Spitfire Mk1B ?

[Meaks]

To Team Fusion

Excuse me if this has been asked for before,but,is there any future plans to recreate the Spitfire Mk1B ..............the 1st Spitfire that had cannon?,apparently Flt Sgt George 'Grumpy' Unwin of 19 Squadron had some remarkable sucess with this mark,he managed to bag about three 110's over the August/September period of 1940.

It would be nice to have every available species of the BoB aircraft at our disposal,us being the RAF boys :thumbsup:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

To Team Fusion

Excuse me if this has been asked for before,but,is there any future plans to recreate the Spitfire Mk1B ..............the 1st Spitfire that had cannon?,apparently Flt Sgt George 'Grumpy' Unwin of 19 Squadron had some remarkable sucess with this mark,he managed to bag about three 110's over the August/September period of 1940.

It would be nice to have every available species of the BoB aircraft at our disposal,us being the RAF boys :thumbsup:

We will have the ability to create this aircraft. It will not be in the next release but could be in the following one.

However, adding it to the game has limited utility, since almost all these early Spitfires equipped with cannon suffered continual jamming problems.

We would also need to spend a lot of time to write code which would allow implementation of jamming, and then the players would have the frustration of seeing their weapons jam after one or two bursts. No 19 Squadron abandoned the use of these aircraft quickly after their initial testing.

A perhaps better choice for these types would be the Hurricane I with cannon, these were more successful than the Spitfires in No. 19 Squadron. No. 151 Squadron used these Hurricanes, although again, they had jamming problems, but not as many as the Spitfires as the cannon were mounted upright as opposed to being on their side. But still this would require some code work for limited usefulness to the sim, and that requires time, not a lot of which is available to be spent for limited use for players. Wouldn't you prefer we spend our time working to build functional Hurricane IIA/B's or Spitfire IIB's?

An account of a British pilot who flew these cannon armed Hurricanes can be found here:

http://www.bbm.org.uk/SmithRL.htm

It is more likely that the first RAF cannon armed aircraft the TF Mod will see will be the Spit IIB, the reliability problems had been mainly solved with their installation. (again, not with Release 2)

[Meaks]

Thanks for the reply Buzzsaw,........given the choice,I personally would like to see the Spit recreated,albeit problematic,with it's frequent jamming,as it represents the aircraft at an important historic phase of the Battle Of Britain,which for me IMO,is far more important than the practibility and usefulness of the later unhistoric Hurricane version.

:salute:

[III/JG53_Don]

in terms of historic accuracy and the wish to give the players an authentic BoB feeling I agree with you 100% Meaker! But I doubt the use of such a plane keeping the additional expenses of code work in mind and compare this to the perhaps low flying rate on/offline due to this jammed cannons.
A later Hurricane/Spitfire may be unhistoric right now, but time will tell if there is a much better use for a later Hurri/Spit as the develpoment moves forward. at least one can dream :)

I would guess the time of TF is better spent on other issues/areas, but thats just my humble opinion

[Dutch]

I suppose another problem with this idea (playing devil's advocate here, as I'd love a Spit with cannon too!), is that unless the constant jamming was modelled accurately, everyone on the server would take a cannon-armed Spit, even though only 30 or so Ibs were ever built. A similar problem to everyone taking an E4/N when it's available. That wouldn't be historical at all.

Conversely, if the stoppages were modelled accurately, who would fly it at all?

Also, although cannon sounds cool, I think there was only six seconds worth of ammo (someone correct me if I'm wrong, doing this from memory), after which you've only 4 brownings for 14s instead of eight. :recon:

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I suppose another problem with this idea (playing devil's advocate here, as I'd love a Spit with cannon too!), is that unless the constant jamming was modelled accurately, everyone on the server would take a cannon-armed Spit, even though only 30 or so Ibs were ever built. A similar problem to everyone taking an E4/N when it's available. That wouldn't be historical at all.:

yup agreed. as buzzsaw points out above, the problems with canon jamming should be included.
I think it's either in JEJ or Douglas' Baders' book that an entire squadron experienced 100% cannon failure on one mission.
They scrapped with 109s but a single spitfire was able to fire a single round from their cannons

[Broodwich]

I gotta say I'm really excited that TF is actually going to include gun jamming! So much of the things we do in sims would have been really bad ideas IRL because our guns never jam. Lookin forward to actually having a choice between less firepower but more reliability :thumbsup:

[Dutch]

Indeed Phil. Bader was one of the few people who insisted on a MkVa, in order to keep the eight Brownings. But maybe he was just a bad shot with 6s of cannon. :D

[Wulf]

And of course, you wouldn't just have a situation where you push the button and nothing happens. You would typically get asymmetric cannon failure where one goes off and the other doesn't, which would result in extremely handling difficulties. This situation would of course eventually correct itself when the other cannon also stopped firing ... :D

