Rob, This regards our other thread discussions regarding the RealairSpit. (The "gentlemanly" discussion...) I will stand corrected relative to the value of your Realair Spitfire. I must say I have enjoyed flying this bird in the last few days since giving her a try. To be honest, it is the addition of scenery and the level of detail that make her worth the money...which I continue to think is above my normal price point. I did compare this aircraft to what I see as the most closely analogous airframe...the Yak-3 from Captainsim. Both are of the same era, have great flight dynamics and are specifically created to fly from the VC. I have both. I think the Spit measures extremely well and equally with the Yak, which I love. One area where the Yak exceeds the Realair plane is in the reflectivity of the model. The Spit has very little native reflectivity in the mdl files. I think if you tweaked this slightly, the realism of the airplane would increase substantially. Im also a little sorry you guys didnt do a Seafire, which I realy (really) love!In any case, great work. Value for money met. Congratulations sir. (to you and the realair team.)EricPS: While the quality of ALL realair products is great, you can expect me to remain somewhat parsimonious...and to keep you Euro based tariff folks honest relative to the market. I expect qualityfrom realair because you do it so well...but please keep the price/value equation at the top of mind. If you do that, I will be your most loyal customer.

Hi there Just a quick question as you seemed to think previously that the Spit was overpriced, how much was the YAK 3 when you purchased it.I have looked at Simmarket and they list the F104 as 31.99 euros and the 727 as 32.99 euros unfortunatly they do not list the YAK 3 for comparisonhere but i would guess it would be around the same price. They have the RealAir Spitfire at 25 euros and 29 for us in the EU all the rest of the realair products are cheaper still.I do not understand how you can complain about the price then compare it with an aircraft from a company which sells its addons for even more money.It seems to me that it is not the price that is the issue here but the fact that you bought the YAK 3 when the Dollar was at a better level for you.These things go around probably by next year you will have the exchangerates working in your favour once again. at least you are not getting stung for the 4 euros extra VAT tax.

Hi Eric,Thanks for your comments. I see that you are an extremely exacting person with very high standards required from others. I'll keep that in mind.I have to disagree with you regarding the reflections. It is no accident that we designed into the Spitfire a subtle sheen quite deliberately for sound reasons given below. The Flying Guide technical section has a prominent paragraph on this very thing, and of course anyone can download the Guide from our site without first having to purchase the Spitfire.We find the over-use and exaggerated implementation of dynamic shine rather tasteless in some aircraft, but that is not to say I apply that view to the Yak because I haven't tried it.This is especially so with the Mark XIV Spitfire which was actually finished in matte paint so it didn't glisten in sunlight and give itself away to enemy fighters. The occasional photos you see of glinting Spitfires is a photographic effect, or the photos are of restored Spitfires which do indeed have highly polished exteriors.That is not the case with most operational Spitfires, and therefore your comparison isn't really based on fact.Nevertheless I thank you for posting your approval of our work and do hope in future we can rise and meet your personal expectations.Kind Regards,Rob Young www.realairsimulations

Eric, what exactly do you mean by questioning the "Spits' native reflectivity"?Surely you don't want it with a shiny, gleaming paint-job? WWII fighters were always painted with a matt finish; you didn't want them glowing in the sunlight like a newly polished Airbus or anthing...that would have allowed the Luftwaffe to see them both on the ground or in the air from many miles away, as the sparkled and shone!!Nope, I think that RealAir have got a lovely 'flat' satin lustre which does show-off nicely the subleties of the changing ambient light, but never shines or gleams.If you can get a chance, go and see some of the restored Spitfires at air museums, and you'll see that they are not at all reflective!And the same holds true now for modern fighter jets...if they are painted for combat; ie: camouflaged, the paint has a dull matt finish; the only shiny bits of the F-15's at my local USAF base (RAF Lakenheath) are the canopy, and the bare metal engine cowls at the rear.EDIT: Blast...Robert beat me by mere seconds in getting his reply posted!!

I beta tested the Captainsim yak... :-)No cost there.Eric

Ah, so what you want then is a free RealAir Spitfire. I see.Whether or not you had to pay for the CS Yak doesn't change the fact that it actually sells for more than the RealAir Spitfire. If you're going to complain about the price of the Spit, you have to complain even more about the Yak.Edit - my mistake. Just checked and the Yak sells for $25 USD so ir's not quite as much as the Spitfire. Still only six or seven dollars less though. I haven't tried the Yak but I doubt it includes as many special features as the Spitfire (uber-smooth VC guages, effects like stall buffeting, realview, extra scenery, etc) so a few bucks difference in price seems reasonable to me....

