Jump to content

Why is the Spitfire so terrible?


Cunning_Fox

Recommended Posts

Ever since I have flown it in IL-2 in 2004, Spitfire has always been a pain in the ass.

 

The DCS one is even worse:

 

-the front windshield is rendered in such a colour, and with so many reflections, that it's impossible to see the target; it's impossible to see anything, because as soon as the enemy plane moves into your 12 o'clock you lose the target whether it's against the sky or against the ground; the colour of the glass makes everything look like a green mess, like you're looking through dirty green-tinted sunglasses that have wet celophane haphazardly taped over it

-let's not forget the giant assembly holding the thing: a thick metal arch, full of bolts and a barely useful mirror -- it's like flying a pillbox

-the most important guages for coolant and oil are next to your right knee, miles away from your sight (and you need to constanlty check them)

-the engine management is atrocious: the thing needs two levers, throttle and RPM, to be managed constantly; and, in order to increase/decrease power you need to first move RPM then the throttle and reverse the order for decreasing engine power

-the amount of modifications this plane has is mind boggling (what for?)

-cannons and MGs have wax on them, so they don't get jammed at higher altitudes

-gunnery in this thing is terrible, I'd rather fly a Nieuport than the Spit -- the nose blocks everything, so it's pretty much guesswork

-landing is the same: even in Yak-3 you can see the airstrip over the hood, while this thing's nose completely blocks it

-the sight is just a dot with a circle that you are supposed to use to measure distances and angles from; well done Brits, maybe put some lines on it for bullet trajectory or for range estimation

-the engine overheats like crazy: even though both supercharger and radiator are automated, you still need to constantly monitor their performance and switch to manual from time to time

-you can easily burn out your radioator and it's game over, limp to base until your engine dies. You can't go slow either -- your air-cooled engine will die as well.

-dropping bombs vertically will chop off your propeller

-trying to hit a target in front is nearly impossible -- the thing jerks and twists like a centipede that's having a seizure at a single press of the trigger

-turning in this plane is a tedious ordeal: if the circle is not 8 miles in diameter, the pilot blacks out

-moreover, as soon as you don't want to fly straight it jerks and shakes as you desperately try to turn into your enemy, just to lose them from your sight as the gunsight and pilot view angles are terrible, as mentioned above

-no armour whatsoever: BF-109 can take tons of punishment from those .50 cals in B-17s, while this thing has holes the size of tank turret as soon as it enters a fight

 

I remember a British pilot who has flown something like 500 planes in his life commenting on how MiG-15 had a "clumsy cockpit". Well, if Brtis flew this thing into combat, then every other plane would most certainly look clumsy... kind of like how the colourblind people see colours differently.

 

Terrible plane, I have no idea how the Brits flew this in the BoB.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be a shitpost right? if not then let me address a few points.

 

In order:

-Whilst the windshield is an annoying shade of green it can be changed with mods that will pass server authentication, https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.c...files/3307846/

 

-The frame while having thick arches is not too much of an issue as a few manauvers can offset this issue and in the case of distance related matters a few clearing turns every minute or so alleviates this.

 

- While yes the temperature gauges are by the knee it only takes a quick glance to estimate where its at, i fly in vr and have no issues with this what so ever, infact most allied aircraft are like this, the mustang is an example.

 

- As with most allied aircraft yes the engine management is done with two levers, throttle and rpm, however you can get away with running max rpm most of the time in combat and the same applies for the mustang, i do agree that the 109 has better management however it still retains the backup manual prop control, i would even say the 109 has a worse indicator being in the Clock format and not RPM.

 

- The amount of mods is due to the versatility of the aircraft, the one we have represents the MK IX in its most numerous mark, there were many different varients with mixed armaments, mainly 4x .303 and 2x 20mm however some replaced the .303s with a couple .50s or 20mm on some versions. the clipped wings gave better handingly in certain regiemes and others had different wing config for high alt flight, some even had pressuried cockpits.

 

- The gun jamming was a widespread issue that persisted throughout the war, the main issue was ice if i recall correctly, cannot remember what the german solution to this was however i do know the MK108 was prone to jamming if more then a few G was pulled.