[Dutch]

And of course, you wouldn't just have a situation where you push the button and nothing happens. You would typically get asymmetric cannon failure where one goes off and the other doesn't, which would result in extremely handling difficulties. This situation would of course eventually correct itself when the other cannon also stopped firing ... :D

Yup. Absolutely spot on Wufie old bean. :thumbsup:

[Meaks]

......Hehe,just to add gents,if this did come about,this would almost be like playing a weird reverse role of'Russian Roulette',don't ya think?.............only,this time round you'll want that bullet in the chamber to save your skin!!! :D

[Roblex]

We would also need to spend a lot of time to write code which would allow implementation of jamming, and then the players would have the frustration of seeing their weapons jam after one or two bursts. No 19 Squadron abandoned the use of these aircraft quickly after their initial testing.

In all this nobody seems to care that the 109 cannons also jammed during the BoB so why are we only worrying when someone asks about the Spit having it. Yes the Spits problems were so bad they took them out again but the same happened with the E-2

Here is what Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper wrote in his autobiography ('Spitfire On My Tail')


The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day (12 October) we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against one success. I got into deep trouble myself and my Rottenhund (Sigi Voss) was shot down. I ended up against two Spitfires with all weapons jammed. There was no alternative but to get the hell out of it.

He was flying an E-4 which has supposedly solved the jamming problem yet he had no usable guns at all.

Here is an another interesting quote, this time from Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54


For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

In all this nobody seems to care that the 109 cannons also jammed during the BoB so why are we only worrying when someone asks about the Spit having it. Yes the Spits problems were so bad they took them out again but the same happened with the E-2


Roblex, this has been completely over looked, well spotted.

I think many of us are so familiar with the stories about spitfire cannon stoppages that we now it would be too much of a hard ask to demand that they be implemented in perfect order.
However, any 109 problems have probably been ignored, in this sidsucssion, out of ignorance. So thanks for raising it.

Funnily, I've read Steinhilpers' book, and had completely forgotten about the 109 cannon problems.

The question then is, how to implement such a thing in code, or best just to have all weapons operating as intended?

[Mattias]

In all this nobody seems to care that the 109 cannons also jammed during the BoB so why are we only worrying when someone asks about the Spit having it. Yes the Spits problems were so bad they took them out again but the same happened with the E-2

And thats why we don't see the E-2 in the game :)

Cheers/m

[Roblex]

And thats why we don't see the E-2 in the game :)

Cheers/m

I was commenting on Buzzsaws statement that if the 1B was introduced then TF would have to add code to make the guns unreliable. If they added a 90% fail rate for the 1Bs cannon then they would really have to add a 30% fail rat3 for the E3 nose cannon and 20% fail rate to the E4s cannon and 10% to the fuselage Mgs on all 109s as they were a lot less reliable than the British ones.

I am not an expert on 109s but the in-wing mounted Mgs had a belt going out to the wingtips and back and I am not sure if CLOD models the extra chance of debilitating damage there either (but I may be wrong)

I know the practical answer is to leave the E-2 and 1B out entirely but just wanted to highlight that there has always been an unaddressed issue regarding weapon reliability not being modelled.

[Wulf]

"The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day (12 October) we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against one success. I got into deep trouble myself and my Rottenhund (Sigi Voss) was shot down. I ended up against two Spitfires with all weapons jammed. There was no alternative but to get the hell out of it."


Roblex, I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure this incident is particularly relevant. He says that "all [his] weapons jammed". Presumably this would include his cowl mounted MG 17s. It sounds to me like an electrical failure of some sort or perhaps a bit of battle damage.

And of course, lets not forget that all cannon and MGs were subject to stoppages. This situation improved as the War progressed but the problem didn't go away.

And which aircraft are you referring to when you talk about an ammo belt extending out to the wingtip??

[Mattias]

I was commenting on Buzzsaws statement that if the 1B was introduced then TF would have to add code to make the guns unreliable. If they added a 90% fail rate for the 1Bs cannon then they would really have to add a 30% fail rat3 for the E3 nose cannon and 20% fail rate to the E4s cannon and 10% to the fuselage Mgs on all 109s as they were a lot less reliable than the British ones.

I am not an expert on 109s but the in-wing mounted Mgs had a belt going out to the wingtips and back and I am not sure if CLOD models the extra chance of debilitating damage there either (but I may be wrong)

I know the practical answer is to leave the E-2 and 1B out entirely but just wanted to highlight that there has always been an unaddressed issue regarding weapon reliability not being modelled.

:salute:

Where did you find those fail rates? (The E3 had no nose cannon, the E2 had it and it suffered from reliability problems caused by the heat from the engine)

I'm not sure modelling reliability on weapons systems, or other systems for that matter, forcing the pilot to abort mission and run for home would be very popular, especially if they are based on random figures and not caused by pilot error :recon:

Cheers/m

[rollingstoned]

We will have the ability to create this aircraft. It will not be in the next release but could be in the following one.

