1. #21
    Originally posted by Abbuzze:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
    Now, it has a nasty stall that I haven't seen mentioned historically, but which seem to be a feature of the global FM (Mustangs are suffering from the same malady).
    The elevator of the spitfire was rated m oversensitive in official british tests, combined with very light forces to move them.
    So the behavier we have actuall is not that wrong as many people want to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The Spit had itâ´s shortcomings as all aircraft of the day. Reading "They gave me a Seafire" ISBN 0905 778 68 5 by Commander R "MIKE" Crosley C, RN, gives a quite other view of the Spitfire and the Seafire in special. In some appendixies in his book the author describes some very leathal(to the pilot) peculiriaties of the Seafire and the Spitfire.

    He writes about the light stickforces to be as leathal as enjoyable. Too much on the stick and the pilot could leave his wings behind in a take up. About the Seafire he says it was a ruined Spitfire in means of balance. In order to counter balance the extra weight of the tailhook arrangement there were counterbalance weights added to the control column. This caused many pilots to meet their creator primaturely. In particular in bail out situations they were supposed to roll the aircraft on its back before bailing out ( to avoid hitting the tail). In surtain circumstancies this caused the counter balance arrangement to apply forces on the controls as if the pilot were pulling hard on the stick. No need to say the G-forces trapped the pilot in the cockpit. Tests after war showed if the pilot tried to push the stick(if he were able to) it only worsened the situation. He was trapped! He also mention quality problems causing stability errors in Spit 1 series. Surfaces meant to be flushriveted, wasnt allways so. This caused disturbed airflows and in an aircraft with controlls as light as in the Spit those kind of flaws made the aircraft less agile.

    He also mention manufacturing flaws on the wings which made the aircraft dangerous to roll in high speeds as the wings would tear off. This was caused by too thin skinning on upper surface of the wing and this caused a wobble in the wing. Repairmen from the factory arrived and changed the skinning close to wingfairings with alloy sheets of thicker gauge. But the fault had already costed some pilot lives. This is only some examples and if one diggs deeper more surely could be found.
    It was a fine aircraft but it surely werent perfect in many ways.
    Share this post

  2. #22
    Over sensitive controlls must be the key.. especialy with the rudder.

    With good use of the rudder all the planes generally hold solid. The P47 for example once trimmed out on the rudder is fantastic.
    I was having trouble aiming the Beaufighter correctly and realised I was hamfisting the rudder... it does tend to yaw.

    Its difficult when you only have a rudder rocker with tiny amounts of movement to move the rudder... so it requires a softer touch.
    Pedals are probably the answer..

    Should try my MOMO pedals actually.. never botherd to use them in IL2.
    Share this post

  3. #23
    Slickun's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    748
    I recently read a very interesting book, I think called "Woodbine Red Leader", I think, again.

    The pilot was a US guy that flew "reverse lend-lease" Spitfires over Italy in WW2. He flew a Spit 5, loved it. A few Spit 9's came into the group, and these were looked on as a big step up, sort of like the big time compared to their 5.

    They flew mostly defensive patrols around beachheads, got a few kills.

    After they transitioned to Mustangs, it was as another poster opined, they were kind of wary of the beast they were now saddled with, and the LOOOONG missions they went on, hours instead of half hour flights. Definitely mixed feelings about the change-over.

    Kills and losses immediately skyrocketed. The guys loved their Spits, and came to love their Mustangs.

    Oh, and yeah, the Spit was that good.
    Share this post

  4. #24
    p1ngu666's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,195
    the controls where better balanced as time went on

    most pilots favourites in terms of handling where
    mkII, mkV, MKIX, VIII (smidge better than IX all round) and XIV

    depended on what the pilots like. the mk V was very well sorted..

    this is discounting the PR types, most of which where pretty lovely too
    Share this post

  5. #25
    ..... to bad they do not make a new Force Feed Back stick any more. I have a FFB Sidewinder and with it you get stick shake before the stall. I just it!

    Spit .... well, its a dream to fly!

    And yes, P-51D has very bad stall FM in the sim ... wish it would be corrected. Cannot see anyone flying her in RL if it acted this way. IMO
    Share this post

  6. #26
    The Spit does indeed fly like a dream- ish (I mean no plane flies really like a dream since 4.01). I have no idea how realistic it is, but it does meet the accounts i`ve read of it.

    I would add that don`t pilot accounts say the P51 was a high altitude dogfighter? Down low you had to treat it more like a B&Zer? No dangerous turn games?

    Interesting to see 2 threads at the moment:

    "Was the Spitfire this good???"

    and

    "What`s wrong with the P51?"

    Very loaded questions.
    Share this post

  7. #27
    Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
    faustnik, what controller do you use and whats your stick settings? Or do you use an app like the CH manager?
    Mondo,

    I use a MS FFBII sticks, CH Throttle and CH Pedals. No "manager" program, just setup through the IL-2 HOTAS setup deal. I tweaked my yaw settings back a little with 4.02 and even added some filter on that axis.

    The Spitfire and P-51 are two planes frequesntly associated with wobble issues. It's no coincidence that these two a/c have the best control authority in the sim (the Spit got a big boost in elevator authority at high speed in 4.02). With the Spitfire you can easily pull to blackout at any speed, so,it's easy to overcontrol.
    Share this post

  8. #28
    Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
    Interesting to see 2 threads at the moment:

    "Was the Spitfire this good???"

    and

    "What`s wrong with the P51?"

    Very loaded questions.
    Quite. Notice the far lower temperature in one of them, though.

    Triggerhappyfinn, thanks for the references! I guess early Spits must have been a handful, but then again, Spitfires was hardly the only planes to suffer from technical issues back then. It would be very cool if these and other technical failures are modelled in BoB. The odd toss up of some of the aircrafts is something I miss in this sim.
    Share this post

  9. #29
    Originally posted by p1ngu666:
    the controls where better balanced as time went on
    I thought the only control issues were only with the very early Mk.Vs? They re-weighted the rudder and solved it, right?
    Share this post

  10. #30
    Yes, I`d love it if planes suffered problems as they did historically. But of course this would open a whole can of worms, wouldn`t it? People would say that their fave plane never suffered such faults and others would say they did but not to such a such an extent, and others that it was worse, then we`d get country-fighting and about which country`s better than another at making stuff, blah, blah, blah.
    Share this post