I have sympathy for your difficulties.
Again, the suggestion is one of inaccuracies in the programming of the temperature effects in the game as against engine power and airspeed produced within the game.

The unique flying qualities of any aircraft are totally irrelevant to this specific issue.

Nor was I necessarily intending to have a discussion with anyone. My intention was to inform the readers of the forum of an observation made in one specific test of the game's 'temperature effects' setting relating to one specific aeroplane, and to suggest that others conduct similar tests in order to verify my findings or otherwise in other aircraft within the game.

Please feel free to test this yourself with any aircraft of your choice within the game and report your findings accordingly.

Control and stability remember?, you raised exactly this point yourself in 'that' thread, remember?
Stick force per G is a characteristic affected by stability, you spent a very long time telling us how the Spitfire instability is what made it so tricky to fly with it's 'low' stick force per G, you can't just keep changing your arguments like that.
the fact the Hurricane could turn well was more to do with it's fat wing which was much less critical at low speed handling.

Please provide a link to what you think I said. Don't do it in this thread. You can just PM me. In all probability, you are confused and we can leave it out of this thread. If you are right, I will be glad to post it in another thread.

You mean the issue of "British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots"?

No. I mean this issue;

Did a quick test with temp effects off and got similar results. The real life Spitfire II PNs: The Spitfire II could show up to 125° coolant temp for climbing for 1 hour, and 90° for oil.

135° coolant and 105° oil for 5 minutes emergency boost

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

And the Pilot's Notes General on engine handling - issued with all Pilot's Notes, and always used in conjunction with them:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...handling1a.jpg

Note on climb speed and how engine temperature could be improved by adopting a higher climbing speed, plus radiator settings:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...handling5a.jpg

On the related note, what if its the oil pressure dropping during negative G manouvers and causing the engine to seize? Oil pumps are driven by the engine, so pressure may fall below minimum - lubrication is gone, but the engine is still revving as the propeller still drives the engine.

AFAIK this was a problem with constant speed propellers as well, since they were hydraulically operated on many aircraft and could cause the engine to overrev.

I'll give it a check.

Which type?

I recently read in a RR Heritage book on the Merlin that rolling in the Hurricane eventually caused lubrication problems and rough running but not to the point of seizure. RR had to test this and ran tests of 150 continuous aileron rolls before any of these signs appeared, but no seizure. IIRC the pilot doing this was the same one who managed that .92 mach Spitfire dive @ FAE (major parts fell off during the dive and the engine oversped to something like 4200rpm, but he still landed OK)

These will all rob power from an engine. So while the engine may run rough or work with oil temperatures 125 degrees, it will not make more power than a fresh engine that has not been abused or is running rough.

The Dev's should publish the procedures for proper operation and if those instructions are followed, the power production is the same as when "temperature effects off".

Is there an official Operating Notes for the game? The only ones I am aware of are from players.

I think its hard to believe that the Devs would release a patch that fooks up the FM's and if they did not release a quick hot fix by now even if it meant rolling back the FM to pre beta state so I can understand the angle Crumpp is coming from here..

The Devas have a wealth of info in regards to these FM's and have accumulated this over many years....I suggest they release what they see as proper operating instructions for these aircraft, what have they wrote into the FM that they see as proper operation, that would be interesting to see

Here are the Pilot's Notes General comments about oil flow under negative-g:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Spitfire II Pilot's Notes take off plus climb speeds:

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

The Air Min was also realistic enough to understand that in air combat one cannot simply fly exactly by the book and survive; the Pilot's Notes General make the following observation about taking risks:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...NGenrisks1.jpg

I think you missed the sarcasm rolleyes from your post............

The 3th point also worth a bugtracker ticket... :rolleyes:

No no..you didn't see them as I wasn't being sarcastic..

Like I said if they release/tell us what they have modelled into the FM then we can make assumptions and point fingers which in turn will help pinpoint if any the issues..

Or you can another ten pages of everyone getting themselves at it thinking they know better

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me, but then again it's not a new behaviour of yours.

Ok, so what you guys want is an airplane that is as fast as the Spitfire, climbs as well as the Spitfire, turns as well as the Spitfire, but acts like the Hurricane?

In otherwords a frankenplane that never existed during the Battle of Britain?

I don't see where that is any more realistic than the FM's in the game now you are all complaining about.

Exactly

#sigh

Edit..

