This looks SO tempting.

Is there a Red Racer repaint available?

1 hour ago, Sphynnx said:

It's just the poor Asobo flight model 

As Alec said, MSFlight Model is a work in progress 

Hopefully, they'll improve it in the future 

 

It not perfect but definitely not poor in my opinion. 

I have found cool website with Spitfire 360 cockpit camera

https://www.haraldjoergens.com/panoramas/spitfire-td314/

High roller LOL

Second day of absolute blast with Spitfire! Since I have never flown one IRL I can't only compare with I flew. It feels as agilite like Yak-52 and as steady as T-6. It spins and it recovers! Wow! MSFS FM potential at it's best. Hidden autopilot is a gem!

Now few minor things I discovered after two days.

- Spiritfire performance is affected by icing, however ice showed up on leading edges

- oxygen valve on right hand some doesn't have a click point. Unless I misread manual I assume it suppose to work!

- as far as  remember in real Spitfire if you move stick aft tail wheel become free castering and when you move stick to neutral tail wheel suppose to be locked. Not sure if it possible to implement in MSFS

 

Since the rendering quality on my review video wasn't great, I figured I make a video which shows the visuals off a bit better. Hope you like this one, it's only two and a half minutes long and there's music accompanying the images, no talking at all. Enjoy (oh, and crank the volume up, jump to 25 seconds to skip the titles if you like)...

 

Edited March 8, 20215 yr by Chock

7 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

as far as  remember in real Spitfire if you move stick aft tail wheel become free castering and when you move stick to neutral tail wheel suppose to be locked. Not sure if it possible to implement in MSFS

Spitfires didn't have lockable tail wheels. The method you're describing above is how it worked in planes that had toe brakes like the Mustang or 109. The Spitfire had a free castoring tail wheel with no linkage to the rudder. They're not able to simulate this in MSFS right now so it does have rudder linked steering for now. I think the stick was still held all the way aft anyway like with tail draggers generally. Definitely a massive help on take off and landing rolls. 

51 minutes ago, Tektolnes said:

 I think the stick was still held all the way aft anyway like with tail draggers generally. Definitely a massive help on take off and landing rolls. 

Interesting!  Why is this?  What does it do?

1 hour ago, bobcat999 said:

Interesting!  Why is this?  What does it do?

Can see here: The-Taildragger.pdf (stick-rudder.com)

Keep the Stick Back!

The stick/yoke should be kept all the way back in your gut most all times the taildragger is on the ground except during takeoff, rollout from a wheel landing until the tail comes down, or when taxiing with a significant wind on your tail. If you see a taildragger taxing by on a relatively calm day or rolling out of a landing and the elevator is neutral or down, or flopping around, that's the sign of a poor taildragger pilot and an accident waiting to happen.

The idea is that you want to keep the tail planted firmly on the ground. This improves directional control if you have a steerable tailwheel, and most taildraggers do, and you don't want an application of power to raise the tail unexpectedly and possibly drive the nose into the ground.

With all landings, you should keep that stick back when the tailwheel is down on the runway, and you want to keep it all the way back, without exception. If making a full-stall landing, you want to work the stick all the way back so it hits the stop when the airplane stalls, and then hold it there during the entire rollout. With the three-point landing, you want to do the same if possible, or get it back the moment of touchdown. After making a wheel landing, as soon as the tail is down, immediately come back with the stick and keep it back.

Many folks just don't keep the stick back out of bad habits, lack of technique, or just plain not paying attention. Some folks have made a conscious decision that it doesn't matter, and say it's not necessary, but this is not true. You want keep that tail firmly down on the ground for stability and so the tailwheel gets maximum traction. For the folks that just refuse to believe it's necessary, try to think of one good reason for not keeping the stick back. What could possibly be a good reason for keeping it forward or letting it do what it wants to do? Why take the chance?

