Jump to content

DD_Fenrir

Members
  • Content Count

    1116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About DD_Fenrir

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/16/1980

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, Il-2:GBS, Il-2:CloD
  • Location
    UK
  • Interests
    Aviation, music, history, philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Depends entirely on the variant referenced, when, and in comparison what to. The B Mk.IV in 1942 could certainly outrun the Fw 190A3 and Bf 109F4/G2 - numerous accounts, from both sides, support this. The B Mk.IX in 1943 at 20,000ft could just was as quick as a Spitfire LF.IX; this puts it marginally slower than a Fw 190A-5 and the Bf 109G-6. However it was a night bomber, so it did not have to face them. It's opponents in the most part were radar festooned Bf110s and Ju-88s which it could. Similarly the B Mk.XVI. Now for the FB Mk.VI we are slated to get: In 1944 when the
  2. Likewise. I fly the Spitty regularly, often for an hour or more without between takeoff and landing and have not seen this occur since a fix was announced some 18 months ago after the community reported a spate of occurrences happening after 20-30 minutes of flight time. Not to deny that you chaps currently experiencing it are, however, it does suggest something unique to your local machine/installation. Are you using any Spitfire gunsight mods? If no, have you tried running a repair of DCS world?
  3. 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,
  4. You LITERALLY have an SME who ACTUALLY FLEW THE TOMCAT AND BROKE THE FLAPS say IN THIS FORUM that they were fragile and only to be used in a low G, low airspeed environment else you'd break them. But of course you know better eh? "Muh Books!" Please. This desperate effort to enforce a game-ism has gotten downright undignified. Time and again it has been iterated, the goal here is to as faithfully as possible reproduce the Tomcat in digital form, not only as a means of entertainment but also for education, as a historical record to pay homage to a much loved, well respected and importa
  5. The Spit (and the 109 coincidentally) suffer from power on - tail heavy trim at low airspeeds/higher AoAs. Simply put, at these regimes a portion of the propellers thrust is actually vectored in the vertical and due to the neutral static stability of the airframe there is not enough inherent longitudinal stability to compensate naturally for this. This manifests itself in the airframe "self-tightening" turns and loops as airspeed drops and is noted behaviour; Dave Southwood, a highly regarded modern era test pilot and a high hours Spitfire and 109/Buchon pilot mentions this very characteris
  6. I'm not trying to be your enemy here, Nealius; but you should know that you appear to others to be coming across embittered and not a little entitled. And trust me when I tell you that this last paragraph of yours strikes a chord I understand only too well; I cannot begin to tell you the hours I've spent across many years and many different simulators (mainly WW2) attempting to recreate historical fact as closely as possible. It's a frustrating thing hitting hurdles, those limitations of the engine, the architecture, the topography or the AI, all or any those things that prevent us achievin
  7. Firstly, your idea is not necessarily a bad one, but it certainly isn't "The Way" and not everyone is going to share your vision. Secondly no-one is obliged to do a damn thing for you. You've been asking for a year? Great. What difference does that make? You could ask for 100, doesn't entitle you to a thing. Skinning takes dedication, many hours and - I find at least - a requirement to be in the right frame of mind. And more importantly it takes away from what I enjoy most - spending time in the virtual cockpit. Is it any surprise then that skinners will do their passion projects before
  8. Mainly cos its an argument that doesn't hold any water.
  9. Hi Jason. Could you save a .trk replay for us to review; it'll be easier to see what's going on and what you're doing rightly or wrongly and give you the correct advice. As a related thing have you seen this?: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/dcs-world-tutorial-training-range/guides-tutorials/module-specific-tutorials/dcs-spitfire-lf-mk-ix-tutorials/262955-spitfire-too-sensitive-in-pitch-solution It may be a start in helping with some of your control issues.
  10. You don't get FM data from having access to the flyable versions - that comes from period wind tunnel test (which there was apparently enough to model the K-4 and D-9 to a level that Yo-Yo deemed satisfactory) or - as with the P-47 - CFD modelling. What the flyables give you - or more accurately what the pilots of these do - is the nuances, idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of an individual airframe's flight characteristics that escape the wind tunnel or CFD modellings resolution. There are potential micro-transactions of aerodynamic interaction that slip under the radar in these tests but w
  11. https://flyingheritage.org/Explore/The-Collection/Germany/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190-D-13-(Dora).aspx From my understanding it was restored to airworthy and ground ran a few times, but as the article says, being the only example of the type, they won't fly it (I'd imagine the insurance alone could be prohibitive in that regard).
  12. Cos they didn't "go back" - the plan has been from day 1 to provide an -A variant along with the -B. The choice to make the -B first would I suspect come down to accessibility - it's the easier of the two for players to manage and fall in love with, then provide the more challenging -A for those who want an extra level of spice. There are no plans for making a -D. HB have repeated this many times across this forum. Why? Certain systems within the D pertaining to the APG-71, PTID and others remain classified and HB, without the information, won't bother trying to even guess how they work,
  13. Re-updated as something had not caused the png rendering to be very clear so now they are clearer; also added an 30 degree off boresight azimuth diagram to illustrate that scan patterns are not tied to boresight.
  14. Hi all, I updated the original post to now include images that show corrected data for the elevation altitude coverage; it was indeed that I had taken the tabled data as verbaitim, unaware that it represented a +/- value. Apologies to all for any confusion this may have caused and thanks again to Frostie for his help in identifying the inaccuracy.
  15. But has already been stated an AIM-54A was able to hit a QF-86 drone after the target had pulled a 6g evasion manoeuvre. If an evidential test data of a cruise missile intercept can be believed, why not the fighter sized maneuvering target? Or do you wish to appear to be subjectively selective regards the evidence you use on which to base your opinion? "Seemingly". Therein lies the crux. With all due respect you seem to have worked your way into quite a pique based on a bare minimum of facts, a large amount of supposition, unreliable anecdotal data and very little hard evidence. U
×
×
  • Create New...