Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So, when does the debate about what exactly constitutes mid-year start?

 

It probably means I'll have time to get the M-2000C, L-39ZA, P-40 and the Gazelle, maybe even a F-5E pinned down before the Spitfire arrives.

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ED Team
Posted
So, when does the debate about what exactly constitutes mid-year start?

 

It probably means I'll have time to get the M-2000C, L-39ZA, P-40 and the Gazelle, maybe even a F-5E pinned down before the Spitfire arrives.

 

How about lets not stress it and know we will get it as soon as its ready to be gotten ;)

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Posted
From the ED Facebook page.

 

23b38c821699b69a003b06e30d0f628f.jpg

 

The texture/surface details of that fuselage looks amazing! Incredibly realistic. It seems that every new module (from ED at least) really pushes the visuals a step further.

 

The Spitfire IX is one of my very favorite WWII fighters and I'm elated with what I've seen so far.

 

The last cockpit renders were gorgeous as well!

 

-Nick

Posted (edited)
And it seems we are getting the elliptical wing.:smartass:

 

Shame, I was looking forward to getting the clipped wing :(

 

Perhaps we will get both :)

 

Clip wing gets my vote as it is very much in keeping with the historical time line of Spitfire development and I believe the clip wing was the more common version of wing for 44/45. After all, remember it is a Low Fighter (LF) version.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman

Bell_UH-1 side.png

Posted
Shame, I was looking forward to getting the clipped wing :(

 

Perhaps we will get both :)

 

Clip wing gets my vote as it is very much in keeping with the historical time line of Spitfire development and I believe the clip wing was the more common version of wing for 44/45. After all, remember it is a Low Fighter (LF) version.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

I have a feeling we probably will. They have already modelled the clipped wing version.

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

Posted
I have a feeling we probably will. They have already modelled the clipped wing version.

 

Yep, they may have considered a way to implement both versions under a single module. Many people had already asked for it.

 

This would affect other 3rd parties working on similar projects. Overall it would be a great feature.

The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities in life to experience all three at the same time.

Posted

perhaps we can ask for both a bubble canopy and razorback P-47 now then, lol.:megalol:

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

Posted
perhaps we can ask for both a bubble canopy and razorback P-47 now then, lol.:megalol:

 

That's actually a great idea.

 

Would also be great if they found a way to implement the same way the 109 gunpods.

Posted

Well, you are all waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of me. I read the email at work, and am ashamed to say it took me far to long to notice the full wings. Thanks ED for the update, and a particular "Thank you" from me for listening to our whinging about it. :P

 

Now, about buying that early alpha release....? Heh heh. ;-)

My *new* AV-8B sim-pit build thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3901589

 

The old Spitfire sim-pit build thread circa '16/17:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143452

Posted

I hate to be this guy but I'd like to point out some errors on the MK IX model.

 

Firstly the Elevator is from the earlier MK I to Mk V version of the Spitfire. I've atached an image comparing the different elevators.

 

spitfi11.gif

(1) Is the current elevator modelled on the DCS Spitfire IX however it should look like (2)

 

The Spitfire Mk IX also had no headrest, they were removed on an earlier version and shouldn't be present.

 

And finally the wire shouldn't be there and the mast is an earlier model. Below is an image of MH 434 showing the correct style HF mast, which is what I believe ED are working from for the in game model.

Spitfire_LF_IXC_MH434.jpg

 

Please don't shoot the messenger. :thumbup:

  • Like 2
  • ED Team
Posted (edited)

All valid, but we need to figure out what they are modelling right now, its possible the MH 434 is the wrong scheme for the aircraft (it was when it had clipped wings for example), I initially thought it was a conversion job from a Spit V, but unsure now, the wings keep changing on me :)

 

I hate to be this guy but I'd like to point out some errors on the MK IX model.

 

Firstly the Elevator is from the earlier MK I to Mk V version of the Spitfire. I've atached an image comparing the different elevators.

 

spitfi11.gif

(1) Is the current elevator modelled on the DCS Spitfire IX however it should look like (2)

 

The Spitfire Mk IX also had no headrest, they were removed on an earlier version and shouldn't be present.

 

And finally the wire shouldn't be there and the mast is an earlier model. Below is an image of MH 434 showing the correct style HF mast, which is what I believe ED are working from for the in game model.