 

- The gunnery is based of a fixed sight much the same as the 109 is however understanding how to employ the sight is an art in its self, later models including the mk ix were given gyro sights. it is based on angles. i suggest you read this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-u...E2TDMzcXc/view

 

- Being a tail dragger it suffers the same issue most tail draggers do, that is to say the view is more cowling then runway, same techniques are to be employed as any other taildragger, the 190, 109 and p47 also dont have great views.

 

- The engine overheating issue is due to the Spitfire using a different solution to the same problem, the 109 uses MW50 which is a water methonal mixture that boosts power while cooling the engine and preventing knock, the spitfire only has a real issue with overheat when at full power in steep climbs or low speed, all that is needed is proper handling the same as any other aircraft.

 

- Burning out the radiator is the same point as above.

 

- Going slow, all liquid cooled engines have this issue, its the reason why car radiators have fans for when the car is stopped, once again proper handling stops this issue, you can turn a lot tighter, a lot slower at a lot less power setting then you would think.

 

- The aircraft does shake when its firing, pre emptive use of rudder eliminates this. The 109 does shake although less so, with earlier version being able to carry wing mounted guns i would suspect the same would occure.

 

- The pilot will black out when enough G is applied regardless of the aircraft flown, the spitfire has no issues following most aircraft through manauvers that include high G loading. it can out turn the 109 easily when flown correctly.

 

- Alot of the shake comes from engine power being applied rapidly once again the measure is using proper control inputs to eliminate the effect, i would suggest making sure your controls and curves are set in a manor that allows you to push the plane throughout the control regieme.

 

- On the point of armour, the 109 we have in game is a late 1944/early 45 model which was predominately used for bomber hunting which is why it has the 30mm, in game it has always been able to take an extremely unreasonable amount of damage, this is from many years flying it in the sim against both ai and players respectively, the new damage model helps to alleviate this issue. before a 109 could be leaking more then a burst water main and still fly home while out running the chasing hostiles, this is no longer the case as it now will eventually lose the engine due to over heat, not to mention that the prop can now be shot causing imbalance and hence drag.

 

comparing such different aircraft is like comparing apples and oranges, more so when you bring the battle of britain in the picture, our spitfire is 43 model with a fixed sight and without 150 octane fuel where as the 109 is a late one as mentioned before which gets mw50, not all 109s had this.

 

the battle of britain spitfires did have issues with the carb that were eventually patched, this is in regard to bunting the aircraft and causing carb fires. the mk IX came with the mod if i recall right.

 

early 109s were lighter and more nimble then the late ones, the same is true of spitfires, this is due to the war changing, for the allies it meant the intercepter role shifted from bomber hunting to trying to take down buzz bombs, this is why other aircraft took over these duties while the IX would eventually start to be used for other duties such as ground attack.

 

for the axis it meant that they needed fast aircraft that could climb to meet bombers with the heavy weapons to take them down, this meant that turning capability was reduced.

 

The aircraft are a product of their time. it is why allied aircraft tended to stay at a certain production standard with electric starters and gyro sights progressing through the war where as for the germans electric starters were not included due to the materials being of importance to building uboats, as well as this production standards would drop significantly due to allied bombing of factories and sabotage by forced labour workers. this meant engines would often not be ground run, fuel was in short supply and spares were hard to get, if you also research a bit into 44 you will come across a few mods that were done to 109s, mainly this was wing mounted weapons and removing the fairings over the gear which our 109 actually has, giving it more speed, the removal i believe was due to mud causing them to jam though i could be wrong.

 

as for shooting, it is a double edged sword, while yes the 109 has better forward vis in flight for shooting this just means that spitfire pilots are generally forced more into deflection shooting which will usually yield better results as instead of hitting the trailing edge of a wing they are more likely to hit vital componants such as fuel tanks, ammo, wing spar, pilot etc etc.

 

the 109 suffers at high speed due to stick forces being very high making it hard to use the elevator, this was noted by a test pilot as well, also it does lack aliaron trim unlike most aircraft instead relying on tabs that are set on the ground.

