The A2A Simulations Community

I have the Spitfire MK-1A and as much as I like it, find it a bit easy to fly vs the BOB-2 Spitfire. Can I enter the CFG flight model of the BOB-2 Spitfire into the A2A MK-1A? Taking off and landing in the BOB-2 SF, needs more opposite rudder and stick, where as the A2A MK-1A is easy to take off and land. I love the A2a Brakes on the Spit BTW. I do not mean to insult nor lack appreciation for the A2A Spit, as I am a big fan of A2A.
Secondly some guys and I were flying on line and I could not fly angles 18 and keep up with the A2A B-17 as an escort. I trimmed and did all I could to keep up but no joy. Got as high as 16000 feet and that was it. Any wisdom with that? I do not mind tweaking the CFG file but appreciate any advice prior to changing things. Any advise appreciated. looking forwards to the new Spit, and hope have an adjustable prop. Thank you in advance. Keep up the great work!

Well, I can answer some of the questions from the point of view of an end user.

I haven't flown BoB for years but I can recall that the Spitfire was FAR too hard to land in that. The problem was with the low speed handling and lack of warning of stall/loss of directional control and roll stability.

It may have changed in the 475 years since I last flew it.

Basically a Spitfire should be a very easy aircraft to land, a hard one to land well. The old BoB model bounced like a kangaroo..which Spitfires tend to..but having bounced it was too easy to stall and auger in. In fact the correct procedure on a "bounce" in the real aircraft is to keep the stick full back (it should already be there when you touch down) and wait. Doing that in the BoB used to kill you every time.
But the solution of lowering the nose (easing the back pressure) in reality is going to risk belting your airscrew into the ground...the Spit had only 7 1/2" clearance in a level attitude. Pushing forward on a stick with that little clearance and that huge wing is more likely to INCREASE your height and then drop the nose ... expensive noises follow.

The Spitfire, I have it on very good authority, in real life is polite right down to a hair above the stall.

The WOP II Spitfire is very good. Much of the flight model is exactly as you would expect a "Baby Spitfire" to handle.

The altitude problem is, I am told, a problem with the way FSX generates thrust in a reciprocating engine at altitude. I would be wary of editing the aircraft.cfg simply because you can mend one fence and break three.

Better to wait for the WOP III Accusim version due out soon and see how THAT compares to BoB.


Darryl

_________________

...Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for Merlin parts...

I appreciate the detailed reply and very hyped about the new Spit. The Spit has a lot of torque, but I can floor it and no twisting motion. I understand flight models must be kept tame, but hoping for a little more difficulty. Nonetheless, I never flown one so who am I to say what is or is not. I hope the accusim Spit is a toughie to master.
You did a fantastic job with the pit, stunning!!! How do you like Triple head? I have the monitors but yet to connect them. You immersion factor looks like a 10 / 10.

Hi again Mate,

Thanks, she is a beauty and I have a ball with her! The flying gear is a compulsory part of the "immersion".

The TH2Go is great but the frame rate hit and graphic load is HIGH. I am seriously considering switching to a single 42" screen. If you have a Track IR, a good processor and are prepared to slide your settings left, it is fantastic. We will see what I decide.

Now, back to the question at hand. What you refer to as torque is actually three or four different forces, the balance between them changing at different times in the takeoff run. For current purposes "torque" will largely suffice.

The first thing to note is that the later advice to set "full right rudder trim" was NOT given to BoB pilots and also does NOT mean the same as "full right rudder". Many aircraft trim tabs will only displace the rudder by 50-60% of travel. So "full trim" basically means HALF rudder.

A better way to look at it is that the rudder should be moved forward from neutral by right foot at the SAME rate as the left hand moves forward on the throttle AFTER the brakes are released. As the throttle only moves approximately 4 or 5 inches from that point, so does the right rudder, around half travel.

Half rudder on most aircraft is not a huge amount and moving it on a computer set of rudder pedals FEELS like you don't need to do much.

Tail draggers require more attention and a couple of extra forces are in play (the part of the differences in blade AOA and the gyroscopic effect which are attributable due to the tail "coming up" ) during the takeoff run. Of course once the tail is up, some of reasons for right rudder disappear and therefore you release some pressure. In a real aircraft, once a firm pressure is placed on the rudder pedal (firm pressure NOT necessarily large deflection) this pressure is varied slightly through the "roll" to keep the nose straight... This can be quite light and subtle and this is where simulators fail...the lack of TACTILE feedback telling you that 2" of pedal displacement takes an effort . In a sim we tend to judge rudder PRESSURE by how much DISPLACEMENT we need to apply. This is not how it feels in real life!! Many aircraft developers read that an aircraft had a "savage" swing on takeoff and immediately make you use full rudder to counter. Flight sim pilots love this because they get to counter the "savage swing".

But NEVER take what a pilot says at face value. "Normal" things may not be mentioned at all (after all, they are normal, so EVERYONE should know) and anything above normal can often be found expressed in "large" language. ..eg, we had three C152s at our club. Two performed in very similar fashion but one, for no readily apparent reason, climbed better. She was universally preferred to hire and was often said to "climb like a homesick angel". I have used the phrase myself.

Now, honestly, ask yourself how much extra performance would justify such a comment?

400ft per minute, 500, 700?


The answer, in fact, is that she climbed on average fifty feet per minute better than the other two. This cut the time to 6,000 or 7,000ft by a whopping 30 odd seconds!! "climbs like a homesick angel" ?? ?? ??


The WOP II Spitifre is too light on the swing at takeoff, for sure but not by as much a you would think.

Again, the Accusim will be the thing to judge this by....not too long now....


regards

Darryl

_________________

...Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for Merlin parts...

Thanks Darryl. Nice insight with regards to controlling the Spit. Was also de-baiting about the 42" vs Triple head. The 42 would be simpler but my 3 x 24" Samsungs would give me 60" of viewable area. I guess I have to set it up, and give it a go. I do not mind lowering the sliders if the pucker factor increases. Cannot believe what a great job you did with the your pit. !!!! Amazing !!!!

Thanks mate, you are too kind!!

I'll let you know how the 42" goes, I will be trying it next weekend with any luck.

The main concern I have is that of the "tightening" of the view when switching away from the very wide format. peripheral vision is bad enough in the FSX...the wde view DOES compensate for it somewhat.
However the Spitfire is a little different in that if you look through the windscreen of a real one, your view IS very much chanelled towards the bulletproof windscreen. So perhaps narrower FOV and Track IR will not be such a drama with the 42".

D

_________________

...Some say he never blinks, and that he roams around the woods at night foraging for Merlin parts...