58 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why fly a combat aircraft if you can't do any combat?

you are really sticking to that arent you? even if we demonstrated again and again how nonsensical this is....

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why fly a combat aircraft if you can't do any combat?

Well in the case of the Spitfire, loads of reasons: sheer fun, airshow routines, simulating a photo recon mission, or a SAR mission, or a practice combat; all kinds of stuff, and if we want to shoot stuff in a Spit, there's IL2 or DCS etc for that kind of thing, where only pixels come to any harm. But in the case of many WW2 aeroplanes, they are obviously rather old, not to mention rare, precious and expensive, so you can't really thrash them or pull high Gs on the airframe, as it puts a lot of wear and tear on them, but in a sim you can do this with no worries at all, so you can do the kind of airshow routine in MSFS which sadly we will probably never see in real life.

For example, on a real Merlin engine, the spark plugs last about twelve hours before you have to replace them (yes, it really does eat them at that kind of rate). Incidentally, if you wanna have a go at all that stuff, I can recommend this, which lets you dismantle all kinds of WW2 aeroplanes including the Spitfire and the Mosquito and is much more fun than you'd imagine, not to mention pretty educational.

And since you are unlikely to ever see one at an airshow pulling the kind of maneuvers they really are capable of, a sim is one of the few places where you can really put one through its paces for an airshow routine. I've seen loads of Spitfires fly over the years, including having seen about 25 of the things all flying at Duxford simultaneously for a major WW2 anniversary (that show was so busy they ended up turning people away from Duxford because so many people had gone there, and I was glad I went there early and got in). And I've had the pleasure of sitting in a few Spits and faffing around in them and stuff.

But even on that occasion at Duxford, as cool as it was to see and hear so many Spits all in the skies at once, I was aware that they weren't being absolutely thrashed to their limits. Which is why this video (of a pretty accurate Fw190 replica) is so cool, because this one actually is being thrashed around the skies and shows off what these things could really do. Check out the smoke when it starts. It doesn't have a BMW 801 engine as the real thing had, instead using a ASh-82 of around 2000 hp (so fairly similar in power rating). The ASh-82 does have 14 cylinders like the 801 in a similar configuration, so it looks, sounds and operates in a manner very similar to the powerplant which was in the original Fw190.

Later in this video it is joined by a Hispano Suiza Ha1112, which was the post-war Merlin-engined version of the bf109, most famous for being the type used to depict the bf109 in the 1969 movie The Battle of Britain, so that one looks like a 109 but sounds like a Spitfire lol. Since it was the Mark IX (which is the version coming from this developer) which managed to match the Fw190A in 1942, seeing what that replica can do gives us a good idea of what a real Mark IX would have been capable of.

Anyway, here's a cool (sort of) Spitfire story for you...

I was at a dog show with my ex-missus years ago at Newark, and we were in the big hall heading toward the exit for a smoke when we heard the unmistakable sound of a Merlin engine approaching. My ex-missus is well into old aeroplanes like me, and so we both immediately picked up the pace to get outside and see what it was, and as we did, I looked at her and said: 'that sounds like Spitfire!' to which she immediately replied: 'Nah, it's a Hurricane'. As we went outside, a Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Hawker Hurricane whizzed past us overhead at about 600 feet AGL. I looked at her and said: 'how did you know it was a Hurricane?' She said: 'I think it's the intake on the front cowling, or maybe the airflow noise that thicker wing makes along with the exhausts it has. You can tell it a mile off.' 🙂

She is right too, lots of different WW2 Spits and Hurricanes make a slightly different sound depending on the air intakes, for example the Spits fitted with a Morris radiator intake make more of a whistling sound than other versions with different intakes. But it was very cool that she could tell the sound of that Hurricane from so far off. I think it is because she played the cello and had a good ear for certain frequencies. She still jokingly winds me up about that incident from time to time incidentally, pointing out she's better at recognition than me!

Oh and on the subject of Merlins versus big air cooled radials, here's a really great quote from a US pilot who flew the P-51 and the P-47 in combat in WW2. Since he had flown both in combat, he was asked which one was better and which did he prefer, the P-47 or the P-51. His reply is very interesting. He said when they mixed it up over Europe whilst escorting bombers, it was reminiscent of a demolition derby. 'The P-51 was fairly light and akin to a Ferrari race car, whereas the P-47 was more like a Buick Roadmaster. Which would you rather take to a demolition derby, a Ferrari or a Buick?'

Edited February 6, 20215 yr by Chock

54 minutes ago, Chock said:

'The P-51 was fairly light and akin to a Ferrari race car, whereas the P-47 was more like a Buick Roadmaster. Which would you rather take to a demolition derby, a Ferrari or a Buick?'

 

Gunther Rall said something similar about the 190 versus the 109 : "The 109 was like a rapier, the FW-190A was like a broadsword" .  Kurt Tank made a similar analogy describing the 109 as a high strung racing thoroughbred and the fw190 as a heavy cavalry horse.

 

With regard to flying a Spitfire outside of combat, it is no worse than flying in typical online servers where the general thing is to take a late war plane into a WWI style furball where everyone seems to think they are Von Richthofen in a Fokker Triplane and tries to  turn fight and fly around in silly little circles 😄

Edited February 6, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

59 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

 

Gunther Rall said something similar about the 190 versus the 109 : "The 109 was like a rapier, the FW-190A was like a broadsword" .

