman
09-01-2005, 01:24 AM
"I had to keep a really steady pressure on the stick to avoid slipping down to one side"

I had that problem for two years, with my Spit wanting to go into a shallow counter-clockwise corkscrew dive...then I recalibrated my joystick and that solved that.

diomedes33
09-01-2005, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
...and its harder to fly than a P51 Mustang.


Out of curiousity, how is it harder to fly?

I'm having problems swallowing that statement. Since a trainer is the intermediate step between general aviation and high performance fighter aircraft, shouldn't it be more forgiving. If the T6 is truely more difficult, then why waste the pilots lives and money? Instead conduct the training in the 51s. On the other hand, logic has never been the government's strong suite.

GazzaMataz
09-01-2005, 02:58 AM
Well if the Spit can be tempoarily fixed by filtering the joystick settings, can anyone of you learned people give me an idea of what I should set it too?

I normally only fly using the default, I have never messed with the settings.

WTE_Ibis
09-01-2005, 03:06 AM
The Spit leaps to the left when the guns are fired. Why?? is all I want to know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Abbuzze
09-01-2005, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
number one. badsight...the spitfires are now completely unstable. just flying and tring to do a basic turn at 350kph they want to spin out of control. they were a dream to fly compared to most fighters. there is a problem.


That´s the result of the extraordanary light and effective spitfire elevator! You call this unstability? Spits were known for this very good and effective elevator.
Of course a 109 can´t behave in this way, the steering was much more heavy.
I would say this kind of unstability is similar to the "overmodelled" blackout in P51 at highspeed. Physics is not different to the usual live- you get nothing for free. Easy responsive elevators. But if you pull to much...

If you focused on flying Spitfire changing the Sticksettings will help.
I flew with my new X52 with 100-100-100... It was amazing how fast and direct the 109 steering reacted. But the 109 was nervous and close to beeing unflyable - no to speak about other planes like the spit or FW!!!

So tuning down the joystick input to a lower value will cure the Spits from this problem. And with such a setting the 109 will be clumsy and heavy.
THIS is the major Problem. Many people complain about the FM, but they have an unrealistic high joystick input.

WOLFMondo
09-01-2005, 04:01 AM
I agree there, stick settings make the biggest difference. Personally I have to really tone down my stick settings to fly the Spitfires to acheive any degree of accuracy with the guns or keep a formation going.

I've never read about the Spitfires elevator being overly sensitive, it just had allot of authority. Probably helped by the wings generating allot of lift.


Originally posted by diomedes33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
...and its harder to fly than a P51 Mustang.


Out of curiousity, how is it harder to fly?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd agree. The P51 can be fully trimmed off, the Spitfire cannot. Also the Spitfire to be flown well you have to be more tactically sound because you cannot outrun anything and you cannot outclimb the late 109's and you have very limited ammunition.

With the Mustang you can outroll 109's, out run 109's and give all but the Doras a run for there money. Even with a Dora it takes an age to catch a P51 on an even energy start.

The Spitfires one winning point which is very hard to exploit is its ceiling and high altitude performance which beats even the Ta152 in regards to height that can be achieved and the manovuers you can pull off.

Cajun76
09-01-2005, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Seawolfrpf:
yes the spitfire stalls out too easy in the game. The 109 out turn it which is garbage. the plane is suppose to be the most manuvable plane in the war.

During the BoB, the 109 and Spit were nearly even in tight turning, but it took more experience and work to get the 109 there. Most times it seemed to come down to intial angle, energy and experiance as to who came out on top.

As for "most manuvable plane in the war", you're joking right? Not mentioning some of the Soviet stuff which it didn't fight, the Spit faced Zero's and Ki-43's, both of which were more manuverable. Fw's "outmanuvered" Spit's by using thier tremendous roll advantage.

As a matter of fact, I actually used roll advantge in a fight the other day, the first time I had really tried to expliot a roll weakness to almost the exclusion of all else.

