the planes with uncovered spin was called " dangerous planes " in test pilots language, i never heard that spit or p51 was called so,they were not easy but no dangerous. With the number of inexperienced pilots, those plane would very deadly. a plane can spin, it's a fact, but in FH the rotation speed is unreal and the unrecover too.
It is possible to get out of an established LF SpitIX spin. It requires opposite rudder, full forward stick and forward trim tab. I do agree that it is ridiculous, however.
Negative - after 10 pins unrecoverable. Anyway - i agree with Tigrou. Here is no discussion about handling finesse of naturaly unstable planes. So if is very difficult or almost impossible recover spin - plane is very bad modelled. Like a tigrou i have also irl experience with SEP planes. Of course they are not warbirds, but characteristics are in principle same. Spin characterisctics as now are modeled on FH are faraway from reality and for unexperienced pilots deadly.
my question - why the hell do you wait 10 spins? feel something is wrong>counter effect>get out of spin never get into one in the first place - simple as that the spins might be modeled wrongly, but I do like them In a hard DF you have one more thing to think about lately I've seen many cons spin while we were fighting, but most of them recover quickly enough for me to not have a shot at them while they're spinnig I guess they don't wait for 10 spins...
it's not necessary 8-10 spins, i was in spin yesterday with 190d9, i was trying to stop it at once but... 2km-0m, pk
rename doc -> trk Если дать раскрутиться - вывести действительно сложно. Но возможно главное чтобы высоты хватило.
To be true that nasty spin modelling is a mere heritage of original WB. Developers can turn it on or off -- that's all. I offer them to turn it fucking off
Dear fatale, the best spin recovery method is chute I guess, if developers cannot tune spins to some reasonable form, they'd better turn them off at all.
thinking of that: With a dot command setting the position of CG, we could get the stability as each pilot want: -more back CG: planes handle better with the risk of hard spins -more front CG: planes get a better stability but handle less
Plane with rearward CG is more fuel efficient & faster as well, in a physical model simulator, dont know about in a FM driven one
