Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

Plane Design Spitfire vs RealAir spitfire

Recommended Posts

Both planes are very good, but how come the FM are SOOOOO diff!? i mean flying the plane design (mk16) is a TRUE challenge! its very hard to fly, and has EXTEREMELY sensitive Trim... they say its been tested by real life spit pilots... well the realair one is alot more fun to fly (not so sensitive like the PD one)... they also say it was tested by real life spit pilots...so whats the deal here?I know both had diff engines, but its pretty much the same plane still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Both planes are very good, but how come the FM are SOOOOO>diff!? i mean flying the plane design (mk16) is a TRUE>challenge! its very hard to fly, and has EXTEREMELY sensitive>Trim... they say its been tested by real life spit pilots...>well the realair one is alot more fun to fly (not so sensitive>like the PD one)... they also say it was tested by real life>spit pilots...>>so whats the deal here?>>I know both had diff engines, but its pretty much the same>plane still... My first guess, is because RealAir knows how to design & program great flight modeling. But I haven't tried the Plane Design version.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I hear ya... i'm just curious which has a more 'real' FM... because flying the 2 planes is liek comparing apples to oranges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Bowcut

The Realair Spitfire is as close as you can get to reality, period. Frankly, ANYTHING produced by Realair is 'PFM' (pure freakin magic). These guys practice some kind of ancient charms on Flight Simulator, and nothing else will ever compare to the realism herein. :) If you have the opportunity, buy everything they make (if you desire fidelity to the nth power).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The Realair Spitfire is as close as you can get to reality,>period. Frankly, ANYTHING produced by Realair is 'PFM' (pure>freakin magic). These guys practice some kind of ancient>charms on Flight Simulator, and nothing else will ever compare>to the realism herein. :) >>If you have the opportunity, buy everything they make (if you>desire fidelity to the nth power). Yep.....And the joke these days, at a different X-Plane forum, is that anytime an MSFS versus X-Plane debate comes up, it's common to see:"Cue --- L.Adamson for the half page RealAir adds"Heck, I can't help it if these models are so excellent in regards to desktop flight modeling; and that they're my preference over what's available for the other sim! :-hah L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so plane design one is not realistic at all :( so sad...they are both planes visual vise though, too bad the plane design has such poor FM then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