I was in my trusty P-47D-27 and had a Ta-152 go after me. I kept forcing him to roll to keep the angle on me, and he kept falling behind and realy struggling to keep up. I almost got into some really nice firing angles during my little expirement, but his climb power kept bailing him out of trouble as well as my own skillz(Tm) not being what they used to be, as I can't fly as much as I used to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Abbuzze
09-01-2005, 05:47 AM
Before someone missunderstand me, I don´t want to say that the Spit was a bad plane. And of course the elevator was not oversensitive like I16.
It was simply good and easy.

I found a testreport at my HD so some quotes from this Spitfire V test (Langley field 1941/42):

A bit about the flight characteristic:


The Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partly stalled condition in accellerated flight without becoming laterally unstable. Violent buffeting occured, but the controll stick could be pulled relatively far back after the initial stall flow breakdown without causing loss of control. With the gun ports open, lateral instability in the form of a right roll occured, but not until an up-elevator deflection of 10? had been reached and unmistakable warning in the form of fuffeting had occurred.

---
[...], less than 5? movement of the elevator was used in reaching maximum lift coefficient in pull-ups from level flight.
---
The small elevator travel required to reach maximum lift coefficient was evident in turns as well as in pull-ups. [...] Only 3? up-elevator movement was required to go from level flight at a lift coefficient of about 0.3 to the first sign of the stall. This movement corresponds to ta stickdeflection of 3/4 inch. This degree of stability is far lower than the 4 inches of rearward stick movement required in the reference 1.
---
In turns at speeds high enought o prevent reaching maximum lift coefficent because of the excessive accelerations involved, the small static longitudinal stability of the spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal acceleration to small movements of the stick. [...]it was necessary for the pilot to pull back the stick and then ease it foreward almost to its original position in order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired normal acceleration.
---
The variation of schick force with normal acceleration in turns is plotted in figure 21(b). The stick-force gradient of 5.0 pounds per g was considered a little to light by most pilots.



Hope this is interesting.
WW2 fighters were much more difficult to fly than many people believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 06:03 AM
german planes are pre-trimmed on the ground by spec. tabs. So, torque effect is smaller "by default". Spit must be trimmed manually in cockpit - it is our job. Important factor, isnt it?

Abbuzze
09-01-2005, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Mysha76:
german planes are pre-trimmed on the ground by spec. tabs. So, torque effect is smaller "by default". Spit must be trimmed manually in cockpit - it is our job. Important factor, isnt it?

Wow, never thought about this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Maybe you found the cause for the less torque effect of the 109, it was pretrimmed!
This could be the explanation!!

Someone who fly the spit usually should trim the spit for cruising flight like 109´s are. If this would reduce the torque effects, (like I assume) the bug of too less torque in the 109 is no bug http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RESPECT - Mysha!

Badsight.
09-01-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
During the BoB, the 109 and Spit were nearly even in tight turning, but it took more experience and work to get the 109 there sorry but thats just not true

the Emil especially was no-where near the agility of the Mk1 & 2 Spitfires , it was that model 109 that had true elevator stifness & the slats did not work on Emils the way they did on later Bf-109s , they were knowen to have an uneven snatch giving the exact opposite effect you want Slats to be giving - helping with inducing stalls

the RAF test of the E3 gives it a 24 second turn

the Hurricane with a worse powerloading than the Spitfire was said to have the Emils six after just 2 turns for a level start

the turn advantage over Emils was so great they didnt bother to test turn times after the early marks , go look - finding RAF turn time testing for the Mk5 onwards is next to impossible to find

GBrutus
09-01-2005, 07:19 AM
Someone who fly the spit usually should trim the spit for cruising flight like 109´s are. If this would reduce the torque effects, (like I assume) the bug of too less torque in the 109 is no bug

Yeah, trimming for cruise is definately a factor. I wish I had my trim inputs on a slider as this would greatly simplify things. Also, I would imagine that trimming the aircraft would have been much more intuitive in real life.

Cajun76
09-01-2005, 07:20 AM
Torque has little to do with trim if your at low speed, or going faster than your trim is set. My T-bolt has problems going straight when I go from cruising to attack dive while the cruise trim is still applied. Trim only resists the rolling effect when the plane is moving with enough speed that it becomes effective to counter the torque.


http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_3.asp

Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow.

