PDA

View Full Version : Would a real life Spitfire Mk 9 shake like this ?



hamselv2
02-13-2006, 11:00 AM
Would a real life gunfiring Spitfire Mk9 shake as much as shown in the 2 NTRK tracks (made at different speeds in version 4.03m) that I have linked to ?
Notice the difference in shaking between the machineguns and the cannons. Cannons create almost no shaking, while the 4 machineguns make the whole plane shakkkkkkkeee.
When both machineguns and cannons are fired, the whole plane will shake too (of course). This heavy shaking was introduced with the 4.02m patch, together with the 'wobbling'.
The 4.03m Spitfires still (like in 4.02m) have the 'gyroscopic effect' that makes the plane move nose down for a moment and then shake sideways after a slight forward tap of the joystick. The worst 'gyroscopic effect' case of all the Spitfires is my (former) big love the 9c LF clipped wing.

In the recorded Quick Mision Builder tracks I used a Spitfire Mk9c (25lbs), 25 % fuel, approx. 340 km/h and 510 km/h, plane trimmed with rudder trim.
Forcefeedback was enabled in game during the 2 sorties, and I had my Microsoft Forcefeedback Pro 2 (USB) joystick set at forcefeedback level 'medium'.

http://rapidshare.de/files/13192555/Spit9c_25lbs_shooti...40_kmh_403.ntrk.html (http://rapidshare.de/files/13192555/Spit9c_25lbs_shooting_wobble_340_kmh_403.ntrk.html )

http://rapidshare.de/files/13192636/Spit9c_25lbs_shooti...10_kmh_403.ntrk.html (http://rapidshare.de/files/13192636/Spit9c_25lbs_shooting_wobble_510_kmh_403.ntrk.html )

Stackhouse25th
02-13-2006, 11:07 AM
I seem to remember watching flying videos of cockpit footage of a spitfire actually very smooth...

SlickStick
02-13-2006, 11:12 AM
The Mk. VIII CW is just as bad. Maybe linked to the .303s physics for reaction to firing?

Also, since when do Spitfires, anywhere in their RL history, snap-stall?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Oleg, please install slats on all Spitfires for next patch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
02-13-2006, 11:32 AM
The answer to your question is of course, "NO."

It looks to me as though Oleg and his team have the impression that wing mounted armament must, of course, have caused all kinds of vibration and recoil problems not experienced by aircraft mounting the much more sensible nose mounted guns. So they added the up-down-left-right shudder that those heavy guns mounted too far out from the thrust line undoubtedly produced.

The possibility that Soviet pilots (Oleg's apparent primary source of information), conditioned to a light nose mounted armament & unused to the racket or the recoil from wing guns (or any appropriately heavy armament), may have jerked their sticks a bit in surprise and lost their firing solutions THAT way, never occured to him.

I also note that the P-40E/M's six .50s have always had a lot less of this effect than other aircraft the Soviets did NOT successfully fly in significant numbers...

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
02-13-2006, 12:31 PM
Rifle caliber mgs would not shake a plane like that. Their recoil is just too low - those are guns exactly like infantry GPMGs for Gods sake!

If they did, then no WW1 fighter with Lewis mg mounted above upper wing would be able to hit anything, right?

Some vibration - yes I think so, but shaking - no!

EPP_Gibbs
02-13-2006, 02:03 PM
It is possible the cannons shook less than you might think because they had recoil damper springs fitted. As to the 303's There are pilot accounts of vibration and the sound of tearing calico, but heavy shaking, no.

As to snap stalling, Spitfires most definitely did not have this trait, they were well mannered near or at the stall, both at high and low speed. If a spin was entered into, it was easily and normally recovered. Spitfires aren't regarded as easy to fly for nothing...they were, and behaviour at the stall is all part of that. Those characteristics saved many an RAF pilot's life.

SlickStick
02-13-2006, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
It is possible the cannons shook less than you might think because they had recoil damper springs fitted. As to the 303's There are pilot accounts of vibration and the sound of tearing calico, but heavy shaking, no.

As to snap stalling, Spitfires most definitely did not have this trait, they were well mannered near or at the stall, both at high and low speed. If a spin was entered into, it was easily and normally recovered. Spitfires aren't regarded as easy to fly for nothing...they were, and behaviour at the stall is all part of that. Those characteristics saved many an RAF pilot's life.

EXACTLY! This is why I chuckle to myself everytime I read how people think the Spitfire is the "be-all" of this sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Given the handling presented by V4.01/4.02/4.03, this plane is nowhere near as stable as it should be. I've adapted because I love the plane series, but falling out of a hard turn at 250-260km/h is ludicrous at best. I've only got a couple of hours with V4.03 at the moment and I have to probably tweak my joystick sliders a bit, but snap-stalls still seem to be there.

As I posted in another thread in ORR, just add slats to all of the Spitfires in the next patch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Kocur_
02-13-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
It is possible the cannons shook less than you might think because they had recoil damper springs fitted.

Flexible, i.e. permitting back and forth movement was implemented because of large Hispano recoil. That was also used to power belt mech in Hispano Mk.II. Recoil of mg is simply a force to little to affect ~3.000+ kg plane, even less, when its travelling through air fast. Again: did Allied WW1 biplanes with Lewis above wing, shooting over prop shake bad? No, not really, even though their weights and speeds, i.e. momentum of vector opposite to recoil was far, far less than WW2 low wing fighters.


Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
As to snap stalling, Spitfires most definitely did not have this trait, they were well mannered near or at the stall, both at high and low speed. If a spin was entered into, it was easily and normally recovered. Spitfires aren't regarded as easy to fly for nothing...they were, and behaviour at the stall is all part of that. Those characteristics saved many an RAF pilot's life.

Sorry, any plane of proper elevator authority can snap stall.

italianofalco
02-16-2006, 12:07 PM
don't worry m8's about finding reasonable answers about woobies that more or less ALL planes have till 4.01 patch- only reason is that now this "sim" is porked to a arcade game worst than cfs3. I don't agree with none that thanks Mr. Oleg for these "patches" you know why?: yes, we now have more planes , but this game now is unplayable. was better LESS PLANES but a correct simulation of flight and FM as all guys needs because of 4/5 yrs of "fidelity" in mr. Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif - Falco