However, adding it to the game has limited utility, since almost all these early Spitfires equipped with cannon suffered continual jamming problems.

We would also need to spend a lot of time to write code which would allow implementation of jamming, and then the players would have the frustration of seeing their weapons jam after one or two bursts. No 19 Squadron abandoned the use of these aircraft quickly after their initial testing.

A perhaps better choice for these types would be the Hurricane I with cannon, these were more successful than the Spitfires in No. 19 Squadron. No. 151 Squadron used these Hurricanes, although again, they had jamming problems, but not as many as the Spitfires as the cannon were mounted upright as opposed to being on their side. But still this would require some code work for limited usefulness to the sim, and that requires time, not a lot of which is available to be spent for limited use for players. Wouldn't you prefer we spend our time working to build functional Hurricane IIA/B's or Spitfire IIB's?

An account of a British pilot who flew these cannon armed Hurricanes can be found here:

http://www.bbm.org.uk/SmithRL.htm

It is more likely that the first RAF cannon armed aircraft the TF Mod will see will be the Spit IIB, the reliability problems had been mainly solved with their installation. (again, not with Release 2)

a hurricane with cannon.. im in heaven:stunned::stunned:

[Gromit]

Hurricane with cannons, :-)

I forsee a serious problem developing a code for weapon jamming however, random stoppages? under neg G? in left bank? what circumstances would trigger it?

if you suffered stoppages every time you flew and knew the code was written to do so no one would take it, and all that work and time would be wasted, and as noted above, it's open to claims of bias if the German cannons suffered no stoppages as they certainly did !

You can't make this game reality, you can't model everything, if your going to put cannon armed reds into the game, put them in and just limit the numbers, otherwise I expect to see a lot of irritated and despondent players on both sides!

[Wulf]

Hurricane with cannons, :-)

I forsee a serious problem developing a code for weapon jamming however, random stoppages? under neg G? in left bank? what circumstances would trigger it?

if you suffered stoppages every time you flew and knew the code was written to do so no one would take it, and all that work and time would be wasted, and as noted above, it's open to claims of bias if the German cannons suffered no stoppages as they certainly did !

You can't make this game reality, you can't model everything, if your going to put cannon armed reds into the game, put them in and just limit the numbers, otherwise I expect to see a lot of irritated and despondent players on both sides!


Agree entirely. Some people may try it once or twice but that will be that. All that work and effort all for nothing. No one in their right mind is going to waste time flying an aircraft that will almost certainly fail in combat at the critical moment. It makes no sense at all. There are plenty of other aircraft that could be modeled that people will actually fly - more than once.

[Roblex]

which aircraft are you referring to when you talk about an ammo belt extending out to the wingtip??

When the LW decided to add wing mounted MG 17s the only way to them fit inside the narrow wing was to feed the ammo belt out the wing tips, round a roller and back beneath the guns then round another roller near the wing root before entering the gun. As the production version of the E1 also carried internal wing mounted MG 17s I assumed ours did, Does CLOD use the later MG FF instead?

In response to other queries,

Yes I screwed up mentioning nose mounted cannon in the E3.

No those gun failure percentages were not official figures. I was just making a point that once you start modelling statistical chances of mechanical failure you are on a slippery slope that leads on to early merlin engine reliability, 109 leading edge slat jams and dangerously erratic behavior near the stall, gun damage from extended bursts etc. Not to mention ergonomic problems such as the difficulty lowering landing flaps on the 109 that meant most pilots did not bother and may account in part for the fact that 10% of all 109 losses in 39 & 40 were in landing & take-off accidents! Finally we get into supply problems such as shortage of De-Wilde that meant most fighters used ball ammo in BoB even though it was not as effective and when we have all the above modelled with random failures and restrictions we can start working on personal decisions such as the refusal of most LW commanders to allow radios to be fitted, perhaps a tweak to TS3 linked to what aircraft you are flying :-)

Before anyone screams...No! I am most certainly not advocating any random failures in guns, engines or other parts; it would just be too annoying and nobody would want to fly under those conditions :banghead: :D

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I was just making a point that once you start modelling statistical chances of mechanical failure you are on a slippery slope.....D

And a point well made too.
How far should one take "reliability" when modding. It could lead to all sorts of idiotic arguments...

[Gromit]

This is after all a game, not a re enactment, it's an interpretation of someone's research on how it may have been, if weapon reliability should be modelled, then what about aircraft systems, aircraft often returned to base undamaged by enemy action and without completing the mission due to one malady or another, oil leaks, spark plugs fouling, fuel pumps failing, electrical problems, prop controls, radios not working etc etc etc, it would be farcical to be fastidious about weapons and ignore the other factors that sent aircraft home or stranded them on the field!

