Lets take some examples:
According to Jeffrey Quill, Chief Test Pilot of the Spitfire Programme at Supermarine a Mk XIV Spitfire (one of the worst behaved Spits) had to be forced into a stall. Once it stalled, if the pilot let the controls go neutral, it brought itself out of the stall after two spins. The pilot had to INTENTIALLY keep it in the stall. This bears a far greater resemblance to 1.04 than it does to 1.03.
According to VVS tests, a Spitfire Mk IX could sustain a 3.2 G turn. That means that its engine could keep it at 3.2 Gs. In 1.04 the Spitfire Mk IX can hold a 3.1 G turn. In 1.03 it could hold, what, a 2 G turn? 1.04 once again proves to be more accurate.
The Lancaster received the highest review ever given to an aircraft by the RAF’s testing group; “This aircraft is emiently ready for combat and should enter production immediately”. The Lancaster was one of those rare aircraft that outperformed the manufacturer’s predicted performance. It almost always went the other way, with the manufacturer’s predicted performance being overly optimistic. The last direct decendant of the Lancaster, the Shackleton Maritime Patrol Aircraft left RAF service in 1982. The Shackleton is the same size as a Lanc and bears obvious resemblance too it. The Lancaster should be a high performance bomber.
HARDER DOES NOT MEAN MORE REALISTIC
These aircraft were meant to be flown by boys with only a few hours of flight time in much less powerful aircraft, Tiger Moths and T6 Texans. Many of the things claimed as realistic would be done with much greater ease when actually flying an aircraft instead of sitting in front of a computer screen. Things like trimming. I have never once read something like “I rolled and began to turn to get behind the Me109 but soon realized that I wasn’t going to be able to make it. With that in mind I adjusted my elevator trim to give me that extra bit of turn capability and managed to get enough of a lead on him to fire. I watched the fire from the six guns on my Mustang ripple across his aircraft and abruptly he nosed over, pouring black smoke, and dove into the ground”. Yet that very kind of thing is being claimed as realistic, I don’t understand it. I have even read a post by somebody who previously had called for ultimate realism now say that while 1.04 might be more realistic he thought that we should return to 1.03 because it was harder. WHAT?!? Hardness for hardness sake? Maybe a bit of elitism going on, the I’m better because I fly AH instead of WB, EAW or FA?
That all said, I do feel there are problems with 1.04’s flight model.
1. The Lancaster should max out at about 25,000 feet not 40,000 feet.
2. The Lancaster may climb to rapidly and have too high a level speed.
3. Aircraft seem to accelerate too rapidly in a dive even without engine power.
4. Aircraft do not seem to decelerate rapidly enough when flying level with out engine power.
Except for issue #1, I do not have any data to counter the way it behaves now. #s 2, 3 and 4 just “feel off” to me.
CONCLUSSION
I think that 1.04 is more accurate than 1.03. 1.04 still has significant room for improvement, but it is a BIG step in the right direction.
Sisu
-Karnak