Torque was the reason most planes turned better in one direction then the other. They were more likely roll into a spin in one direction, while pulling hard in the other direction could produce vicsious snaps, all depending on propeller spin direction. A/c with higher P/W usually had more problems with this than heavier a/c. Most a/c with preset or fixed trim had a particular speed they favoured, usually set for cruising. Even the I-16 had this feature.

Cajun76
09-01-2005, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
During the BoB, the 109 and Spit were nearly even in tight turning, but it took more experience and work to get the 109 there sorry but thats just not true

the Emil especially was no-where near the agility of the Mk1 & 2 Spitfires , it was that model 109 that had true elevator stifness & the slats did not work on Emils the way they did on later Bf-109s , they were knowen to have an uneven snatch giving the exact opposite effect you want Slats to be giving - helping with inducing stalls

the RAF test of the E3 gives it a 24 second turn

the Hurricane with a worse powerloading than the Spitfire was said to have the Emils six after just 2 turns for a level start

the turn advantage over Emils was so great they didnt bother to test turn times after the early marks , go look - finding RAF turn time testing for the Mk5 onwards is next to impossible to find </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, I've read plenty of accounts and analysis that said they were pretty close, but perhaps I'm thinking of the post BoB matchup, about 6 months later or so....

I believe I read about that test, but the slats made the Brit test pilots nervous, and they didn't pull past them popping open, even when they operated as they were supposed to.


helping with inducing stalls

I think you meant "reducing stalls" as in lowering stall speed at high AoA.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Perhaps Kurfurst's relentless rhetoric in the face of all logic has tainted me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

TooMuchCheese
09-01-2005, 07:53 AM
Never in the field of virtual conflict, has so much SHEEITE been spouted by so many 'experts'.

When you guys have actually flown a REAL WWII Spit and a REAL WWII 109, maybe you can be taken with a pinch of salt.Otherwise EVERYTHING you say with so much authority is pure speculation and BS.
As for HayateAce (lol), you all should know better than to feed that troll, bearing in mind his rabid dislike of ANY Axis aircraft that can whup his butt.

The FMs in this GAME are the FMs deal with it.

jimDG
09-01-2005, 07:54 AM
The reason why the BF-109 (F and G) appear to have less torque is that one of the wings is 20cm longer than the other, to counter balance the torque.
With an opposite turning engine (like the merlin on the BF109 H - the post-war spanish version) torque was viscious (now the wing extension added to it, rather than counteract it)

Abbuzze
09-01-2005, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
Torque has little to do with trim if your at low speed, or going faster than your trim is set. My T-bolt has problems going straight when I go from cruising to attack dive while the cruise trim is still applied. Trim only resists the rolling effect when the plane is moving with enough speed that it becomes effective to counter the torque.


http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/p-38_lightning/p-38_lightning_3.asp
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Without much thought, I was entering his preferred combat maneuver; power up, I pictured a 109 on my tail and began an increasingly steep right-hand climbing turn. In turning and twisting with 109s and 190s, Dad never got a bullet hole in Tangerine, his P-38F. As the speed dropped below 150mph, I flipped the flap handle to the maneuver stop (which can be used up to 250mph) and steepened the turn. At this point, the 109 pilot, at full power with the right rudder all the way down, would have snap-rolled into a vicious stall if he had chosen to follow.

Torque was the reason most planes turned better in one direction then the other. They were more likely roll into a spin in one direction, while pulling hard in the other direction could produce vicsious snaps, all depending on propeller spin direction. A/c with higher P/W usually had more problems with this than heavier a/c. Most a/c with preset or fixed trim had a particular speed they favoured, usually set for cruising. Even the I-16 had this feature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But even if you fly with the "wrong" speed a trim has influence to the torque effects. If a plane is set to 350km/h to flying straight. This setting will also have influence at 250 or 450km/h. An untrimmed plane will simpy react stronger.

For your T-Bolt, of course it will not fly streight if you go into a dive, but there should be a difference if you go into dive untrimmed or trimmed for cruising speed.