It's great we are able to fly different aircraft in this game, but there's a logical limit to how "real" any of it can be.

Personally I'm happy to just see it as what it is, a game, enjoy the comradeship and challenge and not worry too much about trying to model every nook and cranny!

[Mattias]

Before anyone screams...No! I am most certainly not advocating any random failures in guns, engines or other parts; it would just be too annoying and nobody would want to fly under those conditions :banghead: :D

:thumbsup:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Salute

Just to emphasize:

Modelling weapons malfunctions are not a high priority for Team Fusion.

If weapon malfunctions are implemented, they will be in effect for all aircraft types.

The Spit IB and Hurricane I with cannon are not priorities either.

[bolox]

The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day (12 October) we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against one success. I got into deep trouble myself and my Rottenhund (Sigi Voss) was shot down. I ended up against two Spitfires with all weapons jammed. There was no alternative but to get the hell out of it.

the weapons failure you are talking about was caused by a bullet severing an electrical cable just behind the head armour plating- if you carry on reading a little further you will find out he berated his armourer for the failure only to have the armourer bring him the piece of cable an hour or two later- apologies all round and a realization how close he was to the bullet hitting him.

So this was combat damage, not cannon jamming.
Please be careful about using selective quotes, devoid of context, as it can lead to the wrong impression(s)

[LG1.Farber]

Personally I'm happy to just see it as what it is, a game, enjoy the comradeship and challenge and not worry too much about trying to model every nook and cranny!

S!

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

... if weapon reliability should be modelled, then what about aircraft systems, aircraft often returned to base undamaged by enemy action and without completing the mission due to one malady or another, oil leaks, spark plugs fouling, fuel pumps failing, electrical problems, prop controls, radios not working etc etc etc,

There is already provision for random mechanical failure modelled into the game. But we have not yet implemented it.

There several reasons for this:

1) There would be a HUGE amount of research required to determine the relative reliability of different components. We as a team are not ready to commit this amount of time at this point. We have much more important issues and difficulties to solve.

2) Unless we made mechanical reliability the same for all aircraft, it's clear some players would feel their aircraft were being penalized. For example, the normal overhaul time for a Merlin is 500 hours, for a Daimler-Benz it is 200 hours. Mechanical sources we have indicate the DB's were less reliable. But how would the Blue side players react to having a higher chance of mechanical failure?

If we do implement this factor, it will be quite a distance down the track.

[Broodwich]

I am much more interested in the jamming of weapons during high g maneuvers than guns failing randomly. I do still really like the idea that pilots have the option of taking a better plane but its also a risk because of reliability. A lot of things are better on paper but are still not preferred because they are unreliable as hell. Such was the case with early cannon armed spitfires, as with a great many other things in every war (m16 anyone?)

As to limiting them, I'm sure it wouldnt be long before red pilots would start complaining as to why they have limited cannon armed planes while blue has unlimited ones. Then it would just be cannon spits vs e-4ns all day, hardly BoB eh?

[DUI]

the weapons failure you are talking about was caused by a bullet severing an electrical cable just behind the head armour plating- if you carry on reading a little further you will find out he berated his armourer for the failure only to have the armourer bring him the piece of cable an hour or two later- apologies all round and a realization how close he was to the bullet hitting him.

So this was combat damage, not cannon jamming.
Please be careful about using selective quotes, devoid of context, as it can lead to the wrong impression(s)
A nice example how fast a shortened quote can lead to an incorrect picture. Thanks for clarifying!

My opinion on random failures: if the pilot has no way to avoid them they would just ruin the fun. Imagine, you are flying for one hour to your target, just to realize that your guns or bombs are malfunctioning. I can't imagine there is any pilot who would enjoy this.

[Roblex]

the weapons failure you are talking about was caused by a bullet severing an electrical cable just behind the head armour plating- if you carry on reading a little further you will find out he berated his armourer for the failure only to have the armourer bring him the piece of cable an hour or two later- apologies all round and a realization how close he was to the bullet hitting him.

So this was combat damage, not cannon jamming.
Please be careful about using selective quotes, devoid of context, as it can lead to the wrong impression(s)

Apologies. Although I have read the book fairly recently, I found that quote online somewhere so was not aware of what came after.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Quite an interesting web page actually.

[Mattias]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Quite an interesting web page actually.

:salute:

Yes it's very interesting, and as objective and unbiased as this one:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

:)

[bolox]

Apologies. Although I have read the book fairly recently, I found that quote online somewhere so was not aware of what came after.

No problems:thumbsup:, it does show the problem of 'online quotes' or selective reading tho- and I'm sure I've been guilty of it at some point also, despite trying to check facts from as many points of view as possible
I am more than slightly familiar with Steinhilper's book through writing an SP campaign from it, so it 'jumped out' at me
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3843

[Broodwich]

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/babydoc3/9337123/11965/original.png

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

:salute:
Yes it's very interesting, and as objective and unbiased as this one:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
:)

Hah!

