"The Spit9 (the one we have) handles far better, can turn infinitely tighter, can climb like the wind itself is lifting it into the air, is very user friendly, and dives/accelerates, as has been mentioned, too well."
-This basically boils down to the same stuff as before, claiming its overmodelled, but providing no real proof. I guess the Spit is never supposed to do anything better than . I have been reading these threads since Air Warrior.
"Who care what the FM makers tell about the used specs? Important is a credible AND playable result."
"Looks to me that the AH FM makers dont know that a smal Liftload not only let a plane turn more tight, but at same time it bleed energy like mad."
-This is what happens when somebody gets a hold of some aerodynamic "theory" and starts bastardizing it to suit some conspiracy theory.
Sustained turns:
-Wings that "out turn" other wings are the ones that bleed energy less, not more. A 190 and Spitfire both have the exact same turn rate at any given G load, the a/c that loses energy (airspeed) the slowest in a 5G turn, will be able to sustain that 5G turn the longest, without reducing to a 4G turn. So, claiming the Spit is "supposed to turn well but bleed E like mad" is simply not correct. It either turns better and has a better E retention (loses less speed in the turn) or it turns worse and has a worse E retention (loses more speed in the turn).
-Fighters dont "out turn" each other (thats the laymans term we all use), they "out conserve energy" each other. The fighter with the poorer E retention, must reduce its G load 1st, to avoid losing more airspeed than its opponent. Doing that however enables the other fighter to sustain a harder, higher G turn, and thus it is eventually defeated.