Won't waste my time

Of course not. The two models currently in the game are vastly different to eachother in terms of flight characteristics. The Spitfire is already twitchier than the Hurricane, but more agile. It's already more difficult to keep guns on target with the Spit than with the Hurricane. The pre-stall buffet in tight turns so famous in the Spit is there already and is excellently reproduced in a force-feedback joystick.

With engine temperature effects off, the Spit is (to quote Bob Doe) 'like having wings on your back'. The Hurricane, with engine temperature effects off (again to quote Bob Doe), is 'like a brick shithouse'. Solid, steady, sluggish compared to the nimble Spit. The differences are already there. but of course pilot's anecdotes are inadmissable according to your own philosophy, whether mine or Bob Doe's.

The Engine power and therefore airspeed issues with a particular game setting are also there with all aircraft tested so far. Except for the Bf109 tested by one person, which demonstrated no power or airspeed loss with either of these game settings.

So please, unless you are prepared to test this specific issue for yourself, with whichever aircraft you'd like, stop quoting my responses in an attempt to argue issues which have been argued before.

My thanks.

I don't see any difference between them when I play. Have you recorded the Hurricanes stability characteristics?

The Spitfire in game as tested is both static and dynamically stable, something the real aircraft was not.


The issue is will correcting one set of FM parameters make or a more realistic simulation or not? The aircraft represented in the game were on equal footing as dogfighters in the actual battle we are simulating.

I don't think making a frankenplane out of one side is going to accurately represent relative dogfighting capabililties.

So many of these problems could be related to pilot error. I damage the E3 engine many times when I am not paying attention to what I am doing.:)

:neutral:

MMMM, I thought it was clear, it was tested. :)

Exactly.

1. Without a good set of operating instructions, we will never know if the engine is being damaged.

2. My personal feelings are it is not very realistic at all to have airplanes that speed, climb, and turn but don't fly like the real thing. It will really distort the relative dogfighting abilities adding frankenplanes.

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


+1

I was replying to Crumpp, He must've deleted his post because when I posted it mine was directly afterwards. I should've quoted him, poor form from him.

He made some bizarre comment about Spitfires, Hurricanes and FM's, I forget now, but it was nonsense.

EDIT: Here it is:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=216

Looks like he removed his first post, posted again after me and then edited it all into one.

Really? No difference? This says a lot about your 'feel' because there's a world of difference.

The second part, he never suggested that, we want 2 models which are reasonably representative of each, + the 109 versions. By representative I mean reasonable accuracy on speed, ROC, roll and turn at respective heights and speeds. Followed by reasonably representative DM's for each type of weapon.

I suspect that you'll have an argument for that, ask for all that rot which degenerates the thread.

You misunderstand the term frankenplane btw. It was coined from the practice of producing a particular type by using model files from pieces of another type which are similar enough. The FM was never pieced together like that, they are new files.

Haha..no worries, I just glad I edited it now then ;)

+2

Osprey,

It is defineable and measureable, characteristic.

It is not based on a subjective opinion.

Sorry, I am not up on my gaming lingo.

What is the correct term for a FM that is overmodelled in its capabilities?

+3

I agree the game should reasonably represent the airplanes.

Now, it is reasonable representation of the airplanes if one plane has a much better relative dogfighting capability than it had in reality to the others?

I don't think so....

:rolleyes:

I just combined the post to answer two people.

No, unfortunately, most of the in-depth information is coming from the community, in many cases just very recently, and there are quite trivial things the devs had no clue about... They are listening and they ara also seriously trying to rectify these issues - and the FMs are still WIP, which is OK, but the errors and problems are there for quite different reasons that the ones you are listing I am afraid. In other words - if I should bet any money on if the cock up is a bug or feature, it would be a bug more likely than not. :grin:

So, do we know if the current overheating issue with all spit versions is a bug or incorrect FM? I really would like to know as I really struggle with these birds.

It's a feature

What are you talking about here? :grin:

That might be your particular definition but I think everyone knows what he meant by "frankenplane."

I'll be back; I have to go pick up more Pedantic from the grocery store :rolleyes:

You would think the devs would have an entire library of stuff from the last title. However I suppose even if you did you would have to sit down and read an entire library :(

Where ? From SpitPerfsdotcom ? lol. Printed this makes only good sponges for the flood. Not much more :rolleyes:

@CaptainDoggles : I've got plenty of second-hands to resale!