There's also some good posts that were put on the DCS forum for Spitfire handling:

Essay, PART 1: Why taildraggers are tricky and how to overcome it! - Page 3 - DCS: Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

Essay, PART 2: Getting the tail up... - Page 2 - DCS: Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

ESSAY, PART 3: Landing and stopping. - Page 2 - DCS: Spitfire L.F. Mk. IX - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

 

10 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

High roller LOL

 

The Realair version was so much fun to fly.

Does this version fly as good as the one from Realair for FSX/P3D?

Examples:

When you touch down, do the main wheel touch first, then as the speed bleeds does the tail drop slowly?

Do you lose control of the airplane after the main wheels touch the runway?

How are the sounds?

Those are some the features that made the Realair so immersive.

Thanks.

Jose

 

 

Damage modelling and armament excluded, does this in any way approach the modelling of the DCS version of the Spit?

10 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

Damage modelling and armament excluded, does this in any way approach the modelling of the DCS version of the Spit?

Some people who have the DCS version say it doesn't.  But I don't have that one, and for $50, I probably won't bother.

The question I ask myself is, is it good enough for me?
As I have never flown a Spitfire myself, I wouldn't know how they really handle.  So have the DCS people ever flown a real one?  Or are they just saying it 'feels more right?'  If so, I am not sure that is valid.

All I know is I have seen and heard plenty of different versions of Spitfires at airshows.  This looks and sounds like a good enough simulation for me, and judging by the youtube videos, most people seem to think it flies roughly as a spitfire should.  I saw one video where the reviewer stated the A2A version was better.  Better than what?  Has he flown a real Spitfire to compare?  Or does he just like the 'feel' of the A2A one, and he considers that one to fit his personal taste?

It will be easier to judge the JF Arrow I think - it seems like plenty have flown one of those. 

 

Edited March 8, 20215 yr by bobcat999

3 hours ago, DJJose said:

When you touch down, do the main wheel touch first, then as the speed bleeds does the tail drop slowly?

Whether the main wheels touch and then the tail drops, or it three-points, is down to your own landing in most taildraggers, and this thing is no exception; you can do a 'wheeler' if you want, but if you come in at the right speeds, it is easy to three-point it. Generally speaking it's pretty much 'on the money' in terms of how it flies for the various speeds you go at.

I'm basing that opinion on it being 'on the money' performance-wise on having Air Ministry Publication 1565 E (aka the Pilot's Notes for the Mark V to hand), and what my old mate who flew the real things told me about Spits (and since I was obsessed with the Mark V and and by extension the Mark IX, I was always asking him stuff about it, and fortunately he never tired of talking about it lol).

3 hours ago, DJJose said:

Do you lose control of the airplane after the main wheels touch the runway?

You can fairly easily lose directional control of the thing if there is a significant crosswind, or if you relax too much on the controls for take off and landing, and it also replicates the fact that the Spitfire has a pretty narrow-track landing gear in that it can fairly easily tip up onto a wingtip if you don't keep on top of things. However, see the bit below about runway choices.

It's worth bearing in mind that this is simulating a Mark IX Spit. As everyone knows, people who flew the real aeroplane would comment on how lovely it was to fly generally, but you have to remember that most of these pilots had spent rather a long time on the Tiger Moth or the Boeing Stearman for their initial flying training, then they would graduate to stuff such as the Miles Magister, T-6 etc before being let loose on the Spitfire, so they were well-used to 1930s-era taildraggers by the time they got in a Spitfire cockpit. Even then there was a good chance at an Operational Conversion Unit, it would most likely be a war-weary earlier Spitfire Mark which the fledgling pilots would first have a go on, so these things usually had a (comparatively) lower-powered 1030 HP Merlin engine in them and would not be carrying a full load of ammunition etc.

Even with all that in mind, the Pilot's Notes for the real thing does caution you that the Spitfire has a very sensitive elevator which can easily pitch it into a stall AoA, so yes it's nice to fly, but you do have to fly it and not be ham-fisted, or it will bite you. Like when you ride a horse, aeroplanes reward skillful handling, but they will take liberties with you if you are not in charge.