For the quote. I allways like it if the pilot knows what the other has to do all the time in his plane. Some pilots are a kind of fortuneteller http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The 109 in a high speed dive don´t need more pressure on the rudder than any other plane that dive with cruising speed trim...

JG53Frankyboy
09-01-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by jimDG:
The reason why the BF-109 (F and G) appear to have less torque is that one of the wings is 20cm longer than the other, to counter balance the torque.
With an opposite turning engine (like the merlin on the BF109 H - the post-war spanish version) torque was viscious (now the wing extension added to it, rather than counteract it)

i heard about that feature in the italian Macchi fighters, but never in the 109...

BlackStar2000
09-01-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlackStar2000:


aand the F18 have it?

Yes I believe the F-18 does have full authority digital FBW </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im amezed with the amount of weapçons thta can used in that plane, do you know the janes f18?

Da_Godfatha
09-01-2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
This "Proof" crutch is getting a little tiresome there M8.

Just my 2 cents.

Presumably making unfounded and biased statements is a much better way of debating than asking for solid arguments and evidence.

Who needs proof when we have dogmatic belief! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hit right on the spot dude!!! There is a lot of "dogmatic" beliefs going around these boards!!!!(Funny most of them are Luftwaffe based!)

Answer to Chuck_Older, read what I said please. It makes NO differance what proof is given, if certain people want to ignore it, then the proof is mute. Not all proof cited finds its way into the game, i.e. missing load outs or even false load outs. It is the standard answer to scream "Give me PROOF n00b or STFU!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif"

I do believe that some of our honored members here would not know proof if it came up and bit them in the butt. No, I do not know what info the Dev team has or uses, but with todays modern internet, you can find almost anything you need.

So, enough of this. Please lock and lets start the whining about the next patch ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Jetbuff
09-01-2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I've never read about the Spitfires elevator being overly sensitive, it just had allot of authority. Probably helped by the wings generating allot of lift.
Just a quick note: as far as the sim is concerned, authority = sensitivity. How you ask? Well we all use joysticks with similar throw. If the authority is increased (more degrees of deflection) naturally sensitivity will increase because the joystick remains the same.

p1ngu666
09-01-2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I've never read about the Spitfires elevator being overly sensitive, it just had allot of authority. Probably helped by the wings generating allot of lift.
Just a quick note: as far as the sim is concerned, authority = sensitivity. How you ask? Well we all use joysticks with similar throw. If the authority is increased (more degrees of deflection) naturally sensitivity will increase because the joystick remains the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed

btw the spitfires where tested after being bulit, and its then that they set the fixed aliron trim, rudder trim could be used to fly straight and true over a good speed range once this was set.

and yes the spit should be more sensative, flew a mark8 yesterday, seems twitchy to me... including roll especialy.

fly the 109g6 and its very very easy, very little to correct, u just fly, like its on rails

far as i know wing size was the same (equal)
the yaks had slightly different sized wings tho

stathem
09-01-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
The Spit leaps to the left when the guns are fired. Why?? is all I want to know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Park a Spit on the ground. Fire all the guns. After 2-3 rounds you'll find the hispanos are firing at slightly different times. Sometimes, in the air, you can get the rounds going either side of the target.

I was going to complain bout this when 4.01 came out, but you know, I couldn't be bothered. Complaning in here about aspects of the Spitfire is like Celtic fan sitting in the Rangers end at a Glasgow derby and cheering when Celtic score.

I reverted briefly to 3.04 and I think it happened there too, but obv. without the inertia effects the yaw wasn't as bad.

Don't pull me up on this, I still can't be bothered to make more of an issue of it. S*** happens.

WOLFMondo
09-01-2005, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I've never read about the Spitfires elevator being overly sensitive, it just had allot of authority. Probably helped by the wings generating allot of lift.
Just a quick note: as far as the sim is concerned, authority = sensitivity. How you ask? Well we all use joysticks with similar throw. If the authority is increased (more degrees of deflection) naturally sensitivity will increase because the joystick remains the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i totally agree which is why i think theres allot of arguments about why planes don't react quite like people expect. to roll a p47 you need 30lbs stick force, for me to roll my virtual 47 i need about 3 ounces of stick force.