Reading though each of the two pages, you can find enough quotes to prove that.

The spitfire could out-run, out-turn, out-climb, our dive and outgun the 109.



And you can also find enough quotes to prove that;

The 109 could out-run, out-turn, out-climb, our dive and outgun the spitfire.

[VO101_Kurfurst]

2) Unless we made mechanical reliability the same for all aircraft, it's clear some players would feel their aircraft were being penalized. For example, the normal overhaul time for a Merlin is 500 hours, for a Daimler-Benz it is 200 hours. Mechanical sources we have indicate the DB's were less reliable. But how would the Blue side players react to having a higher chance of mechanical failure?

Actually, prescribed overhaul time of the Merlin was 240 hours, and 200 hours for the DB engine, as per their respective manuals. It is also known that RR's criteria for setting TBO times was that 30% of the engines would complete it, and no single type of failure should amount to more than 30%. IOW, 70% of the Merlins never even met their 240 hour official lifespan (but then again, I doubt that many airframes survived even that long, especially in 1940 when roughly 25% of RAF fighter strenght was destroyed every month)

In practice, Merlins lasted little more than 40-50 hours in Soviet service (under rather bad conditions) and 1944 USAAF statistics show they did not last more than about 130-150 hours.

[5./JG27Meyer]

Phew! thank god thats all cleared up. I thought i was going to end up flying a 109 with constant ammo failure against Gloster Meteors :P

[E69_pupo]

Engine wear can be modelled trough scripting. ATM the campaign script im working on records the engine wear of your aircraft in a more or less rude manner, but it will be enough to keep people from flying full boost all the time at low revs.

If you follow the engine limitations and fly safe, you will fly the same plane the entire campaign ( assuming a enemy wont blast you from the sky), if you prefer to ignore the checklist, your plane will last 2 hours before getting scrapped.... This may not be realistic timings, but then again this is a simulation, if i can get people to fly more realisticly, i will be happy.

the same goes to the weapon jam. TF could realease the Ib without Jam's. Mission builder can easely create a jam script if they wish too. A really complex one who simulates weapon temperature, Neg G's, or a simple random chance of 5% jam in every round fired.

[Gromit]

Engine wear can be modelled trough scripting. ATM the campaign script im working on records the engine wear of your aircraft in a more or less rude manner, but it will be enough to keep people from flying full boost all the time at low revs.

If you follow the engine limitations and fly safe, you will fly the same plane the entire campaign ( assuming a enemy wont blast you from the sky), if you prefer to ignore the checklist, your plane will last 2 hours before getting scrapped.... This may not be realistic timings, but then again this is a simulation, if i can get people to fly more realisticly, i will be happy.

the same goes to the weapon jam. TF could realease the Ib without Jam's. Mission builder can easely create a jam script if they wish too. A really complex one who simulates weapon temperature, Neg G's, or a simple random chance of 5% jam in every round fired.

That it can be done is unquestionable, that no one would fly a plane that was unreliable is pretty much a given however, that's the real issue, I'm not arguing for any team advantage here just pointing out TF could spend a lot of time and effort on this kind of script only for no one to use it, take a look how many people fly Hurricanes and G50 at present, they are a minority because of their performance, think how popular an unreliable plane would be, make an aircraft model that was guaranteed to jam its weapons at some point in your flight and its going to be left on the airfield!

That's a lot of time and effort wasted.

So the real question is, should TF waste their time writing code for a plane no one will want to fly?

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

So the real question is, should TF waste their time writing code for a plane no one will want to fly?


Pupo is saying that the 1b be modeled without jamming, but that the mission makers should be responsible for any maintenance/ reliability scripts.

[Gromit]

Not arguing Phil, just discussing the merits of such script.

Some players put realism high on their list and in that light you would have to put in some kind of weapon unreliability, but that's counterbalanced by the fact no one would want it, I'm interested to hear the arguments either way, and that includes for mechanical reliability too?

[E69_pupo]

personally i wouldnt want ever to see a Ib in ATAG / my campaigns / campaings i take part. at least without scripted jams.

BUT, it would be fun for dogfighting with friends, after hour partys, warm ups, simple curiosity of having hispanos on the game. Not all of il2 must be fully realistic. In any of this cases having the plane with scripted jams in the core game would just be a bad idea.

I can easely live without it, but hey, people want it, TF says that it can be done... why not? Simply because it is in the game, doesnt mean it has to be used in ATAG ( spitgirl? )

regarding the script, i dont see it as too hard to create... but challenged accepted, i will do one just for the fun of testing my scripting abilities :)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Not arguing Phil, just discussing the merits of such script.