 

at the end of the day its knowing how to manage your aircraft and push it to its limits as well as knowing the limits of the opponents aircraft.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the OP is aimed at the real Spitfire (in which case this thread is in the wrong forum), or the DCS modelled version, in which case the answer appears to be that it's accurately modelled.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the OP is aimed at the real Spitfire (in which case this thread is in the wrong forum), or the DCS modelled version, in which case the answer appears to be that it's accurately modelled.

 

yeah i dont know, tried to give as accurate answer as possible without opinion but its hard, only thing thats missing on the spitfire to my knowledge is the radiator cut off valve for when the OAT gets so cold the the engine cools too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain is a small country but, in terms of invention, a massive target for poking fun at. You could have picked any one of dozens of stupid designs created or excercised in the realms of aviation, in that period and we could have had a giggle. There are some truely hideous creations that barely flew.

 

But, instead, you threw the dart at the board and missed the wall.

 

Opinion is fun and all that, yes, you are welcome to it unreservedly. But the empirical data is very much at odds with your opinion. And it's an awful lot of combat data. Since it wasn't difficult to use the aircraft, for at least the majority of the pilots who used it successfully, we can only conclude that it's just difficult for you.

 

That's a shame for you. And very brave of you to let us know. :)

 

 


Edited by Pikey
  • Like 4

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain is a small country but, in terms of invention, a massive target for poking fun at. You could have picked any one of dozens of stupid designs created or excercised in the realms of aviation, in that period and we could have had a giggle. There are some truely hideous creations that barely flew.

 

But, instead, you threw the dart at the board and missed the wall.

 

Opinion is fun and all that, yes, you are welcome to it unreservedly. But the empirical data is very much at odds with your opinion. And it's an awful lot of combat data. Since it wasn't difficult to use the aircraft, for at least the majority of the pilots who used it successfully, we can only conclude that it's just difficult for you.

 

That's a shame for you. And very brave of you to let us know. :)

 

 

for those that could use it lel, i think a lot of people look at the record of crashes and draw their opinion based off that, sure there are some downfalls of the design but its a beautiful one that aged well with many upgrades, not to mention most people that did crash them were low time pilots, often around the 15 hour mark if that.

 

as for hideous designs i need only bring up the Fairy Barracuda. Everyones view on beauty is subjective though so i'll grand that, i for one think the mig 21 looks great :)

 

Fairey_Barracuda_TF.V_RK558_Fairey_Ringway_05.46_edited-2.thumb.jpg.1c9ae55f1928412eb0926f0fe1fc7af1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more terrible in DCS because it is simulated more, the more this plane is simulated the more you have to deal with its many shortcomings.

 

Let's add a few more:

 

-the sight burns out, meaning you have to change lightbulbs in mid-flight (not implemented in DCS, the sight just turns off), and there is no ironsight for backup, like in the soviet fighters.

 

Now, to reply:

 

-so you have to shake your plane side to side violently to get a better view over that giant metal arch? All this while watching your engine? No.

-mustang's cockpit ergonomics aren't even close -- the guages are clear and big, it takes a signle movement of the eyes to see anything, same as soviet aircraft, if not better. I'm not even talking about FW-190. In Spitfire, a little shadow becomes a big problem, since it obscures your view of the guages that are indented into the insturment panel, without any clear indication as to what is supposed to be a limit for the engine performance. Granted, most aircarft of the era had not clearly indicated those limits, however the Spit is particularly terrible at that. They should have gone a step further and put those guages over the pilot's shoulder, so that he'd have to turn his head to see them

-the compass is blocked by the stick (which isn't even a stick, but a weird combination of a doughnut and a plunger, that obviously isn't possible to fly accurately with, because the bank axis is obviously getting some input when the pilot moves the stick backwards or forwards due to the fact that the pivot is not the same for lateral and horisontal movement)

-most allied aircraft do not need constant RPM management, in fact -- most aircraft of the time did not require you to perform pagan summoning rituals with your lever assembly in the midst of battle just to increase or decrease power

-manual prop control in 109 is optional and only when the governor fails, contstant max RPM in Spit is a death sentence, you have to keep it at 2650 most of the time (which is difficult to see on the RPM guage, since it's not graded finely)