WholeHawg
09-01-2005, 02:03 PM
Have I mentioned that I am an advocate for cheese? Not only that, I really like it!!! Where would we be without it? Its not wobbly, and its a great gun platform, well maybe not the Swiss variety, all the holes you know. Plus the Swiss tend to be pacifists. I can imagine a Hispano or Browning mounted on a flying hunk of Swiss.

TooMuchCheese
09-01-2005, 02:22 PM
I might be able to help you there..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Certainly makes a better gun platform than SOME(not all), of the boolsheeite posted here by self proclaimed 'experts' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Chuck_Older
09-01-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:

Answer to Chuck_Older, read what I said please. It makes NO differance what proof is given, if certain people want to ignore it, then the proof is mute. Not all proof cited finds its way into the game, i.e. missing load outs or even false load outs. It is the standard answer to scream "Give me PROOF n00b or STFU!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif"

I do believe that some of our honored members here would not know proof if it came up and bit them in the butt. No, I do not know what info the Dev team has or uses, but with todays modern internet, you can find almost anything you need.



Okey dokey. You asked, so now I've read it twice. here is what you posted:

"Proof? I remember when there was pages and pages of "Proof" about the .50 cals and nothing happened. Proof means nothing here Bubba. 1C and OM says it should be that way, then it makes no differance what proof is given. Look at the Laser beam 30mm. Wrong, wrong and double wrong. The "proof" is that the 30mm was a slow firing weapon used against bombers, NOT fighters. Most LW aces did NOT use them when they knew that they mighttangle with fighters, i.e. the eastern front. All you need to do is "Google-it" and you will find pages and pages of proof.

This "Proof" crutch is getting a little tiresome there M8.

Just my 2 cents."

You say that you were commenting on 'certain people' who ignore proof. Not according to what you posted. You said that, quote, "Proof? I remember when there was pages and pages of "Proof" about the .50 cals and nothing happened. Proof means nothing here Bubba. 1C and OM says it should be that way, then it makes no differance what proof is given."

That's not a comment about 'certain people' here, it's a jab at the game developer. Your post is a case of you having a bone to pick with the game development team, it's not about anyone here

You also say quote, "All you need to do is "Google-it" and you will find pages and pages of proof." Which is true on the surface, but the internet doesn't compare to reference books authored by folks who do their own research, and have a thing called a bibliography. The 'modern internet' is not by necessity a good reference source. In fact, I doubt a lot of the info I find online, when I do a Google search. That's why I own reference books. The internet is FULL of half-truths and guesses

You say that I should read what you posted? Maybe you should too! You might not have meant to post what you did, you might have wanted to say something else. But you posted what I have quoted above. So please, enough with the backpeddling. I know BS when I read it. I'm not the most popular guy here, and it bothers me not a bit; at least you get honesty from me! You're handing me a line, and I ain't buying. I am quite clear on what you posted, although it seems you are not

Luftwaffe_109
09-01-2005, 04:57 PM
You hit right on the spot dude!!! There is a lot of "dogmatic" beliefs going around these boards!!!!(Funny most of them are Luftwaffe based!)
Is that right? Well I'm afriad I can't agree. I see a lot of idiotic views with a deficiency of anything resembling evidence being offered on all sides. It makes absolutely no difference whether the people are complaining about axis or allied aircraft.


"Logic" of a whiner:
-My favourite plane should beat everything easily.
-It doesn't beat everything easily.
-Therefore it must be improved.
Q.E.D.

Badsight.
09-01-2005, 11:30 PM
the Spitfire absolutly had an overly effective elevator , the testing at Tsagi showed the Spitfires elevator was capable of making more G than the Airframe was capable of handeling

the Emils slats were not like the F & G model slats , on Emils the slats were knowen to work un-evenly when extending as well as snaping out suddenly without warning . these things make for a helping factor in inducing stalls when they happen

the exact opposite of what you want slats to be helping with which is to help maintain airflow over the wings surface

& yes that RAF test of that E3 was a turn time pulling the plane hard in a turn , untill the slats started to move

Originally posted by TooMuchCheese:
Never in the field of virtual conflict, has so much SHEEITE been spouted by so many 'experts'.

