Known v2.06 aircraft issues

[KD303]

Originally posted by Angus
And the 110 was actually known for lethal flatspins.

I've read reports of 110s stalling as they tried to bring their guns to bear on the belly of a night bomber, in less than ideal conditions, flat spinning and only gaining control 2000-3000 metres down - scarey at night, I imagine.

[Krusty]

Well, perhaps, but maybe all that radar gear on the nose threw the normal envelope off?

[DoKGonZo]

OK ... its just that several people mentioned how the 110 went into flat spins since 1.06. Maybe it was supposed to all along. Maybe it's related to the loadout.

[Wilbus]

The 110 has always gone into flatspins in AH. I see no real reasons why they shouldn't, I see no real reasons why they should either.

I've heard very few reports of any WW2 planes going into unrecoverable spins or flat spins (yes I know the 110 spin is recoverable).

[Krusty]

wilbus, do you mean it was recoverable in real life, or it is in AH? If you mean the latter I must disagree!

[EagleDNY]

You might also want to include the cannon ROF tweaking - all the sources I'm finding show the Hispano Mk.II should have a 600rpm ROF (they currently are at 650).  

The Luftwaffe cannon lethality & ROF might also be adjusted at the same time - all the LW cannons currently fire at the low end of their listed ROF range.

EagleDNY

[Krusty]

When I fire the gun, target goes BOOM. They seem to work fine to me

[Wilbus]

Think the MG151 ounch is in more need of a fix than then ROF.

Mg151 had a 700rpm ROF normal, this was lowered to about 650 when sycronized on 190's and Ta152's.

Krusty, I mean in AH, it is recoverable in AH with the right amount of altitude. Been some time since I got into one though.

[Ghosth]

Krusty,

chop throttle, gear down, kick opposite  rudder (will force nose down) stop spin, pull out.

Or, you can use trim to get it to nose down, but IMO kicking hard rudder was easier and faster.

Once you've got it nose down recovery is easy.

[mussie]

I lost 20,000 feet to a flat spin in a 110 once, will have to find the film (BEEN AGES THOUGH)

[1K3]

ding ding found another one !

109F-4's WEP (at 1.42 ata) was not used untill 1942.  109F-4s from 1941 only had max power at 1.3 ata.

since the old (1942) spitfire 5 was de-rated to 1941, then the current 109F-4 (1942) should also be derated to 1941 performance.

[Larry]

110 and mossi got into flat spins because the torque form thier engines turning in the same direction.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by 1K3
ding ding found another one !

109F-4's WEP (at 1.42 ata) was not used untill 1942.  109F-4s from 1941 only had max power at 1.3 ata.

since the old (1942) spitfire 5 was de-rated to 1941, then the current 109F-4 (1942) should also be derated to 1941 performance.

How much the F-4 does right now ?
With 1,3ata, it did 635 kph at 6200m, at 1,42 (1942;) ) it did 670 kph.
So if it does 635, don't fix it if you want 1941.


Now regarding the Spitty roll rate, I think it's quite logical why the XIV and VIII should worser than the

- fuel was added in the wings, and that weight doesn't exactly helps brisk roll rate, there's more inertia.

- shorter span ailerons as mentioned, simply there was less aileron area, so roll rate MUST have been lower. Perhaps stickforces went down, but that's it. Documentation is needed.

- pretty much all the references, RAE tests and the like show the MkVIII rolled more slowly than the IX. If anyone can show otherswise, I am all ears, but even Alex Heshaw said that on the flick roll of later variants.

[Angus]

Yes we all must bear in mind that the Spitfire roll rate started at 8 secs then gradually got worse through the war and clipping didn't make a difference.......

[Karnak]

Kurfurst,

If you have any documentation about the roll rate of the Mk VIII and Mk XIV please link to it as all that has been supplied to suggest a lower roll rate is a test of a extended wing Spitfire Mk VIII, which of course had a lower roll rate.  Every other document I have found that mentions the roll rate of the Mk VIII or Mk XIV claims that they rolled as fast as the Mk IX.  I could understand that claim if the difference was less than 5%, but in AH the Mk VIII rolls more than 15% slower than the Mk IX and 15+% lower is quite noticable.  I doubt Jeffrey Quill would have considered the Mk VIII the best handling Spitfire of all (and he test flew all marks) if he had to struggle to roll it in comparison with the Mk IX.  Certainly the max roll rate at full deflection (assuming the changed hinges didn't increase the maximum deflection angle obtainable) would have been slower than the Mk IX, but above that speed why would it be lower?  The pilot should be able to get just as much deflection force out of the ailerons at speeds above maximum deflection speeds because he should be able to get greater deflection angle on them as a result of the aileron's smaller surface area.  A greater deflection angle should result in a smaller aileron providing as high a deflection force as a larger aileron at a smaller deflection angle (obviously this only applies as long as we are keeping the aircraft type and control linkages the same).

Regarging the wing tanks, what you said is not strictly true.  Added weight in the wings, such as the Spit VIII's small tanks or the Fw190A-5's outboard guns, do not reduce maximum roll rate.  Added weight will reduce roll acceleration, the more weight and the further out it is the greater the reduction.  In the case of the Mk VIII's wing tanks they are small (14 gallon IIRC) and on the inboard leading edge of the wings.  They would have a very slight impact on roll acceleration and that is all.

Now, even if I am wrong and you are right there is still a bug to be fixed as the Mk XIV rolls slightly faster than the Mk IX and if you are right it should roll slower as the Mk VIII does now.


In any case I am really hoping for a patch to address the Bf109's flaps and the Bf109G-14's sub-par performance.  Boosting the Mk VIII's roll rate to the same level as the Mk IX's would just be icing on the cake.