Some players put realism high on their list and in that light you would have to put in some kind of weapon unreliability, but that's counterbalanced by the fact no one would want it, I'm interested to hear the arguments either way, and that includes for mechanical reliability too?

Right, but it would not be any effort on TF's part, given that their mods have nothing to do with missions.
So there would be no wasted effort by TF, according to Pupo's suggestion. What would happen is that the server which had such missions would have to deal with any popularity increase, decrease as a result. Given that we all struggle to fill more than one server at most times at the moment.... I don't see that being an issue.

Your previous reply to Pupo seemed to imply that you thought his suggestion would take up TF resources. Apologies if I misread.

[Dutch]

Some players put realism high on their list and in that light you would have to put in some kind of weapon unreliability, but that's counterbalanced by the fact no one would want it, I'm interested to hear the arguments either way, and that includes for mechanical reliability too?

Both FSX and DCS have the option to enable 'random system failures' IIRC, but I doubt whether too many people ever actually enable them, even when flying offline and alone. But whether they do or they don't, I'd say it's the sort of thing that belongs in a 'study sim', and doesn't really have any place in a combat flight sim. Imagine the complaints of 'biased scripting', if our Spits and Hurris started falling apart, while the 109s sail around pumping us full of cannon shells? Or vice-versa, of course. :D

[Gromit]

No worries mate, I find these discussions enlightening as I'm not particularly literate with server/game differences.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Actually, prescribed overhaul time of the Merlin was 240 hours, and 200 hours for the DB engine, as per their respective manuals. It is also known that RR's criteria for setting TBO times was that 30% of the engines would complete it, and no single type of failure should amount to more than 30%. IOW, 70% of the Merlins never even met their 240 hour official lifespan (but then again, I doubt that many airframes survived even that long, especially in 1940 when roughly 25% of RAF fighter strenght was destroyed every month)

In practice, Merlins lasted little more than 40-50 hours in Soviet service (under rather bad conditions) and 1944 USAAF statistics show they did not last more than about 130-150 hours.

I am going to quote Paul Blackah, senior mechanic at Battle of Britain Flight where he services many Merlins, and lead mechanic for the restoration of Black 6, the 109G2 at RAF Hendon.


The Merlin appears to be a more reliable engine than the Daimler Benz, the Merlin servicing cycle is 500 hours between overhauls compared to the Daimler Benz, which is 200 hours. The Daimler Benz has to have the block rings tightened every 12 1/2 hours, which means the engine on the 109 needs more attention.

He quotes the following service cycle for the Merlin in a Spitfire:

Annual or 70 hour service: Engine rocker covers removed and cams and followers inspected.

Minor Servicing: Every 280 hours, same as above, with additional inspection, but no overhaul.

Major Servicing: Every 560 hours, engine is overhauled.

I will rely on his recommendations.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I am going to quote Paul Blackah, senior mechanic at Battle of Britain Flight where he services many Merlins, and lead mechanic for the restoration of Black 6, the 109G2 at RAF Hendon.


I don't think any issue should be taken with using maintenance cycles of what are essentially civilian uses of these aircraft, if they provide empirical data (which is always better than written/ manual data).

Hypothetically, all one needs to do, is build any damage model on the basis of the civilian uses (empirical data). If an individual pilot then choses to operate beyond those civilian uses (i.e. in combat) then the wear-and-tear would be experienced on a kind of pro-rata basis.

[Dutch]

If an individual pilot then choses to operate beyond those civilian uses (i.e. in combat) then the wear-and-tear would be experienced on a kind of pro-rata basis.

Ok, I'm getting confused here. Every time we fly, we fly a new aircraft as far as I'm aware. It may have the same markings, but it's a new aircraft, unless the re-arm and refuel feature is enabled. Even then, I've never used the <rr feature, as it never seems to work for me. also, I'll sometimes go weeks without flying online. Each mission on the server is 5 hours or so long.

If we're now talking about ensuring our aircraft is serviced and maintained according to Buzz's schedule, with failures being enabled if we go beyond service limits, or pilot's notes' operating limits, how on earth will that be implemented on an online server? Are we actually talking about having our own personal aircraft, with a service logbook which has to be kept up to date? And, by inference, having the same ongoing mission perpetually, 24/7, without a start and without an end? Could this be the 'revolutionary feature'? :D

Blimey, all this debate from the suggestion of a MkIb Spit..........:P

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

... how on earth will that be implemented on an online server? Are we actually talking about having our own personal aircraft.......

Ask Pupo.
It sounds like implementation would require a campaign style environment... something similar to what they do on ACG, but with more scripting.
It would be server based.

[Roblex]

Hah!

Reading though each of the two pages, you can find enough quotes to prove that.

The spitfire could out-run, out-turn, out-climb, our dive and outgun the 109.