So when people say 'it's a Spitfire', they really should specify which Mark of Spitfire they're talking about: Over the space of approximately five years in WW2, the Spitfire went from having 1030 Hp and weighing 5,800 lbs, to having 2,375 Hp whilst weighing in at 12,750 lb in its Mark 47 Seafire variant, and there was about a 100 mph top speed difference between these models. So it basically doubled in weight and power as it was developed, and the Mark IX was about a third of the way along that development timeline.

3 hours ago, DJJose said:

How are the sounds?

Back with this Flying Iron Spit, the sounds are nice. They are very obviously recorded off a real Merlin engine and in combination with stuff such as the cockpit airflow wind noise with the canopy open, they are very authentic. You might have to tweak your various volume level settings in the sim's options to get a mix which pleases you personally, but you certainly can do that. 

Something else to consider...

For those having 'fun' with take offs and landings in the Spitfire, keep in mind that part of the problem is modern aeroplanes with nosewheels which steer a lot better on a landing and take off roll, and modern facilities with good, well drained runway surfaces, most of which are grooved. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, RAF airfields typically looked like this picture below. That's a Class A airfield, being RAF Bassingbourn in 1944, but it's a standard airfield layout the Air Ministry approved in the early 1940s and even before this they were essentially like that most of the time. Though they might have had concrete runways, these would not have been as 'grippy' as modern surfaces, but what they would have, is an orientation directly into the wind and a fifty foot wide constantly curved perimeter track allowing access to them, which was easy to see when taxying in a taildragger:

Two very specific features which help with the Spit and other taildraggers on these airfields are that it has the longest main runway on a heading of South-West to North-East, because that's the typical direction of the prevailing wind in the UK, so it's why most airports in the UK even these days have runways quite close to an east-west direction of 09/27. The other important feature that a Class A Airfield has, is two other runways aligned in a triangular A shape, which means it's impossible to have a nasty crosswind with all of those different take off and landing directions to choose from; you will be able to land and take off straight into the wind in any weather conditions, and on earlier RAF airfields where they were essentially just a big grass meadow, you could take off and land in pretty much any direction you liked.

This is why if you look in the pilot's notes for aeroplanes of that era, you won't find a 'demonstrated crosswind' limit for an aeroplane, because nobody in their right mind landed or took off in a crosswind back in those days. There simply was no reason to have to, it was only when bigger and faster aeroplanes with nose wheels showed up that they were able to be pragmatic with airport design and limit the numbers of runways they featured.

So don't worry about departing off the runway in a crosswind a bit in this thing, because keeping these things on a runway with a 20 knots crosswind is never how these things were flown back in the 1940s, and since they are rare and valuable, it's not how they're flown these days either.

Edited March 8, 20215 yr by Chock

Thanks Alan for the elaborate and erudite explanation.

48 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Some people who have the DCS version say it doesn't.  But I don't have that one, and for $50, I probably won't bother.

The question I ask myself is, is it good enough for me?
As I have never flown a Spitfire myself, I wouldn't know how they really handle.  So have the DCS people ever flown a real one?  Or are they just saying it 'feels more right?'  If so, I am not sure that is valid.

All I know is I have seen and heard plenty of different versions of Spitfires at airshows.  This looks and sounds like a good enough simulation for me, and judging by the youtube videos, most people seem to think it flies roughly as a spitfire should.  I saw one video where the reviewer stated the A2A version was better.  Better than what?  Has he flown a real Spitfire to compare?  Or does he just like the 'feel' of the A2A one, and he considers that one to fit his personal taste?

It will be easier to judge the JF Arrow I think - it seems like plenty have flown one of those. 

 

Thanks for your answer on this! With the CRJ and the Arrow out soon I think I'll leave the Spitfire for now then. I love the plane but I know how it is with me, I'll buy them all and not fly them! Hah