When you guys have actually flown a REAL WWII Spit and a REAL WWII 109, maybe you can be taken with a pinch of salt.Otherwise EVERYTHING you say with so much authority is pure speculation and BS.
As for HayateAce (lol), you all should know better than to feed that troll, bearing in mind his rabid dislike of ANY Axis aircraft that can whup his butt.

The FMs in this GAME are the FMs deal with it. if TooMuchCheese has nothing to add to a Spitfire plane discussion , why bother posting ?

HayateAce
09-02-2005, 12:31 AM
Trol?

I thought I was mentioning that the Spitfire is unstable and wobbly, especially in the Pitch axis.

Here's a weee test: Get a friend of equal skill and chase him 'round, you in G2 and he in Spit IX. Do hard turns and knifefight with all your skill. (I am of course assuming you have some). Now swap planes and marvel at the ~Nose~Bobs~Your~Uncle.

Oleg: "SpringFire is New Best."

Closeup of SpringFire wing attach hardware:

http://www.autotech.com/catimages/springs-ast.jpg

pourshot
09-02-2005, 12:45 AM
Early spits had to have a bob weight fitted to the elevator control because it was possible to pull so much G that the wing would depart the airframe. Many pilots hated it because they could not pull off the same deflection shots as before.

I should add that this problem only showed itself when squadrons failed to follow the rules regarding maintaining the correct COG and flew tail heavy, under this condition if you pulled allot of G the spit would tighten the turn all by itself causing the overload.

Later models had a re-designed elevator that eliminated the need for a bob weight.

Abbuzze
09-02-2005, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Spitfire absolutly had an overly effective elevator , the testing at Tsagi showed the Spitfires elevator was capable of making more G than the Airframe was capable of handeling


You are right, but overly effective sounds so negative, a practiced pilot will have no Problem with it but for rookies its a problem.

British test:

The small elevator travel required to reach maximum lift coefficient was evident in turns as well as in pull-ups. [...] Only 3? up-elevator movement was required to go from level flight at a lift coefficient of about 0.3 to the first sign of the stall. This movement corresponds to ta stickdeflection of 3/4 inch. This degree of stability is far lower than the 4 inches of rearward stick movement required in the reference 1.

Kurfurst__
09-02-2005, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Emils slats were not like the F & G model slats , on Emils the slats were knowen to work un-evenly when extending as well as snaping out suddenly without warning . these things make for a helping factor in inducing stalls when they happen

Hmm. How can a slat work unevenly..? They open unevenly if one wing stalls sooner than the other. That happens basically if the pilot cannot fly the plane properly, and he`s got slip during the turns. All slats work independently. But`s it`s pretty basic thing to happen in turns, the aircraft is rolled and the AoA of the wings is different, so one will stall sooner than the other. Pilot has to compensate for that with the rudder... If he doesn`t, one wing stalls before the other, or the slats will open unevenly. His error, again, not the plane`s. But are the Brit pilots to be blamed for never getting training from a 109 instructor, and never flying fighters with slats, having used to the Spits/Hurris?


& yes that RAF test of that E3 was a turn time pulling the plane hard in a turn , untill the slats started to move has nothing to add to a Spitfire plane discussion , why bother posting ?

Perhaps because the old 'which turned better 109 or spit' debate rose it`s ugly head, and it was noted as usual that the Brit`s test flying the 109 showed the advantage of Brit planes, to which it was replied that they couldn`t fly the airplane properly, which is true again.

Basically, if they turned with the 109 , pushing it just until the slats were about the open, they basically made it a plane with high wingloading, but without slats. Of course, this will make it suck in turns, but it was their error, not the plane`s.

As for the question, what we have... we have German accounts saying the 109 turns just as good or better. we have RAF accounts saying the Spit turning better. We have a RAF test which shows the RAF planes turning better, but which is quite clear that they didn`t use the advantage slats could offer at all. So what? I guess they were quite close so that situation and pilot made the difference, not planes.

