Known v2.06 aircraft issues

[Karnak]

Bf109s flaps should lower at higher speeds than they do.

Bf109G-14 should be faster at altitude than it is.


Spitfire Mk VIII should roll as fast as Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV?

Bf109G-14 should climb better at altitude?

Spitfire Mk XVI should lose 200fpm more of climb rate for every 1000ft of altitude than the Spitfire Mk VIII due to clipped wings vs full span wings?  This needs to be confirmed as an issue really, but it doesn't seem the Spit XVI loses climb rate for the clipped wings.

Spitfire Mk I's performance degraded from v2.06 to v2.06.1?


Any other issues or coments on the issues I listed.  I am only sure of the firat two, hence the question marks on the others.

[DoKGonZo]

Some items gleaned from other recent threads ... not sure how definate these are (save for the Ta152) but I've seen enough solid evidence presented to be convinced these are worth a look:

109's sustained turn rate may be too low, should be better than comparable Spits based on some test data.

Ta152 sucks rocks. Hard.

190's have should stall violently only with heavy handling (i.e. abrupt control inputs), currently the thing spins out even with gentle handling.

190's may be modelled as overweight (or other things are wrong - see any of Crumpp's postings).

Acceleration rates for the LW planes seem low in general - esp. the 190D9.

Weird Me110 flat spins since 2.06.

Issues with width of cockpit framing on the 109. And while I'm at it, the gunsights on the Yak and La are too far from the eye point or too small or both. The Russian cockpits are like olympic swimming pools with the distance you can zoom fwd and back.

[Karnak]

Well, La, Yak, 190 and 110 stuff aren't v2.06 issues.

Also there would need to  be some very solid evidence to say that Bf109s should out turn Spits as there is substantial data that says they shouldn't.

[Bruno]

The G-14 is in bad shape all round, speed is just the most apparent.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Karnak
Well, La, Yak, 190 and 110 stuff aren't v2.06 issues.
[...]

Sorry ... I misunderstood what you were after in this thread. Thought you meant things that needed addressing as of 2.06, not stuff that was wrong with the 2.06 changes.

As for the 109 ... sustained turn .... not instantaneous ... I posted a write-up in another thread from some flight tests done in neutral Sweden.

[1K3]

Originally posted by Karnak

Spitfire Mk I's performance degraded from v2.06 to v2.06.1?
 

Degraded? hmmm that might be the control surfaces.  That plane is faster than 109E but controls like a bomber lol.  I think 109E beats spit 1 in instataneus turns and spit is still the queen of sustained turns (A6Ms are king!)

[DoKGonZo]

OK ... found the references:

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

http://www.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf

The charts in the first link show the sustained turn of the 109G to be better than the Spit9, though the Spit 9 still wins instantaneous turn. The Spit5 out-turns the 109 across the board.

The second link explains the snap-spin of the Fw190.

[Krusty]

Spit8 has smaller ailerons. Even with full deflection (which you don't get all the time) you're still getting less force on the ailerons and less roll.

I believe somebody mentioned that if this is so, the spit14 needs to have its roll rate reduced as well, because they had the same smaller ailerons. I don't know if that's true or not.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Krusty
Spit8 has smaller ailerons. Even with full deflection (which you don't get all the time) you're still getting less force on the ailerons and less roll.

I believe somebody mentioned that if this is so, the spit14 needs to have its roll rate reduced as well, because they had the same smaller ailerons. I don't know if that's true or not.

That doesn't really make sense on several levels though.  Sure, at 180mph or so it would have a lower roll rate, but above that speed where full deflection can no longer be obtained the pilot should be able to get just as much deflection force out of the shorter ailerons as he should be able to deflect them slightly further.  In addition no roll rate difference was noted in the RAF trials and while it may have been 5% slower, a more than 15% reduction in aileron effectiveness surely would have been noticed.  We can certainly notice it here.  Angus also mentions that the hinges had been changed to improve roll rate response.  Add on top of that the chief test pilot for the Spitfire program, Jeffrey Quill, considered the Mk VIII to be the most enjoyable to fly and best handling Spitfire of all marks and there is substantial evidence that it should roll similarly to the Mk IX.

Against that there is a one line quip in the flight trials of an extended wing Spitfire Mk VIII.

[1K3]

I heard Pyro will fix/tune-up 109 flap settings (see 'What happened to LW' thread last page).  He forgot the add that fix in v2.06.  Is the new flap settings going to benefit 109s?


PS don't forget the FW-190s


also im guessing what's going to be on v2.06 patch 2

* fix roll rate on spit 8
* fix all FW-190 FM
* fix spit 16 climb rate
* fix 109G-14 max speed
* fix all 109 flap settings

[Wilbus]

Originally posted by 1K3
I heard Pyro will fix/tune-up 109 flap settings (see 'What happened to LW' thread last page).  He forgot the add that fix in v2.06.  Is the new flap settings going to benefit 109s?


PS don't forget the FW-190s


also im guessing what's going to be on v2.06 patch 2

* fix roll rate on spit 8
* fix all FW-190 FM
* fix spit 16 climb rate
* fix 109G-14 max speed
* fix all 109 flap settings

Now as much as I'd like to see those fixes I don't think they will happen anytime soon (hope I am wrong).

Not sure about 190 flap speeds, I've heard 350 km/h for the first notch (takeoff flaps I believe) maybe Crumpp can shed some light on that.

As far as 109 goes the flap fix was somehow overlooked for 2.06. Hopefully they will be acording to the chart posted in the LW thread.


As far as Spit VIII Roll rate goes I think Karnak is right when it comes to high speeds.

[moot]

The 152 FM being smoothed out to AH2 standards, as the 190s were, can't happen soon enough.

[Kev367th]

Spit XVI climb -

Unitl someone does a comparative test with equal fuel between the XIII and XVI I don't know if this is a bug/problem.

You can't just take 25% fuel load on each plane as the VIII carries more internal fuel.
With equal fuel I would guess the VIII does outclimb the XVI by the correct amount.

[Glasses]

Forget  making the 152 into AH2 standards how about rewriting the whole FM for the 190s Gee!

[Angus]

From Karnak:
"Spitfire Mk VIII should roll as fast as Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XIV?"

Yup. If not better AFAIK.

And the 110 was actually known for lethal flatspins.