• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

RealAir Spitfire 4 FSX

B

BFT

Members +
Is there a RealAir Spitfire 4 FSX, is there one converted over some where ?
I have the FS9 version and it will not work in FSX .... texture issues ... ALL grey looking.
Or is there something I can do to make the textures work in FSX, like changing the format
to DX5.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I really do not want to buy another one.-
 
Which would you guys currently consider the better of the two spitfires? I had the RA for FS9. Thinking about picking it up for FSX/P3D but also looking at the A2A.

Is there another warbird to be suggested? I also have the A2A P-51D.
 
The RealAir and A2A Spitfires are very different models. A2A's are early - Mks I and II - and model its limited cooling system, limited range and (relatively) low-powered early Merlin. And of course there's the usual Accu-Sim feature set. They're very sweet fliers - my favorite single-engine warbirds for their balance, controllability and good manners. They're somewhat easier to handle than the RealAir versions, which are late - Mark IX and Griffon-powered Mark XIV. The RealAir Spits are more powerful (more torque to manage), practical (won't overheat on the ground after five minutes' taxi time), more capable (longer range, better high-altitude performance) and feature Rob Young's flight modeling. I own and fly both regularly - wouldn't want to be without any of them. I suppose I'm leading up to the usual answer - "buy both" - but in this case you could do worse than to do just that. Hope this helps.
 
Thanks a lot Alan....reviews like that are the reason my virtual hangar is so full of payware, and my visa is hot!
 
@Tony G - glad it helped, and sorry to be emptying your wallet. Soon yours will have as much air in it as mine.

Forgot to mention in my last post that neither Spitfire is as much of a handful as the P-51. The Mustang was in many ways more capable, but as you know from the A2A version, you have to stay on top of it all the time, and it always seems ready to go out from under you. The Spitfire, in all of its incarnations, is more of a pilot's airplane.

@JensOle - agree with you about the looks of the later versions. Excellent paints, too!
 
Yup.. the MkIX does it for me so I'm kinda middle of the road as far as Mk's go.

As for the models.. agree 100% with Alan's quick round-up. Until recently, I had the RA Spit and the WWII Fighters Spit from A2A. With an almost complete lack of 'things to buy' in the Christmas sales (for me anyway).. I decided to go for the A2A WOP3 Spit with Accusim and immediately binned the WWII Fighters model. It's impossible to say which version is best (A2A or RA) as they're both very different beasts. If you over-cook the A2A model.. there's still a chance to recover it managing the rpm and rad/oil vents. Over-cook the RA Spit and you've oil on your windscreen and a stopped engine!! In the event.. I love em both and fly both. Externally.. the RA Spits have the edge. Internally.. the A2A Spits;)

For all it's 'reality'.. I don't feel the same about the A2A WOP3 Mustang. Here.. the WBS versions are my 'Go To' models;)
ATB
DaveB:)
 
Some screenshots of the A2A Spitfire Mk.Ia, together with RealAir's Spitfire Mk.IX, and RealAir's Spitfire Mk.XIV.



 
It's funny how the early Spit seems so snub-nosed compared to the other two, I never noticed that before. But once you've seen it..



 
jankees said:
It's funny how the early Spit seems so snub-nosed compared to the other two, I never noticed that before. But once you've seen it..
Click to expand...

JensOle said:
...It cannot be unseen..!
Click to expand...

Indeed, but only the MK.II when fitted with the horrible 'blunt' Rotol ES series spinner!

It really did spoil the lines of the Spitfire in my eyes.

(I really wish A2A would add the de Havilland CS 20 degree prop as an alternative to the Rotol on the MK.II, rather than the non authentic fixed pitch 2 blade Weybridge from the MK.I that we have a present).

The 'Baby' Spits with either the D.H prop and spinner or the later 'pointed' Rotol, one as per the MK.V, look much nicer!

Cheers

Paul
 
jankees said:
It's funny how the early Spit seems so snub-nosed compared to the other two, I never noticed that before. But once you've seen it..
Click to expand...

That's because the Spits up to the Mk.V had single-stage supercharged engines. The Mk.IX and later Merlin-engined versions had two-stage superchargers bolted on to the motor and were necessarily longer nosed. Luftwaffe pilots learned to spot the longer-nosed Mk.IX and treat them with more respect than a Mk.V.

edit: that said, you're comparing an early mark Merlin-engine Spit with a Griffon-engine Mk.XIV in those two screenshots: the Griffon-equipped aircraft are generally longer-nosed and larger-tailed than any Spit sporting a Merlin (although the view over the nose is just slightly better with the Griffon compared to a Mk.IX).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top