Not true at all. The Real Air model is perhaps too stable, too unresponsive, too easy to fly unless you are at the edges of the performance envelope. But is all about the power, just like you might expect.Also, the Spit had a renowned roll rate of around 140 degrees a second. Can't do that with the RA model, can with the Plane Design.But a lot depends on how you have your controls set up. You need your joystick with absolute minimum null zone and max sensitivity, preferably claibrated through FSUIPC. Then you begin to see what both models are really capable of. And there is no real comparison between the Griffon and Merlin engined Spits anyway, they were completely different animals. Much more different than the engine change would suggest (The engine rotated the other way on the Griffon, reversing the take off swing). I would give the edge to the RA model, but not by much, and not if aerobatics are your thing.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heaer ya on the engine rotating issue... they are both totally diff engines, but both engines weigh around the same so manuverability should be pretty close...its just i dunno which one to fly around in because i dunno which is more real..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>so plane design one is not realistic at all :( so sad...>>they are both planes visual vise though, too bad the plane>design has such poor FM then.....and you base this one what? A couple of simmers opinions? Realair has a big fan base, so you are going to get biased opinions. There are probably quite a few that don't even know about the Plane Designs model (which looks amazing)."its just i dunno which one to fly around in because i dunno which is more real.."Why not fly the one you enjoy the most.There is a long thread about the plane designs model at Sim Outhouse, maybe ask there http://www.sim-outhouse.com/Thread here http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=25466Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is an interesting topic, and something I have been thinking about recently. Seems to me the Plane Design Spit has a certain authentic unstable warbird feel that the RealAir does not, but the RealAir version has its own sort of authentic feel. Which is closer to real I do not know. From what I have read you never pull all the way back on the stick in a Spit, else it will stall right out. With the RealAir spit you can pull back all the way in most flight conditions, with no stall, but if you try that in the Plane Design version, you are going down. You can almost flip the Plane Design nose over tail if you are going the right speed. In general the Real Air version seems to be way to stable, and easy to fly, which makes it quite fun, but I have to question how authentic it is. While on the other hand the Plane Design seems to un-stable, which also makes it fun to fly, though it seems it "floats" around way to much making precision flight hard. Floating that plane around at low speeds above the trees is one of my favorite things to do though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a writeup on an SNJ (AT-6) trainer, that claimed it was more difficult to fly than the P-51 Mustang. The joke was that the P-51 was really a trainer for the AT-6! :7 I don't remember my WWII Mustang "warbird" training tapes referring to an unstable machine either. However, I do know that a real world Spit "driver" was very impressed with the RealAir Spitfire when it was released.As to pulling back on the stick, much has to do with airspeed. I'll check it out, since I know the RA Spit likes to stall. L..Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>From what I have read you never pull all the way back on the>stick in a Spit, else it will stall right out. With the>RealAir spit you can pull back all the way in most flight>conditions, with no stall, but if you try that in the Plane>Design version, you are going down. You can almost flip the>Plane Design nose over tail if you are going the right speed. >Took the RealAir Spit up for some up to date "stick & stall" testing. Used the clipped and elliptical wing versions. I used the recommended realism settings, as well as full realism settings.I tried numerous airspeed settings from near slow flight, to rather "speedy". In all cases, full stick resulted in a stall everytime. The only time I could use full back stick, is to keep the tail held down while slowing down on the landing roll.Sometimes the stall developed into a spin, and sometimes not. Secondary stalls after spin recovery also worked well.I have not tried the Plane Design Spit for any comparisons. Do have the newer Shockwave Spit for FS9/FSX, and it's close to the feel of the RealAir version.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's VERY important to adjust the sensitivity of your controls in FS. If you don't you will not get full range of motion out of the controls, which will tend to make it impossible to stall, but also impossible to pull extreme maneuvers.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's VERY important to adjust the sensitivity of your>controls in FS. If you don't you will not get full range of>motion out of the controls, which will tend to make it>impossible to stall, but also impossible to pull extreme>maneuvers.>My sensitivity settings are maxxed, and null settings are next to none. I like aerobatic manuvers! :-hah Even have instant wing and return to center views set up for the VC's, to keep a quick eye on the horizons.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillyeagle

I just tested and I guess what I was seeing happens at high speeds. Over 250mph the RealAir Spit can easily use full back wih no stall, climbing or diving. When I tested there was no stall until speed fell below 250mph. I could jerk it back as hard as I wanted. With the Plane Design Spit full back causes it to flip into a 90 degree AoA, regardless of speed. My sensitivities are at default, so that might affect things. I can't image trying to fly the Plane design version with more sensitivity though. The RealAir spit feels quite unresponsive compared to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

In real life the Merlin powered spit feels very different to the griffon powered spit. In fact the Merlin one is supposed to be a lot more sensitive IRL.Maybe they're both accurate?James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find these threads fascinating because I suspect none of the posters, like me, have flown a Spitfire or any similar aircraft so their opinions are purely subjective based on what they expect the performance to be so give no real clue to the relative accuracy of either aircraft.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=search previously discussed the time to climb to 20,000ft for various aircraft, including the RealAir Mk XIV Spitfire. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ gives original offical performance figures taken during the 1940s for many different WWII aircraftOne shows that the maximum rate of climb of the Spitfire XIV below 20,000ft was 4,700 ft/min so the time to climb to 20,000ft must be greater than 4:15min because the rate of climb falls with height. I estimated the true figure to be about 4:48min. A poster repeated his experiment at the weight of 8,500lb used for the offical performance figures and got a time to 20,000ft of 3:59min, and 3:55min. That's a significant difference of 49sec or about 20%. I knew Bill Bedford who was a WWII fighter pilot and later Chief Test Pilot at Hawker's in the UK. I once asked him how the handing of WWII piston-engined fighters compared with the later jet Hawker Hunter. His answer was short and to the point "they were b****y awful".Pierre Clostermann an experienced French WWII fighter pilot described his first take-off in a Typhoon after having flown Spitfires. He applied full left rudder yet yet had to drag the arcraft into the air prematurely because it was about to run off the right edge of the runway. I suspect that if WWII fighters were truely realistic they'd probably be unflyable by most of us here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Xiderpunk

