Plane Design Spitfire vs RealAir spitfire

[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

[mgh 89]

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!

[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.

[spilok 1,132]

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

[mgh 89]

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!

[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.

[robert young 2,897]

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

[robert young 2,897]

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

[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!

[Paul J 349]

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,

[Jwcfly 0]

Rob Young wrote:"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."I most certainly would pay $200 or more for a robust, floor mountable configurable joystick. The more I fly FS2004 the more I seem to be flying Cubs, the RA Spit, and many others, with my CH Throttle Quad on the left and my Aviator joystick mounted with velco to the desk. I've found HOTAS to be the most "comfortable" to fly for extended periods, and small control movements seem, at least for me, to be more precise. Believe it or not, I enjoy flying MAAM's DC-3 with a joystick more than my CH yoke. What if RealAir and a qualiy joystick company ( CH Products ? ) would come up with a bundle deal for FSX ?A well made Spitfire style floor mounted yoke, an updated RA Spit for FSX, maybe on DVD, and add "Sigh for a Merlin". I know I'd buy it :-cool

[Jwcfly 0]

Rob Young wrote:"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."I most certainly would pay $200 or more for a robust, floor mountable configurable joystick. The more I fly FS2004 the more I seem to be flying Cubs, the RA Spit, and many others, with my CH Throttle Quad on the left and my Aviator joystick mounted with velco to the desk. I've found HOTAS to be the most "comfortable" to fly for extended periods, and small control movements seem, at least for me, to be more precise. Believe it or not, I enjoy flying MAAM's DC-3 with a joystick more than my CH yoke. What if RealAir and a qualiy joystick company ( CH Products ? ) would come up with a bundle deal for FSX ?A well made Spitfire style floor mounted yoke, an updated RA Spit for FSX, maybe on DVD, and add "Sigh for a Merlin". I know I'd buy it :-cool

[Jwcfly 0]

Sorry, double post :-roll

[Paul J 349]

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o83/pj_3_bucket/Controls/. . . all made from scraps and a few good pots.

[Guest allcott]

>Rob Young wrote:>>"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.">>I most certainly would pay $200 or more for a robust, floor>mountable configurable joystick. >>The more I fly FS2004 the more I seem to be flying Cubs, the>RA Spit, and many others, with my CH Throttle Quad on the left>and my Aviator joystick mounted with velco to the desk. I've>found HOTAS to be the most "comfortable" to fly for extended>periods, and small control movements seem, at least for me, to>be more precise. Believe it or not, I enjoy flying MAAM's DC-3>with a joystick more than my CH yoke. >>What if RealAir and a qualiy joystick company ( CH Products ?>) would come up with a bundle deal for FSX ?>>A well made Spitfire style floor mounted yoke, an updated RA>Spit for FSX, maybe on DVD, and add "Sigh for a Merlin". I>know I'd buy it :-cool >>>I did write to CH Products with a suggestion for a joystick product with alternate `poles` of differing lengths for the joystick grip, or one with a telescoping handle. They weren't interested.From what we read here, and from what I keep getting told in real aviation clubhouses who have a copy of FS on the desktop for those rainy days and a joystick for convenience, they should be.Perhaps if someone were to suggest it to Saitek, who seem more interested in developing products in line with the developments in the simming world - and selling them?Allcott