Spitfire_LF_IXC_MH434.jpg

 

Please don't shoot the messenger. :thumbup:

Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Posted

Yeah I agree Sith, it depends if its a full replication of MH434 or just to replicate a early/mid Mk IX.

 

I guess its hard with creating a model like this, do you make it to represent the widest range of Spits, or do you have it represent a single airframe

Posted

I think there has been a question of whether we will see a Spitfire with a mk V airframe typical of the early '42 prototypes but with a mid/late war configuration and engine (merlin 66). One issue being that modifications to the mid/late war mk IX including the elevator (as described by Azerf above) made to correct issues associated with the mk V as well as to adjust for the new engine etc may be absent and thus we end up with a rather unusual and not so very typical mk IX. Or at least that's what I've picked up trying to following these threads.

My PC specs: Win10 64 Pro, CPU i7-3820 4.4GHz, 16GB RAM, GPU Nvidia 1070 (8gb vram).

Controls: Microsoft FFB2, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, MFG Crosswind Pedals, TrackIR5.
My DCS Youtube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/No64Bounder
Posted (edited)
I hate to be this guy but I'd like to point out some errors on the MK IX model.

 

Firstly the Elevator is from the earlier MK I to Mk V version of the Spitfire. I've atached an image comparing the different elevators.

 

 

And finally the wire shouldn't be there and the mast is an earlier model. Below is an image of MH 434 showing the correct style HF mast, which is what I believe ED are working from for the in game model.

 

 

Please don't shoot the messenger. :thumbup:

 

As HF radio comms is only really used for long distance flights, ie. trans Atlantic, and even that being supplanted with satellite radio, and most short to medium distance communication is done on the VHF, the aircraft would not need the HF wire antenna in todays world.

 

Even by 1940 HF was starting to get phased out and replaced by VHF radios, also on the picture of MH 434 I do not see any IFF antennas going to the tailplane. The mounting point of the antenna on the rudder is also a little suspect in that it is past the pivot point which would cause the cable to slacken and tighten every time the rudder was used which would lead to fatigue of the parts in the antenna, also it would cause flutter fading of the radio signal, while not so noticeable at HF frequencies it is still there.

 

I was a MF, HF, and VHF, maritime radio installer and am still a licenced ham radio operator hence my curiosity.

 

Edit: after doing some search on 't internet found this article: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-masts-and-aerials.html/2

 

By the end of 1940 most front-line Spitfires would have been fitted with VHF and IFF. As per usual changes could take a few months to filter through from the factory and photos of factory fresh Spitfire IIs still show the mast fitted with the triangular prong well into 1941. By the end of 1941 the plain tapered mast was universally fitted. The attachments points for the prong were still visible on the back of the mast.
Edited by Alicatt
found more information
  • Like 1

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Posted

"The Spitfire Mk IX also had no headrest, they were removed on an earlier version and shouldn't be present."

 

That is very interesting Azref, I had not realised this. Thanks for posting. Do we know why the headrest was removed?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Bell_UH-1 side.png

Posted
"The Spitfire Mk IX also had no headrest, they were removed on an earlier version and shouldn't be present."

 

That is very interesting Azref, I had not realised this. Thanks for posting. Do we know why the headrest was removed?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

I was about to ask the same thing. From the Mk.V manual it's mod no.662, but I can't find anything else about this mod so far. :(

 

(I knew about this but made the decision to put one I my 'pit anyway as I like the feel of headrest, and it looks nice and "Spitfire-y")

My *new* AV-8B sim-pit build thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3901589

 

The old Spitfire sim-pit build thread circa '16/17:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143452

Posted

After some digging in what notes I have available it appears that the headrest was deleted, on all Marks, towards the end of July 1942, though airframes still on the production line might still have had them.

Posted
As HF radio comms is only really used for long distance flights, ie. trans Atlantic, and even that being supplanted with satellite radio, and most short to medium distance communication is done on the VHF, the aircraft would not need the HF wire antenna in todays world.

 

Even by 1940 HF was starting to get phased out and replaced by VHF radios, also on the picture of MH 434 I do not see any IFF antennas going to the tailplane. The mounting point of the antenna on the rudder is also a little suspect in that it is past the pivot point which would cause the cable to slacken and tighten every time the rudder was used which would lead to fatigue of the parts in the antenna, also it would cause flutter fading of the radio signal, while not so noticeable at HF frequencies it is still there.

