bongodriver

Well Yo-Yo has already confirmed the last part of your statement is simply not true, there is nothing combat effective about early engine failure. I don't know the Spitfire personally but have colleagues and friends that do fly them in real life and my own experience with constant speed propellers is completely at odds with your initial statement, max level speed cannot be achieved at max RPM and you would not adjust RPM before power if you were intending to accelerate for pretty much the reason you state in the middle as a low RPM at high power is not good for the engine, always set cruise/climb power first then bring RPM down. The basics of operating a constant speed prop are (I obviously will not include the Spitfire due lack of personal experience): Take off: set Max RPM, max power (usually a 5 minute limit) Climb: set Max continuous power, set Climb RPM (slightly reduced from max with no time limit but watch those temps) Cruise: set Cruise power, set Cruise RPM (further reduction from Climb and power must be limited to prevent strain on the engine) Descent: set descent power, no need to change RPM Approach: Max RPM, power as required to maintain vertical profile and or speed. in event of missed approach: Max RPM should already be set on approach thus allowing safe use of max power.

it also specifies this applies to early types of propeller only.

Not really, the fact that the propeller RPM is manually changed is very much like selecting gear in a manual transmission, the comparison really only applies to how the power is transferred and not the mechanical function, simple way to put it is that max prop RPM is like being in 1st gear, you get plenty of torque and pulling power but wont go very fast and lowering the RPM is like shifting up the gears. using 3000 RPM in combat would be a terrible idea, much better to use Max climb settings and don't use maximum boost for too long.

1. yes, the governor maintains the desired RPM by altering the blade angle, the levers control of blade angle is indirect but ultimately that is what is being controlled. 2.yes, the power output of the engine will not usually affect the RPM because the governor will try to maintain it, it is possible to reach an overboosted situation so not sure about the very last part of your question, boost is power so a higher boost would not require more power but it would require an increase in RPM to prevent overboost. are you saying that an increase in power will cause the blade angle to increase for a constant RPM? in which case yes that is correct.

The throttle actually controls the amount of boost pressure in the manifold, fuel flow is mostly a result of the level of power demand. The prop lever does indeed affect the blade angle and this in turn will affect the RPM, full RPM is required for take off and landing and a reduced RPM for cruise/combat to increase efficiency (similar principle to gearing in cars)

Works great for me on my G940, than you for sharing the solution, I'm even tempted to hand build a clip on brake lever that will fit on the coolie hat thumb stick.

We know its a IXc because it has the C wing and has been heavily reference from the OFMC's MkIXc MH434.

Which is why I said fighter variant ;)

Yes there were WWII Spits with wing tanks so the switches probably are period but the installation on a fighter variant of the Mk IX is not.

:music_whistling:

Port and Stbd suggests wing tank modification which is only applicable to modern day Spitfires and marks other than Mk V and IX, it certainly was not a period feature on Mk IX's, I think this must be a remnant from ED's development using the current MH434 for reference and somebody forgot to take out the AO shading in the model.

You edit curves in DCS itself. I also find the rudder sensitive but think it's more to do with hardware and with a bit of curve in the axis it is perfectly manageable.

it's not so much the FM, I'm fairly happy turning with 2 109's on my own, I'm just amazed that the outcome never changes despite me knocking chunks like rudders and elevators off both 109's and they are smoking like chimneys, they perform like factory fresh, I think something needs changing with the damage model.

Yes I already use the short bursts, practically single shot short, I am getting plenty of hits but they just never die, surely thick black smoke is normally terminal in the end but they carry on as if nothing has happened.

On the subject of the dogfight quick mission, I did manage to create the same with the 109 K4's as the opposition which leads me to wonder if the K4 is immune from death, on the stock mission I can predict the outcome of the fight as 2 dead 190's and 50/50 chance of my wingman surviving if I can rescue him in time, but under the same conditions I just cannot kill the 109's despite making plenty of good hits and having both smoking black smoke, eventually I run out of ammo and boil my engine, they are as expected a much tougher opponent in the turn fight but they seem to be made of indestructanium.

I wouldn't say there were severe stability issues, MkXVI's were commonly fitted with rear tanks, the main condition was that combat should be avoided with a certain level of fuel in the rear tank.

Thanks

I don't know anything about the mission editor, how do you change factions?

I tried a quick edit of the mission but in the DCS environment the UK and Germany are allies so I ended up committing fratricide.

I don't think this Spit has rear tanks.

Bluejacketguy is absolutely correct, the aircraft can be in a 'straight and level' condition with rudder applied to make the aircraft uncoordinated, it will still fly constant heading and maintain track and has nothing to do with drift. it is in effect simply a sideslip but in maintained level flight.

Bunt...no, ease the stick forward as required yes.

it's not hard but your skill as a pilot has to go up a notch to fly taildraggers, they invented nose wheels so mere mortals could fly too. This Cessna advert really sums up nosegear...

No it didn't, the problem was remedied in early Spits and cured in late Spits.

I personally am not using any curves or dead zone on pitch and roll, I use a G940 with feedback and prefer the 1:1 but I am having to use a curve on the rudder axis up to 30 as I find the rudder to be way too sensitive, I think this is largely due to the hardware rather than FM modelling, off the shelf rudder pedals are clumsy devices that don't do much for the real finesse required.