I have heard the opposite, the spitfire was actually a relatively easy airplane to fly, as was the hurricane. This I was told by my flying examiner who flies spits as part of a display (BBMF). The ME109 by comparison was difficult and complex to fly.The ease factor was very important in the success of the spitfire because you have to put this into context with the time period. You had young men with as few as 40-60 hours flying spitfires in a dog fight during the battle of britain. Similiarly German pilots flying the ME109 in the later period of the war were often extremely inexperienced and had their hands full just flying the plane let alone fighting with it. This was commented on by WC. Hugh Dundas who flew a captured ME109 and FW190 in around 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REALAIR......When?When will we get the Spitfire FSX version? I'm having withdrawal!Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relatively easy to fly....Almost 12% of the first 306 Spitfires delivered were lost in training accidents. Later, it was estimated that losses at OTUs (where pilots converted to Spitfires) were as high as those in combat squadrons.I think we need to avoid looking back nostalgically through rose-tinted spectacles. For example, I have a 1975 MG B roadster. It's great fun to drive with the hood down on a sunny day, and I thoroughly enjoy taking it out. However, compared with a standard modern saloon car, its performance and handling are awful and compared with my 1995 Mitsubishi FTO they're downright appalling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest weeniemcween

How about adding the shockwave spitfire to the mix (it works in fsx by the way)? After all, they pride themselves on their flight models and being able to fly "by the book". And anyone who has wings of power knows each warbird handles distinctively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I'm not getting involved in "which is better" but I can tell you about how we arrived at a specific strategy for control of the RealAir Spitfire:Our thinking behind all our flight models is by necessity dependent on the recognition that the average domestic joystick has barely 5-6 inches of movement from fully forward to fully back, or less than three inches from neutral to fully back.This means that it is extremely easy to over control, since the actual Spitfire probably has four or more times the total movement and therefore a huge advantage for finessing pitch and roll movements.So we calibrate the pitch control within the airfile in a way that gives most of the extreme displacement in the last third of movement. This gives the user the opportunity to control more sedately in the initial movement of the stick, rather than offer the inevitably jumpy control with small movements.It's all a compromise. The other thing to bear in mind is that nearly all aircraft respond to stick pressure rather than a concerted movement if they are travelling at normal speeds. Again a tiny sim joystick is going to be more successful at fine control if you slightly compromise between total "reality" and practicality.The Spitfire was never known as a snappy roller but you can in fact achieve a reasonably high roll rate on the RAS version if you assist with a little rudder in the initial part of the roll. Too much rudder and you can get a violent snap roll which can turn into a nasty spin with too much input. Without rudder roll rate is more bland and the response is dependant on airspeed.Regarding the stall, again we have to recognise that most wartime aircraft could not possibly contain a sudden full deflection all the way back at speed because there is simply to much elevator resistance, and if this could be forced artificially there would be a distinct danger of overstress with sudden G onset and I doubt the elevators would stay in one piece. But most domestic joysticks, even with some Force Feedback, can be pulled fully back quite suddenly. If we set the elevator to "true" response at high speed then it's very hard to avoid a very twitchy response.The ideal thing would be if every Spit simmer had the actual spade-style stick in the real aircraft....then we could better emulate the pitch response.Regarding stall generally, of course stalling is connected entirely to the relationship between speed, weight, G force, lift and attitude. Any aircraft can stall at any speed given the right conditions.Opinions are divided on whether the Spitfire was an "easy" aircraft to fly. I have done a lot of research on this, and after reading copious numbers of reports from WW2 and other pilots, it is clear that this is a subjective thing. Some WW2 pilots reported the Spitfire