-the unnecessarily complex engine management is not compensated by higher performance, at the time of its intorduction Mark 9 was outperformed by most other fighters in terms of speed alone

-gun jammijng might have been a problem, but not as bad as having to wax your guns in order to fly, not many people did that and not many aircraft had that problem, at least not to that extent

-I have already read "Bag the Hun" a few times, I have completed the exercises, I have timed myself. I cannot hit anything in this thing, because the nose blocks my target and the green winshield blends it with the colour of the sky, and if I do manage to find it, it disappears behind the "arch of doom" that holds said windshield. That thing looks like a portal to hell. The only time I ever hit anything, is when I am as close to the target as tight formation flying, then again -- that's if the sight doesn't malfunction and turn off.

-as mentioned before, not a single relatively mass-produced taildragger has this much of a problem for the view forward, this plane actually needs you to hit the top of the canopy bubble with your head, and then, maybe, you'll see a few things ahead of you; I would imgaine it would have been impossible to see anything in front of Mark 1, since it did not feature a bubble in the mid-section of the canopy. 109 has a great view, despite having a greenhouse-style canopy.

-it doesn't just need proper handling, it requires continues monitoring of the engine, which is already hard enough in a plane that wants to fail in every system, be it the sight or the enemy appearing out of your numerous blind spots, trying to shoot you down (not a hard task to do, considering it can't take any punishment at all).

 

...more later...

 

+In fact, the only thing good about the Spit, is that this plane is aesthetically pleasing. But in terms of everything else, it's like trying to drive a gorgeous RR limousine through a small clogged street or the dirt roads of a farm, or trying to race with it in Formula 1. All of those ordeals are comical at best, but the thing's nice to look at when it's parked. I am actually shocked at how bad it is, all the more respect to those boys who flew in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This thread is analogous to complaining that the 1936 Alfa Romeo 8C has a sh!tty head unit and the bluetooth integration doesn't work. Don't get me started on the skinny tires.

 

Or that a Lancia Stratos oversteers too much.

 

Embrace the modelling as an attempt at a point in time experience. Anything else is wishing your 1980s Casio calculator watch had GPS.

 

 

IME, engine overheat in the DCS Spitfire is a non-issue. The DCS Mustang is terrible for over heating (although I haven't flown it in quite a while).

 

The green glass to me is a non-issue - not even something I've bothered to "fix" with the user mods. Likewise the canopy perspex scratches everyone complains about.

 

 

FWIW, would love to see a Nieuport or Yak-3 in DCS. Mildly excited about the La-7 that Octopus G is working on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the fighter is terrible for it's time due to objective reasons and comparison. It has nothing to do with the competition between a classic and a modern car. It lacks features that were widespread at the time and it is bad in terms of speed and maveuvrability.

 

Completely wrong. Never had an issues with Mustang's engine temp.

 

Just had a dogfight with some FW-190s in the missions, the only thing it's good at is catching bullets. Impossible to chase AI into vertical, impossible to outturn them. All the while you have to manage the engine and speed or it will overheat and blow up. The pilot has to fight the plane and the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cunning Fox, this is just a troll, right?

 

If you have problems with the way DCS modeled the Spit 9, this is the place to come and make a case for change. But ONLY in the model. Which, apart from a few quibbles, most people here believe is a very accurate depiction. You have to be careful about not firewalling the throttle constantly and not trying to zoom with German fighters. Wait until they come back and out-turn them.

 

Your problem seems to be with the actual airplane. Well Supermarine went out of business in 1957 and designer R. J. Mitchell died in 1937, so I don't think there's anyone still around for you to rant at.

 

Why are you bringing it here? (shakes head).

 

My take is that you just don't have the skill to fly it well so you blame the airplane.

  • Like 1

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been flying since the early 90s in sims and can take down a mid-war 109 in a P.11 in IL-2 1946 or 109K in I-16 at highest level AI in DCS, but sure... I don't have skill.

 

"Someone doesn't like my favourite plane, he must be a troll!"

 

Solid reasoning right there.

