The A2A Simulations Community

According to the review these areas were not so well simulated in relation to an actual spitfire flown for comparison purposes.
- engine torque
- p-factor
- precession

Also changes in power do not affect trim as much in the real aircraft the reviewer states.

Talks later about controls and stability let it down.

Any experts want to comment ? I have zero knowledge about this.

I am sure that A2A's Spit is by far the most accurate simulated plane out there bar none. Just would like to know what the reviewer is talking about.

A few comments,

The reviewer has flown a much later model (IX) and a dual seat at that so his comments are necessarilly based on that experience. Dudley has flown a similar model but teh single seater!
The starting point was this and A2A worked backwards to the Spit I/II, so:

Trim. The engine in the Mk IX is half as powerful again as the Merlin III/XII. Tony Bianchi (who has flown I,V,IX,XVI) has commented that the Mk IX is "not nearly so well balanced in pitch" (as the Mk I).

The twin cockpit version even heavier and less so. In addition I seem to recall he criticised teh view over the nose for being too good..but did not allow for the fact that the Mk IX has a MUCH longer nose and that he had flown from teh rear cockpit of that!


P Factor etc...the four bladed proped, much more powerful engined, Spit IX also has a much bigger keel area PARTICULARLY with the extra cockpit/canopy area. Much greater effect.

Engone torque: yes, this is a problem in FSX and one that is being worked on HARD!!


I have read that guy often, and have great respect for him, so all of the reviewers comments would be valid for a Spit IX model but must be tempered when making comparisons to the Mk I/II.
I was generally happy with that review (but if I recall correctly he made NO attempt to distinguish a Mk I/II from a IX??) (I'd love to see his opinion of the the commercial Mk IX that is out there and which I do not like at all having started my simulator with it as a base!!)

The flight model was signed off by Dudley who HAS flown a Mk IX and XVI (single seaters) and who appreciates the differences in a lighter, smaller, more lowly powered aircraft.

It is also worth noting that in general, the reviewer was very happy with the model.

There is always room for improvement and there are things that are still being worked on. We will have to wait and see what can be brought in and what can't.


Darryl

_________________

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

He flew a Mark IX, comparing it to a Mk.I/II, for starters. Different engine, modified aircraft shape to start with and that particular aircraft has been further modified still, before it gained the Irish Air Corps paint scheme. It's not a fair comparison.

I'm afraid I read those "comparisons" as light hearted entertainment, as none of the ones I've seen have been particularly good comparisons. Another one is the F-R (not even the A2A) Cub floatplane and a real one... He complains about the water handling. That's because FSX water operations are completely wrong! It was silly even testing that, IMO.

Edit: Darryl was posting at the same time as me and in much more detail.

Ian P.

I haven't read the article yet. I would be curious what mark Spitfire they compared it to as some of the later marks are wholly different aircraft than the ones modeled.

[Edit: Nevermind. It looks like it has already been addressed.]

_________________

I read the article and other than what is already pointed out here, and yes I was aslightly off put that the chap didnt mention how different his experience is to the modelled version, I thought it was a well written piece.

I did get the general impression he is talking in the larger context of simulations rather than just the A2A one, or whichever aircraft he is given to review. His criticisms I believe even mention this at a few points, noting that the nagative aspects he felt where apparent in every FS aircraft he had flown, weather it be in MSFS or not. Unless you are developing for a full 3d motion simulation then its very hard to tick some of the boxes raised. For example, the vast range of controllers, and controller calibration settings we pc users can tweak means all manner of differing experiences on simple controls of the aircraft depending on ones setup.

_________________
A2A Facebook for news live to your social media newsfeed
A2A Youtube because a video can say a thousand screenshots,..
My twitter for my own twitter and random A2A insights

Yes it was clear he thought A2A's Spitfire was very good.

Thanks for all that guys.

Happy new year to you.

Couldn't some the pilots from BBMF do the comparison?

Getting serving military pilots to do an article for a commercial publication would be a nightmare and a half. The dreaded letters "MoD" would get involved and it would all become far, far, too difficult, very quickly.

I'm sure every country's civil service can stonewall as well as ours, but the MoD are awkward even by British Civil Service standards!

Ian P.