as being a joy to fly, implying an "easiness" of response. except in two key areas: take off and sometimes landing. If the throttle is treated with respect even the enormously powerful Griffon engine was apparently not too difficult to handle. But full power was never used on take off, because it produces too much torque, with a danger that the wing inside of the torque overcame full opposite aileron. We have emulated this in the Mark XIV (put the parking brakes on and blip the throttle while looking over the right wing from the VC, and you will observe a distinct dip of the wing tip).There is no doubt that the German fighter aircraft of the era were much more difficult to handle. The evidence suggests that most versions of the Spitfire handled predictably and extremely harmoniously provided they weren't pushed to extremes.The high percentage rate of trainee casualties was clearly a result of putting very novice pilots in a powerful aircraft with very little prior experience, rather than being attributable to the aircraft itself. Unless aircraft are inherently badly designed or have unharmonious controls, I think it is a myth that any particular type is "hard" to fly just because it is a WW2 aircraft and we try to avoid injecting what could be construed as an artificial difficulty in handling just because we are dealing with a warplane. Every aircraft, from the humble Piper single, to the most outrageous power machine, follows the same rules of aerodynamics. It is flying near limits, take off, steep turns and approach and landing which will make any aircraft that more difficult to handle.I hope this gives some insight into our philosophy behind simulating a wonderful aircraft that is the Spitfire.Best Wishes,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stan,Like many developers, we are awaiting the outcome of FSX SP1. At the moment our hands are somewhat tied by not knowing whether the FSX patch is going to solve various graphic and other problems, or even create new ones. We are reluctant to release the FSX Spitfire until SP1 is firmly established, because we want to avoid having to release then spend another three months redesigning.Kind Regards,Rob Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thank you so much Rob. I think you answered every question I had in regards to how jumpy the Plane Design version is compared to yours, and why they respond to elevator differently at high speeds. I really like the design logic you used. Awesome post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there: I hope I don't start a flame war with this, but Gavin Hendrie did a review of the PD Spit last November, and I had several issues with the review, and so I downloaded it, tried it for a week, and then he and I exchanged a number of (very pleasant)emails. 1). The engine torque on take-off is backward:2). When pulling positive g the ball moves in the wrong direction:3). The brakes are sufficiently savage that they would have required a factory refit: 4). One can quite easily perform a perfect outside loop????? How do you do that in ANY Spitfire?5). The RR sounds really didn't alter very much as the power was increased toward full throttle:6). The effects of the rearward cg were excessive to the degree that I don't believe it would have got a flight certificate. This IS a Mk16, and had a number of years of development.and finally - my personal nit-pick #7). The degree of realistic detail of the cockpit interior was abysmal. It compares with that of "ok" freeware, and it would work in CFS3.7). The overall quality of the product was only equal or inferior to the RA Spit, and the RA Spit comes with an airfield c/w two flights of AI Spits. (Plus Rob and Sean's support), and given it's price. . . . . On the positive side - the exterior is splendid, the flying was a challenge - and the one thing that floored me was that adverse yaw drags the wing (with the down-going aileron) backward (as it should), - you can see it happen and it was most realistic. This is not detailed in any other sim aircraft I have ever flown, and I almost kept it because of this. The flight handling characteristics were very good, and one is able to sense when she begins to get loose. At this point - if you are below 3000 ft - you need to be aware of what can happen next. :-)The above are my reasons for rejecting the PD Spit. I later looked at another Spitfire: if you would like a very nice, realistic Spitfire to partner the RealAir Mk XIV - go look at the ShockWave Spit MkI. This aircraft is better in most areas, and costs less than $20 bucks. I would also suggest trying the Bf109. THIS one IS a handful!.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...