And you can also find enough quotes to prove that;

The 109 could out-run, out-turn, out-climb, our dive and outgun the spitfire.


I found it interesting that when you read books by RAF pilots they seem to think nothing of attacking a formation of 109s that is twice their size. You then read 'Spitfire On My Tail' which is pretty much the only LW BoB biography and Steinhilper, who was not that highly rated a pilot, talks about being disappointed when he could only find equal number of spits to attack. These people were either deceiving us or deceiving themselves :D

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Ok, I'm getting confused here. Every time we fly, we fly a new aircraft as far as I'm aware. It may have the same markings, but it's a new aircraft, unless the re-arm and refuel feature is enabled. Even then, I've never used the <rr feature, as it never seems to work for me. also, I'll sometimes go weeks without flying online. Each mission on the server is 5 hours or so long.

If we're now talking about ensuring our aircraft is serviced and maintained according to Buzz's schedule, with failures being enabled if we go beyond service limits, or pilot's notes' operating limits, how on earth will that be implemented on an online server? Are we actually talking about having our own personal aircraft, with a service logbook which has to be kept up to date? And, by inference, having the same ongoing mission perpetually, 24/7, without a start and without an end? Could this be the 'revolutionary feature'? :D

Blimey, all this debate from the suggestion of a MkIb Spit..........:P

We ARE NOT considering at this point implementing a random mechanical failure into the mod.

All of the discussion has been speculative.

[Dutch]

We ARE NOT considering at this point implementing a random mechanical failure into the mod.

All of the discussion has been speculative.

Yah, Buzz, I know. My post was very tongue in cheek. Hence the :P

:thumbsup:

[E69_pupo]

Ask Pupo.
It sounds like implementation would require a campaign style environment... something similar to what they do on ACG, but with more scripting.
It would be server based.

AS it stands, in the campaign i'm working on, the plane you pick is UNIQUE. meaning if you pick the R-AJ plane, its the R-AJ indeed. if you have flown with it 3 hours, the engine will have a 3 hour "wear" parameter. this is a really tough approach, but its better than nothing. it takes about 300 lines of scripting just for this, nothign to complicated tough.


off to program weapon jams just for the fun of it :)

[Broodwich]

I found it interesting that when you read books by RAF pilots they seem to think nothing of attacking a formation of 109s that is twice their size. You then read 'Spitfire On My Tail' which is pretty much the only LW BoB biography and Steinhilper, who was not that highly rated a pilot, talks about being disappointed when he could only find equal number of spits to attack. These people were either deceiving us or deceiving themselves :D

Have you read any other accounts? This is a normal occurrence. Remember they were fighting to stop the germans from attacking their homes, every bomb potentially killing a bunch of civilians and their friends, family, neighbors (if they weren't dead already), rather than some ai trucks or block houses. Every kill they made bringing the war closer to its conclusion. I'm sure we would be of the same mindset if those were the odds. Its not because they thought their spits were twice as good as 109s.

[Wulf]

Have you read any other accounts? This is a normal occurrence. Remember they were fighting to stop the germans from attacking their homes, every bomb potentially killing a bunch of civilians and their friends, family, neighbors (if they weren't dead already), rather than some ai trucks or block houses. Every kill they made bringing the war closer to its conclusion. I'm sure we would be of the same mindset if those were the odds. Its not because they thought their spits were twice as good as 109s.

Well, as they say, all brave talk until the bullets start to fly. And lets not forget that the Germans had their own view of the developing catastrophe. From a German perspective, they were the aggrieved party, not the Allies. They also had homes and friends and a civilian population. And while I doubt that Fighter Command pilots thought the Spit was twice as good as the 109, generally speaking I think it was appreciated that it was, in many respects, a better aircraft. And this initial view was confirmed by subsequent events. The Spit was a far more dangerous proposition for an opponent at the end of the War than it was at the beginning while the 109 was really beginning to struggle after about 1942.

[Gromit]

AS it stands, in the campaign i'm working on, the plane you pick is UNIQUE. meaning if you pick the R-AJ plane, its the R-AJ indeed. if you have flown with it 3 hours, the engine will have a 3 hour "wear" parameter. this is a really tough approach, but its better than nothing. it takes about 300 lines of scripting just for this, nothign to complicated tough.


off to program weapon jams just for the fun of it :)

Now that's pretty impressive, what about combat damage, would that mean a new aircraft or repairs?

[TheVino3]

Now that's pretty impressive, what about combat damage, would that mean a new aircraft or repairs?

+1 I'm liking the sound of this campaign :thumbsup:

[E69_pupo]

Now that's pretty impressive, what about combat damage, would that mean a new aircraft or repairs?

repairs is out of my loop. its not implemented yet, but i intend to create 3 levels of damage for the plane ( besides the no damage suffered)

- minor damage, such as gun jams, small holes, holes in the pit, stuff like that, plane will still be usable in the next sortie: i think its possible to port damage from the previous creation of the aircraft to the new one, but its not done.