 

I am not "firewalling" the throttle, nor am I trying to go vertical with the Germans. the thing is it's impossible to outturn even the Anton, you need the speed to cool the engine, and they (at least the AI) pull tighter turns on you. If you do manage to catch them, you end up seeing FW going into a steep climb that should be impossible (spoiler: it's not for them, because they actually made engines that don't burn to a crisp when you add a little throttle). And should you wish to WEP to chase him, you can't land the shots, because the sight picture is terrible.

 

I'm not ranting buddy, and sorry that you got so offended that your emotions got hurt. Maybe grow up?

 

I am sorry that an overhyped british plane turned out to be mediocre at best in reality. My interest here is genuine -- I am wondering why is it so bad and what do people do about it, since flying in that bullet magnet is a chore at best, and masochism at worst.

 

But, maybe I am coming off a bit harsh. It's just that I did not expect it to be THAT bad a plane. Although, if it is modelled correctly, then I am questioning the sanity of anyone who ever fought in it, because the first few dogfights I've had in the Spit I just quit to the main menu and laughed for something like 5 minutes at how pathetic of a plane it is, it's a disaster. Either that, or the AI doesn't follow laws of physics. But in K4 I've shot Mustangs and Spits relatively easily, same AI skill.

 

maybe ther is a trick to it that I'm not seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(at least the AI)

 

Well that right there is your first mistake, because the DCS AI cheats so bad. You just cannot do any meaningful comparisons unless fighting against a human adversary.

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well, jumping into the quick mission seems like a bad idea (you don't know what your plane has on, what sort of state it is in), but after trying to trim it it's a little better.

 

Except that you can hit the enemy Doras with all you've got and they still keep flying, however, their hits almost always destroy your plane.

 

Subsequent testing (I've been dogfighting and pressing Shift+R time and time again) has shown, that a well-trimmed aircraft performs better. But, it still starts shaking for absolutely no reason. You'd be chasing an enemy plane, trying your best to fly as close as possible, line up for a shot and it just starts dancing.

 

It seems that trim is absolutely necessary in Spit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following some of your complaints, the Spit out-turns all contemporaries currently in the sim - well maybe not the I-16 - not enough seat time in that beastie to say. Don't compare to AI - the AI is terribly implemented.

 

If you don't like the Spit, that's fine. None of these planes as modeled in DCS stands up to their legends so... shrug.

 

If anything it's pretty remarkable that such great results were obtained with such terrible aircraft. I agree the cockpit is a mess compared to the US and German aircraft and the joystick looks like some kind of a torture device out of a Monty Python movie - but that's the way they were. In some respects they were victims of good aero design [sic!] not being backed up by the rest of the ancillary systems being developed far enough along at that point in history. I mean, watching old Pathe videos the Merlin engine forge looked like some kind of weird Druid burning man festival compared to the German "modern" factories of the time. Just appreciate them for what they are - or not.

 

Meh. None of it matters. It is what it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm flying almost straight, with low angular speed, not close enough to the target that I'd be in it's wash, yet it shakes for no reason. It's like the plane has a mind of its own and has seizures.

 

It's these seizures that are to blame for most of the misses. The plane has poor longitiduinal stability.

 

I don't manhandle the planes, if anything I'd rather take a longer turn than to risk doing what most new players do (as in turning until your wings break off), yet, for some reason, in other planes I can easily take AI on (be it K4 or I-16, no problem). This one -- not so much.

 

I am surprised to find that trim has such importance in this bird.

 

The other funny thing is that I find this plane the easiest to take off in and to land in, as opposed to others. Yet, most of the complaints I see is that people always spin on take-offs and landings. It's the exact opposite for me.

 

Anyway, let's continue with my reply:

 

-the wings fall off at the speed 109 is easily pulling maneouvers (if you dive after it, and try to follow it -- watch as your wings fly away).

-engine overheats at anything above 8 pounds per square inch, provided you go over the 2800 RPM, which you will because everything outspeeds you.

-not really, you could try to turn at low power, but your Spit will buckle and go into stall, your engine will overheat too

-the aircraft shakes all the time: lined up a shot? Tough luck. Here's some random shaking to throw you off, as if some unseen force has hit your wing with a sledgehammer. The 109 shakes a LOT less, and there is no random twitching that makes you fell like your plane's got parkinson's.

