I said:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=200

It was in answer to your claim:

There are numerous designs that have both very light control forces and good stability. One of them is in my hanger right now. Good stability with light control forces does make for a very pleasant airplane to fly.

It is false that stability and control forces are proportional such that you must have instability to have light control forces. The designer has considerable freedom in the management of control forces.

Please point out in anything remotely close to your claim of:

Please provide a link to the exact claim you think I am making that is wrong.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Question is how quickly and how far did the oil pressure drop below the emergency minimum (30 lbs - normal pressure = 60lb/sq.in.) under negative g? Under what circumstances would the oil pressure drop below this minimum, and how long would it take for significant damage to occur to the Merlin, or any other engine? How would this be quantified and replicated in a flight sim?

There shouldn't be a problem as long as your temperatures stay within the limits set by the Pilot's Notes - trouble is now the Merlins overheat far too quickly.

Engine damage in seconds from lubrication starvation, in a Merlin or any other engine. Bearing coatings burns away, piston's are scored...would be nice to have engine proper use pilot notes posted. Many here push well beyond manufacturer use recommendations, that I'm sure of:)

Supermarine test pilot Alex Henshaw was once critised by a new manager for doing so much sustained inverted flying (i.e -1g) in Spitfire demonstrations. His reply was (in Sigh for a Merlin p79):

"Spitfires are not flown inverted on test. It is true they are rolled and in some cases an inverted glide takes place, but as the engine cuts immediately on negative 'G', there is no power in use. I have discussed this at some length with the Rolls-Royce technicians and they are happy no damage occurs."

He goes on to say at one stage he and Geoffrey Quill were asked to invert a Spit from 20000 ft and no engine damage ocurred.

Here is the only known footage of Henshaw doing his routine in the movie "Ferry pilot". This is a Spit Va, you can hear the engine cutting during the inverted glides. I wonder whether at this point it was necessary to cut throttle to avoid sustained inverted running as the motor was less susceptible to neg g cutout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCmzYccyBYM

Keep in mind that possibly the oil pan had been changed out...anyone here having problems should observe their oil gauge as recommended, and learn to alter their flying style. Treat it like a car you just spent a bunch of money on.:)

and I said stick force per G is a control characteristic affected by stability

:rolleyes:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=202


So are you saying now that the Spitfire didn't have oversensitive elevators due to longitudinal instability? :rolleyes:

Yes by means of things like servo tabs, stabilators with anti balance tabs, PFC's etc etc......none of which applied to Spits or 109's....nope just good old fashioned hinged control surfaces with nothing but the stability of the aircraft to determine their effectiveness....oh and of course there was the famous 'bob weight'.......strange.....why would increasing control forces make an aircraft more 'stable'? :rolleyes: it's almost like theres a relationship between them :rolleyes:

if an aircraft is unstable it takes less effort to make it react through control inputs, if it is stable it takes more effort to make it react through control inputs......how is this not getting through?......less effort = light controls, more effort = heavy controls.....is it making any sense yet? :rolleyes:

I already did but what the hell...here it is again

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245


..........:rolleyes:

Crumpp,

I did say that I would be more comfortable if someone else would fly that test over a longer period. I admit the amplitudes began to decay but there were only three oscillations and I would like to see the flight start from a proper hands-free trim, probably the 2580rpm A&AEE used but with reduced boost (I used maximum) so that the roll motion was eliminated right from the start. Then hands off to see what develops. The stick will of course be dampened by the stick springs although FFB may react differently.

I don't know what started the oscillations because if it was stable they shouldn't have begun. It may have been my hamfistedness trying to get hands-free flight.

So, please don't take my one short test as gospel just because it appears to confirm your belief, it needs more testing and I just don't have the time nor do I want to be the only person that verifies this. My main contribution was in creating the test script.

For anyone willing to give the time here's the link to my thread including the test mission:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...21&postcount=7

"Feel" is absolutely subjective, for example ask any decent golfer if he prefers to use a Titleist ProV1 or a Pinnacle ball - he'll tell you a bit about 'feel', and it's not measured.

"overmodelled"

But you know, if you think the Spitfire is overmodelled then that's laughable, overall it definately isn't.

Rolls Royce specify in the notes that you can push past the limits, it is a risk to undertake. It's been published in this thread a few pages back by NZTyphoon.

Interesting. Reeeallly interesting.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte...opcorn_yes.gif