WOLFMondo
09-02-2005, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Emils slats were not like the F & G model slats , on Emils the slats were knowen to work un-evenly when extending as well as snaping out suddenly without warning . these things make for a helping factor in inducing stalls when they happen

Hmm. How can a slat work unevenly..? They open unevenly if one wing stalls sooner than the other. That happens basically if the pilot cannot fly the plane properly, and he`s got slip during the turns. All slats work independently. But`s it`s pretty basic thing to happen in turns, the aircraft is rolled and the AoA of the wings is different, so one will stall sooner than the other. Pilot has to compensate for that with the rudder... If he doesn`t, one wing stalls before the other, or the slats will open unevenly. His error, again, not the plane`s. But are the Brit pilots to be blamed for never getting training from a 109 instructor, and never flying fighters with slats, having used to the Spits/Hurris?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of that the tests conducted on aircraft where done to be objective to get performance data on how the RAF could combat 109's, not for propaganda purposes, not for armchair experts to debate 60 + years later on.

p1ngu666
09-02-2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the Emils slats were not like the F & G model slats , on Emils the slats were knowen to work un-evenly when extending as well as snaping out suddenly without warning . these things make for a helping factor in inducing stalls when they happen

Hmm. How can a slat work unevenly..? They open unevenly if one wing stalls sooner than the other. That happens basically if the pilot cannot fly the plane properly, and he`s got slip during the turns. All slats work independently. But`s it`s pretty basic thing to happen in turns, the aircraft is rolled and the AoA of the wings is different, so one will stall sooner than the other. Pilot has to compensate for that with the rudder... If he doesn`t, one wing stalls before the other, or the slats will open unevenly. His error, again, not the plane`s. But are the Brit pilots to be blamed for never getting training from a 109 instructor, and never flying fighters with slats, having used to the Spits/Hurris?


& yes that RAF test of that E3 was a turn time pulling the plane hard in a turn , untill the slats started to move has nothing to add to a Spitfire plane discussion , why bother posting ?

Perhaps because the old 'which turned better 109 or spit' debate rose it`s ugly head, and it was noted as usual that the Brit`s test flying the 109 showed the advantage of Brit planes, to which it was replied that they couldn`t fly the airplane properly, which is true again.

Basically, if they turned with the 109 , pushing it just until the slats were about the open, they basically made it a plane with high wingloading, but without slats. Of course, this will make it suck in turns, but it was their error, not the plane`s.

As for the question, what we have... we have German accounts saying the 109 turns just as good or better. we have RAF accounts saying the Spit turning better. We have a RAF test which shows the RAF planes turning better, but which is quite clear that they didn`t use the advantage slats could offer at all. So what? I guess they were quite close so that situation and pilot made the difference, not planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the emails slats wherent as user friendly as those on the females and gustavs, u yourself have said similer. and alot of 109 pilots wouldnt go into the slat zone, one famous ace didnt but i cant remmber who, possibly stigler

Kurfurst__
09-02-2005, 09:12 AM
Certainly it was not done for propaganda purposes. Certainly it does not give an objective view on the performance of the captured enemy plane, given the lack of experience of pilots with such a - for them - unusual aircraft.

mortoma
09-02-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Seawolfrpf:
yes the spitfire stalls out too easy in the game. The 109 out turn it which is garbage. the plane is suppose to be the most manuvable plane in the war. I don't buy that one. Most Japanese fighters were probably more manueverable. Also most biplane and early Russian planes, such as the I-16 were likely more manuerable than the Spitfire. It was known as a very manueverable aircraft, but not the best of the entire war!!!

Brain32
09-02-2005, 09:24 AM
My 2c about torque effect in ME-109:
This 2 pictures show what happens in bf-109k-4 when spawned in air and when flying strait without any use of rudder.

http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grab00000lb.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grab00015ga.jpg

What will happen if they turn torque effect up on Me-109? Instant barrel rolls, maybe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ?
The only allied plane suffering from this effect that much is Spitfire...