-I know that the pilot will black out, he just does so at almost any turn rate in the Spit, I could fly K4 and turn and still maintain consciousness no problem. As of now, this thing couldn't outturn B-17. Every WW2 fighter in the game has better stability and turn radius than the Spit.

-I only ever increase power steadily (jerking the throttle is not my style) I do not set curves (although I did before), because the real thing did not have any either.

-the 109 in the game is the cheaper version of the 109s before it, it's only meant to be cheap, not effective. And even though K-4 is the late war ad-hoc interceptor for the Germans, it still outperforms the Spitfire (even though this version is summer 1942, still it is quite remarkable just by how much it is outclassed compared to K-4). You are right about the unreasonable amount of damage, Dora has the same problem.

-electric starters were removed not because of the lack of metal, but to save space in what was essentially a glider with an engine (109), including a starter is a double-edged sword: you can restart the engine in mid air, but it also meant that the plane was heavier which was not a good thing. Germans had no problem with the fuel up to the 43 at least and maybe even 44 because Romania supplied them with all the fuel they needed, and when it chaged sides -- they've still had some reserves.

-deflection shooting can be done in any aircraft, it's just that here it's much more difficult because of the vision from the front of the cockpit, for the spitfire deflection shooting seems to be the only option, and that requires a lot of skill to position your enemy for that shot, so while there could be "better results" the chance of hitting anything is much smaller

-109 lacks aileron trim because it's easy to fly and is very responsive, Spit has problems flying straight unless you crank the trim all the way almost to the limits of their range

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plane has poor longitiduinal stability.

Exactly. That was designed in.

It stays where you point it; not trying to get back to where it started.

Just what you need when trying to aim it at something.

(There is a NACA wartime report discussing this feature, but I can't be bothered looking for it again)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. A feature, not a bug. Good to know.

 

Yeah, something "clicked", all of a sudden I could down K-4s with just a few shots. On the second kill my sight turned off, but I could still hit the enemy plane.

 

Still sort of awkward, since I chase them, and as soon as they go up I go WEP and in those few moments whilst my nose is facing up I fire and kill the AI.

 

Excuse the bad landing, my plane was damaged.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UpG...ew?usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the fighter is terrible for it's time due to objective reasons and comparison. It has nothing to do with the competition between a classic and a modern car. It lacks features that were widespread at the time and it is bad in terms of speed and maveuvrability.

 

Completely wrong. Never had an issues with Mustang's engine temp.

 

Just had a dogfight with some FW-190s in the missions, the only thing it's good at is catching bullets. Impossible to chase AI into vertical, impossible to outturn them. All the while you have to manage the engine and speed or it will overheat and blow up. The pilot has to fight the plane and the enemy.

I dont wanna be polemical...

I can beatevery AI at every level with the Spit, struggling a bit with the 109 at max level only because is more like a UFO than an aircaft.

For out turn no problem, to follow them in a climb You need to stay conservative and going in lag pusuit a lot of time...the AI is so stupid, he will try to go vertical after vertical foe ever...

Lowering the figth near the deck and he will have less energy from time to time until You will be able to catch and kill.

For the others problem, the engine is not an issue, You must know that at full power You have 3 mins, that could be extended if You manage to start high and do sometimes some steep dive to bring speed and more air to the radiator. If You go vertical You must know that is the speed manage to fall under 80 Mph You MUST cut the rpm and the manifold or You will burn the engine in 6/8 seconds.

The only thing that I could concede You is the tint of the glass, having see the real one the DCS simulated version is still too saturated. I hope a rework in the future or a mod to have it more realistic.