Yup, and Rall was in fact shot down in his Fw190 by a P-47 from the 56th FG, piloted by Joseph Powers, who had 14 victories plus several damaged:

Apparently Rall tried to out-dive the Thunderbolt (not really possible, since the P-47 could dive like no other WW2 fighter) to get away. In doing so, Rall's 190 apparently reached a speed of about 620 mph, but was hit numerous times by Powers and by his wingman Joe Vitale, who was also taking potshots at Rall too. Rall's thumb was shot and left hanging on by only some skin, at which point he decided his aeroplane was finished and pulled it out of the dive and bailed out.

Rall landed in a tree in his 'chute, then he got some more injuries when he released his harness and fell out of the tree onto a rough slope. But Rall said it was in fact this incident which saved his life because his long recovery period kept him out of combat at a time when the USAAF was absolutely slaughtering Luftwaffe crews.

This is one of the interesting things about WW2 and the various opinions regarding which were the best fighter aeroplanes. It's often forgotten that it was the P-47, and not the P-51, which was the mount of most US pilots when they were up against pilots of Rall's calibre, whereas the attrition of Luftwaffe crews meant it was, in many cases, new and far less experience Luftwaffe pilots which later P-51 pilots were up against.

This is not to diminish any efforts on the part of those pilots later in the war, it was still a dangerous job, but there are reports from B-17 and B-24 crews later in the war where they said they never even saw any Luftwaffe fighters at all on their entire 25 mission tour. Some of this is because of fighter tactics however, where at that point in the war, US escort fighters were permitted to leave the formation and engage stuff ahead and away from the bomber group, so there may well have been fighters present, but they were probably being engaged ahead and lower down, so out of sight of the bomber crews.

And this doesn't diminish their bravery either, there was still plenty of flak coming up at them, right up until the end of the war. I can't imagine the kind of guts it must have took to hold a formation position for several minutes whilst hundreds of flak guns are shooting at you and you are seeing other aeroplanes in your formation exploding from hits.

Which reminds me, in case you didn't know. This is on the way.

Edited February 6, 20215 yr by Chock

19 minutes ago, Chock said:

 

Which reminds me, in case you didn't know. This is on the way.

 

Multiplayer VR .... interesting

Just now, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

 

Multiplayer VR .... interesting

Yup, nine people all in VR operating a B-17 would be pretty wild. 

28 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yup, nine people all in VR operating a B-17 would be pretty wild. 

the 3D models looks delicious 🙂

4 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why fly a combat aircraft if you can't do any combat?

It’s the same reason that I drive a fast car but don’t take it to the track and race it...it’s fun.

Edited February 6, 20215 yr by regis9

16 hours ago, kaosfere said:

Were you watching me chew gum again this morning?  😄

I have to ask this.

Quote

Does your chewing gum lose its flavor
on the bedpost overnight?
If your mother says don't chew it,
Do you swallow it in spite?
Can you catch it on your tonsils,
Can you heave it left & right?
Does your chewing gum lose its flavor
on the bedpost overnight?

 

2 hours ago, regis9 said:

It’s the same reason that I drive a fast car but don’t take it to the track and race it...it’s fun.

Common wisdom says that warbirds are killing machines. What it doesn’t say is that they try to kill their own pilot first 😁 when he or she shows an once of sloppiness. Some are powerful and dangerous beasts to fly like the P-51, F4U (the ensign killer !) etc.  It’s fun indeed. Like riding a tiger. 

7 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why fly a combat aircraft if you can't do any combat?

What is a typical combat mission?

A couple hours of flight over France or Italy or the beautiful South Pacific in weather that you probably wouldn't test under normal circumstances, but this is war buddy.

Or over the Channel, French coast coming up. Keenly alert now, keep the formation, eyes on the leader, eyes on your wing-man. Button up fly tight, all those little cliches your instructor taught you running through your head.

Bang, what was that? There's a whole curtain of it. Flak. Holy word not allowed there's another close one! Praise God some clouds. Hope nothing got damaged.

Wonder if I'll see any action this flight...

5 hours ago, Chock said:

Yup, nine people all in VR operating a B-17 would be pretty wild. 

I'd pay 40 bucks for that...

Warbirds are very fast and very agile. If they held more passengers, guzzled less fuel, provided more creature comforts, made less noise to landlubbers, polluted less, and were still being made they would be REAL competition to the GA aircraft now in use!

But none of these drawbacks are nearly as important in the sim world! Pollution, fuel mileage, noise: who in the simworld cares? You can dart through the mountain passes swiftly admiring the scenery!

How to turn your Mark IX into a Mark IX LF, by cartwheeling your landing and ripping the wingtips off...

Edited February 7, 20215 yr by Chock

On 2/6/2021 at 10:42 AM, Ricardo41 said:

Why fly a combat aircraft if you can't do any combat?

Manhandling a slow, lumbering bomber which is totally different in manners and shape to a modern airliner or a small Cessna can be fun....

The sheer, gut wrenching performance and power to weight ratios of some fighters (including jets, of course) ... the RESPONSIVE controls, almost too responsive upon first acquaintance, like a skittish thoroughbred, and the controlled violence of the manoeuvres which those controls endow. The looks, the noise... 

..and that's just via a computer and a bunch of pixels on a screen! The real things are, I certainly believe (not having actually been in one), far more visceral experiences.