- medium damage, engine problems, major leaks, broken wing tips, broken spinner, stuff like that: plane wont be usuable for the rest of the mission, but will be available the next day ( not really realistic, but putting the plane out for the rest of the campaign wouldnt have any gameplay advantage.

- major damage: wing broken, engine explosion, big chunk of tail missing etc : plane gets scrapped, pheraps i will reward you with a medal for surviving :D

anyway, repairs wont be there neither tehre will be a rearm. you simple despawn the plane using a refly option a la il2 1946, and respawn again with the same plane, fresh for the game, but in the script the engine wear will be recorded.


regarding the jams, i did do a script last night who jammed the guns if fired too long, with some randomness added to it. it was really poorly scripted tough, but the point is, it can be done if one wants too. i wanted to make a video but fraps only records a black screen.

[heinkill]

Give me a Spit IIb and I'll wipe the virtual skies of your puny E4/Ns! :grrr:

From the best spit book around, by Leo McKistry

'Such planes...usually featured two Brownings and two cannon, though some, like the Mark IIC (1943), had four cannon.'

On the cannons in the IIas of 19 Sq

'It was found the cannon Spitfire would often work satisfactorily in level flight, but as soon as it was in a dogfight and subject to rapid manoeuvres and high G, it failed.'

'Wing Commander Woodhall wrote angrily to Leigh Mallory...in the 5 engagements so far the port guns have fired 875 rounds out of a possible 1560 rounds with 15 stoppages. The starboard guns fired 960 rounds out of a possible 1560 with 11 stoppages.'

PS I didn't realise there was a IIc - but apparently there was...a mod made after the BoB

c wing

The c wing appeared in October 1941. It was a universal wing that could take eight .303in machine guns, four 20mm cannon or two 20mm cannon and four machine guns. Each cannon now had 120 rounds, compared to the 60 of the b wing.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

On the cannons in the IIas of 19 Sq

'It was found the cannon Spitfire would often work satisfactorily in level flight, but as soon as it was in a dogfight and subject to rapid manoeuvres and high G, it failed.'
.

Spit IIa did not have cannon.
19 sqn had mark 1b cannon spitfires, which had the problems, later solved before the 2b version

[philip.ed]

I think the main point to take note of is the fact that the majority of stoppages owed to the way the aircraft was being flown whilst firing, rather than being purely random.

[Dutch]

I think the main point to take note of is the fact that the majority of stoppages owed to the way the aircraft was being flown whilst firing, rather than being purely random.

Yap.

'For God's sake keep still, you blasted Hun!!! Can't you see I'm trying to shoot you down without my guns seizing up??' 'Damned inconsiderate, these Sausage guzzlers!!' - Commando Comics, 'The Beastly Hun - 19 Sq get their man.' :D

Hiya mate. :thumbsup:

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I think the main point to take note of is the fact that the majority of stoppages owed to the way the aircraft was being flown whilst firing, rather than being purely random.

Perhaps the flying exacerbated the problem, but it was not the cause.
The problem was fixed by remounting the weapons, and the remounted weapons worked not matter how you flew.

[Blitzen]

We will have the ability to create this aircraft. It will not be in the next release but could be in the following one.

However, adding it to the game has limited utility, since almost all these early Spitfires equipped with cannon suffered continual jamming problems.

We would also need to spend a lot of time to write code which would allow implementation of jamming, and then the players would have the frustration of seeing their weapons jam after one or two bursts. No 19 Squadron abandoned the use of these aircraft quickly after their initial testing.

A perhaps better choice for these types would be the Hurricane I with cannon, these were more successful than the Spitfires in No. 19 Squadron. No. 151 Squadron used these Hurricanes, although again, they had jamming problems, but not as many as the Spitfires as the cannon were mounted upright as opposed to being on their side. But still this would require some code work for limited usefulness to the sim, and that requires time, not a lot of which is available to be spent for limited use for players. Wouldn't you prefer we spend our time working to build functional Hurricane IIA/B's or Spitfire IIB's?

An account of a British pilot who flew these cannon armed Hurricanes can be found here:

http://www.bbm.org.uk/SmithRL.htm

It is more likely that the first RAF cannon armed aircraft the TF Mod will see will be the Spit IIB, the reliability problems had been mainly solved with their installation. (again, not with Release 2)

Either the Spit or Hurri ( or both) would make for an interesting comparison with the all MG earlier types and I trust/I know you guys would do it right.Something to look forward to ,perhaps...:thumbsup:

[LARRY69]

Either the Spit or Hurri ( or both) would make for an interesting comparison with the all MG earlier types and I trust/I know you guys would do it right.Something to look forward to ,perhaps...:thumbsup:

+1:thumbsup:

Larry69