Last but not the least, if they managed to "the sight burns out, meaning you have to change lightbulbs in mid-flight (not implemented in DCS, the sight just turns off), and there is no ironsight for backup, like in the soviet fighters." I hope they will put a key to simulate the pilot's change of the bulb because at the moment we have only the real problem and not the real solution, so for my point of view, is not so realistic. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shaking is buffet and wing drop is the aircraft stalling. You are over-pitching. The stick is very sensitive - as it should be - but the issue is exacerbated by a mis-match in the stick geometry of the real aircraft and what is typically used by gamer. It is an issue that effects most DCS aircraft to a lesser degree unless you have a 1-to-1 scale stick replica. However, in the Spitfire, it's stick travel to critical AoA compared to overall stick throw is tiny and exacerbates this issue exponentially. Outlined here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/dcs-wo...pitch-solution

 

Regards engine, it overheats if you grind circles in the sky under 140mph. Even if you start a fight at 250mph+ but you're yanking the aircraft into the stall regularly (which you are), you will bleed speed fantastically and drive your speed down to a flight regime where you will find it (a) hard to control and (b) keep the engine cool.

 

You need airflow for cooling... this shouldn't be a surprise. The Spitfire will out-turn most aircraft at 160 IAS so there shouldn't be need to get into that dangerous <140mph region.

 

So:

  1. don't make high speed stalls whilst trying to get a guns solution - adjust your control curves and develop the finesse required to mange the Spitfire's AoA and speed with it.
  2. don't make sustained vertical manouevres (stall turns or tail slides) whilst you've got the throttles or RPM pinned forward.

Regards engine management, there are go to presets that you can and should memorise:

 

1. Combat or Interception climb - 2850 RPM and 12lb Boost. Keep IAS >160mph. 1 hour limit.

 

2. Cruising out for trouble but need to get height reasonably promptly - 2650 RPM and 7lb Boost. Keep IAS >160mph. No time limit.

 

3. Got a long flight ahead of me - 2400 RPM & 4lb Boost or even lower to get lower fuel consumption.

 

4. Get into a fight? Go to 2850 & 12. Only use 3000RPM and 18lb in extremis. Keep your IAS >160, 180 is better for cooling and if you do go WEP (3000 and 18lb) then don't grind holes in the sky cos she'll overheat even quicker than the nominal 5 minute limit "allowed". Really only use WEP for chasing down or running from an enemy aircraft - keep it fast, don't start dogfighting and getting slow.

 

5. Don't over boost the engine (high MAP/Low RPM) as this will kill it quickly.

 

This no different to ANY Allied fighter with Max Continuous, Combat and WEP RPM and Manifold Pressure settings.

 

Regards visibilty - the Spitfire first flew came out in 1936 - the Mustang in 1940. 4 years difference in development. The 109 is a closer design contemporary and if you think visibility is any better from that aircraft...well you need an eye test.

 

Personally I think you thought you found an excuse to do some Brit bashing and came in here to smack-talk a much loved icon, when in reality, the plane has compromises, like any other, and is otherwise a very capable machine and can be a delight to fly and fight.

 

The real issue is your apparent unwillingness do any research whatsoever, combined with a lack of finesse when understanding aircraft handling or engine management - something which apparently most of us DCS Spitfire drivers (and so the historical record would indicate, the gentlemen obliged to fly her in combat for real) don't seem to have a problem with.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Someone doesn't like my favourite plane, he must be a troll!"

 

 

"I can't fly this plane, it must be terrible!" :megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

 

Thanks for the laugh - this thread is hilarious.

 

 

Virtual Horsemen - Right Wing (P-51)  - 2008... 

Virtual Ultimate Fighters - Lead (P-47) - 2020...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry what plane are you flying? The spitfire is a killer...

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just aswell the OP didn’t work for RAF procurement. We’d have been in big trouble during the BOB.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does kind of have a point about Brit cockpits ergonomics, though. Especially for all standard engine-related instruments shared between many designs, and yes, the bloody P-8 compass.

 

There's a solution, however - OP, purchase Il-2 CloD Blitz or Tobruk and try to manage engine instruments on the Beaufighter. After that, I guarantee, you will come back here and say Spit has the best instrument panel ever (for Brit standards, that is), and you want to marry one :D.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the spit is the only plane I can get kills reliably in with in multiplayer. It totally clicks with me and I love it. My brain is too smooth to make 300iq energy fights, and when I fly the spit, "just turn" seems to work well enough

RTX 2070 8GB | 32GB DDR4 2666 RAM | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 4.2Ghz | Asrock X570 | CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle | TM MFDs | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...