 

I was a MF, HF, and VHF, maritime radio installer and am still a licenced ham radio operator hence my curiosity.

 

Edit: after doing some search on 't internet found this article: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-masts-and-aerials.html/2

 

Not true sorry we still use HF radio in today airline unfortunately, either HF voice in some place or HF data for use of ADS/CPDLC. Airbus or Boeing still today come out of the factory equipped with HF radio and antenna, however they are not the cloth line style that they use to be

977027401_LocalisationantennesA320.0.thumb.jpg.47aee2c46bc6919785cbf9e87b7b8b80.jpg

Posted (edited)
Not true sorry we still use HF radio in today airline unfortunately, either HF voice in some place or HF data for use of ADS/CPDLC. Airbus or Boeing still today come out of the factory equipped with HF radio and antenna, however they are not the cloth line style that they use to be

 

As I said, it is still used for long distance communications. MF and HF is also used for LORAN (closed in the 1990s) and LORAN-C which is still in use today.

 

In 1940 they were phasing out the use of HF in the Spitfire and replacing it with VHF radios and they still used HF for the IFF but the antenna was in a different location.

 

I worked for Decca Radar Ltd. installing/servicing/repairing radars, radios, navigators, echo sounders etc.

 

The first of the Decca Navigators was used to help with the navigation and surveying of the beaches for the D-Day invasion. :)

 

Edit: A night passage to Normandy, a personal account of the opening phase of the D-Day landings.

[url]http://www.sperrymarine.com/sites/default/files/downloads/2099763146/Night%20Passage%20To%20Normandy%20(2).pdf[/url]

Edited by Alicatt

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Posted (edited)
In 1940 they were phasing out the use of HF in the Spitfire and replacing it with VHF radios and they still used HF for the IFF but the antenna was in a different location.

 

+1

 

In 1940, the HF T.R.9.D was being replaced by the VHF T.R.1133: attached are pages from A.P. 1565A, Spitfire I Merlin II & III Engine (June 1940). Note that the aerial mast was the aerial for the T.R. 1133

 

The problem with the T.R.9D in 1940 was that it was limited to one or two frequencies, plus its reception was often so bad that pilots couldn't hear air to air or ground to air transmissions properly (modern HF radios don't suffer from the limitations of the T.R.9 series) - the T.R 1133's, which were replaced by 1943 by the improved T.R.1143, operated over a wider range of frequencies and the reception was much clearer.

 

This 1942 photo of an early production Spitfire F. Mk. IX of 611 Sqn is representative.

 

FA_18390s_zpsvftvo6zs.jpg

 

In addition, a typical 1944 vintage L.F. Mk IX had a rod IFF antenna under the outer starboard wing - also note, in both photos there's no longer a headrest, as mentioned by Azref. AFAIK it was removed because it hindered the pilot's ability to look to the rear.

 

Spitfire%20IX%20May%201944a_zpszeknngl7.jpg

552462800_SupermarineSpitfireIPilotsNotes1940_3a.thumb.jpg.145c90032f0a91157274d8dc3a66e7bc.jpg

1935997531_SupermarineSpitfireIPilotsNotes1940_18a.thumb.jpg.a48f9c491dbc08c1170e876eec1902ad.jpg

2097733733_SupermarineSpitfireIPilotsNotes1940_31a.thumb.jpg.7b9216deeaadd90539f8dacea6c24356.jpg

1062468429_SupermarineSpitfireIPilotsNotes1940_33a.thumb.jpg.4cf5a03b7c6d17951d01f197c107ed1a.jpg

1447923488_SupermarineSpitfireIPilotsNotes1940_40a.thumb.jpg.3113cd96f513d2ee05d804be5519c6c4.jpg

Edited by Friedrich-4/B
Posted

Cheers for that info, F-4B. I have the "newer" control box for the 1133, but was never sure why it had replaced the 9D.

 

From a purely personal perspective, and having tried it out in my 'pit, I have to question that rationale for deletion of the headrest. One's view is obscured by the dirty-great slab of armour plate and frame 12 -> aftwards; but unless one has eyes in a funny place, a ~6" pad at the rear of one's skull has no negative effects upon either head-movement or peripheral vision.

My *new* AV-8B sim-pit build thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3901589

 

The old Spitfire sim-pit build thread circa '16/17:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143452

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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