I love the way the Spit looks - the reason given for it not having copious amounts of shine makes perfect sense to me. If you were sitting in the real plane, which this has to be pretty darn close to save for the motion, would you really be contemplating the "native reflectivity" (sounds like we're talking about planetary albedo or something lol) instead of flying the plane??The overall market determines a product's price in a capitalist economy, not one individual's idea of what something should cost. If everyone thought like you, that no addon should be over $20 or whatever your amount was, then sure, no one would buy and companies like RealAir would be forced to lower their prices of close up shop as an unsustainable business. Obviously though, from the great response the plane has recieved, the overall addon market will sustain this, just like it has for the "expensive" addons made by PMDG, Flight 1, and so on. I easily spend $20 eating a single meal with a few drinks at a good restaurant in town - surely $40 or so isn't too much for a great addon that you'll have basically forever to use and enjoy whenever you want. Money is designed to be spent folks - that's what keeps an economy going.As for the beta testing comment - that's pretty disingenuous man. As long as you didn't actually have to pay the price THEN it's not too much for you? I'm a PMDG tester and that fact doesn't change my opinion at all that their products and stuff like the Flight1 ATR are worth the $40 price tag. I actually bought the 737NG before becoming a tester, and would continue to do so for PMDG products if that was required.

>I beta tested the Captainsim yak... :-)>>No cost there.Eric,Well guess what, I beta tested the Spitfire and I bought the YAK, it was worth the money although I seem to remember that despite being released with only a VC within a few days a 2D cockpit had been created because of the jerkyness of the gauges in the 3D cockpit. In my humble opinion, the Spitfire outclasses the YAK in every department from the Smooth VC, the accurate paintwork, the included excellent WW2 period scenery and atmosphere inducing AI Spitfires(neither of which you mentioned), all for the princely sum of 25 euros. You said that value for money was met so I don't understand the point you were trying to make about the "price/value equation".Despite the fact that others have said this also, I will also say it. Spitfires are not supposed to be relective! They are supposed to be non-reflective for the very reason that has been mentioned. If my father who flew Spitfires had been presented with a nice gleaming new Spitfire I know what he would have done, he'd have gone to the paint store, collected several gallons of matt green paint and painted the thing himself. As would any other flighter pilot with an ounce of self preservation and/or common sense!Enjoy flying the Spitfire at West Malling!CheersTim http://members.chello.nl/t.westnutt/realair1.gif

Were spitfires even metal, or am I thinking of the Mosquitoe? And quite true, only in aishows do warbirds shine. If I'm in formation with 30 other planes, I don't want to be glinting like a signal mirror for the German anti-air. :-lol----------------------------------------------------------------John S. MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private 130+ hrs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

The Americans, after the Luftwaffe was all but defeated defeated, did in fact finish their European Theatre aircraft, not in silver paint, but in unpainted, highly polished, aluminium. The reason for this was that paint on an aircraft is actually extremely heavy and can increase drag - get rid of it and your plane goes faster, higher and uses less fuel!Spitfires too, after the war, flew in polished aluminium. There are a couple on the UK airshow circuit at the moment belonging to John Romaine's company that show the liveries superbly, but these are not in a wartime scheme.To answer your own question, the Mosquito was primarily wooden construction (hence it's nickname of "The Wooden Wonder", with a fabric skin. Much of the Hawker Hurricane, which you may have been thinking of, was also doped fabric over a frame. The Spitfire was all aluminium construction, which the ground crews weren't that fond of because, rather than fitting a patch after something got shot up, they actually had to replace the entire panel.Ian P.

In the last year or so of WW2, some Spitfires, including the Mark XIV and some of the Squadrons stationed at RAF West Malling, were rubbed down to remove excess paint layers (please note, not to produce naff amounts of what we see as "dynamic shine"), and they were stripped of all excess weight. This was in order to help them achieve an exceptional top speed of approaching 500 mph (in a shallow dive) so they could just about keep up with the V1 flying bombs heading for London. The technique was to fly close to the wing of the V1's and "flick" them off course by upsetting the airflow over their wings. This would topple the gyros inside the flying bombs whereupon they would lose directional stability and plough into the ground in rural areas before they got to the city.Several Squadrons at RAF West Malling had much success on these missions, and the flying skills involved were extraordinary, with quite a high success rate of both toppling and shooting down the doodlebugs.Rob Young

Understood that the plane was painted with matt finish, but a little more specular shine would enhance the fact that the plane is made of metal. In any case, thats a personal preference, not a criticism. The plane is excellent the way it is. Eric

I never said I wanted a free anything. Not sure how you draw that conclusion. I did buy the Realair Spitfire and I am satisfied that my money was well spent. The purpose of the original post was to say that. Eric

No worries mate. Keep up the good work.Best regards,Eric