You and I know exactly what you said, it seems it is you who are confused if you don't recall the 94 page thread you started discussing this very issue.

Heres the link that you asked for.....very odd you need reminding.

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

Now can you please explain how stick force per G is nothing to do with stability and control without going against everything you contributed to that thread?

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

You think?

To me it sounds like the same old protagonists/antagonists pissing on a wall.

On the same old wall :grin:

lol

Yes thanks! as you say, risky:)

I'm sure it happens - what is needed is some empirical data to show how long it takes for the oil pressure to drop below the minimum safe level. How much negative g is needed to lower the oil pressure enough to cause damage? The Pilot's Notes General, for example, describes one condition imposing too much negative g is a succession of slow rolls - so how many pilots are going to indulge in successive slow rolls during combat? What other combat conditions will impose enough negative g for long enough to damage the engine?

The normal oil pressure for the Merlin is 60lbs/sq.in, with a working minimum of 30lbs/sq.in. For gameplay a rough rule of thumb could be anything below 30lbs and the engine begins to suffer progressive wear (according to the Pilot's Notes General it doesn't take long for damage to occur once the oil pressure drops below the minimum).

That is the key feature that did not exist in the early mark spitfire. All oscillation had to be controlled by the pilot as the airplane was neutral to unstable.

I agree that others should test it as well.


It is really not that hard to test. A stable airplane will seek what ever speed it is trimmed for so there is no need to "precisely trim". The airplane will move to trim speed by design if it is stable.

The amplitude will grow smaller and finally disappear as the airplane arrives at trim speed.

It is really easy to test. Just get the airplane in a sembelance of level flight, pull back on the controls and let go.

If the airplane is stable, the blue and green will stop changing proportions in the windshield after a few minutes. If it unstable, the proportion of blue and green in the windshield will increase until you see all blue or all green.

Well, start laughing because the in game Spitfire is modeled as a stable airplane where the real airplane was neutral to unstable.

It means the game shape is easier to precisely maneuver and get guns on a target than the real aircraft.

Is that overmodeled in a game? When something has a capability or feature that did not exist in reality? I think so.....

What do you think?

Will it will be more representative of the actual airplane when it is made to be faster, turns better, climbs better, AND is stable??

Crumpp the whole point of my producing that test mission for you was so that YOU could prove your point. My test was only a quick and dirty. Why aren't YOU taking the trouble to do some of the work yourself?

How do you know this? :grin:

Very well! I'll do that at some point (if no one is faster).

At the moment, if you happen to cut your engine completely due to neg-G (much easier done in previous patches prior to 1.08) you won't be able to start it again unless you cut the throttle all the way down anyway and point your nose vertically downwards and wait a few seconds, then add throttle gradually. This does not make any sense according to point 3.

I have flown the spit a few times these past few days and it certainly is a very stable aircraft it's a joy to fly compared to the 109, that said I did but it into a flat spin which I could not get out of last night after pulling off a unsuccessful manouver trying to hit a 109.

The lack of speed does suck but so does the 109 it's got the flight model of a 104 star fighter while the spit is more like a sopwith pup :lol:

From my brief flights with the spit here is my cons and pros for both aircraft.

Spit

Pros

Very stable
Easy to aim
Amazing turning
Very tough (need more flight time to confirm this)

Cons

Very slow
Slow rate of climb
Lack of ammo

109

Pros

Fast
Fast rate of climb
Good armament

Cons

Very unstable/easy to stall
Hard to aim due to above (more of a personal problem I imagine ;) )
More prone to damage

Summary

Both aircraft need a lot of work but it's fair to say that anyone in there right mind in a 1v1 fight would opt for the 109. Even with its bad FM the 109 will win most fights hand down unless out numbered and even then it can just nose down and run for home.

The damage model is screwed up IMHO the spit can take much more damage than the 109 for sure, for example I was hit by flak in a spit and didn't feel any effects from 3 HUGE holes in my wing I didn't the 109 would have lost a control or would have to rtb from such damage.

From what I have read about the early spit vs 109 the two were a clos match with the 109 with slight advantages.

Back a few months ago, when the devs bowed to community pressure on the bouncing rpm needle. It was then that I realized we would most likely have Fm's of popularity, rather then true to life representations. :)

Well Krupi, I have to say I personally don't share your opinion all that much. I always feel like I used to borrow dad's 'proper' car when I switch to the 109 regarding the handling etc. Stability is certainly not the strongest point of the Spitfire for her nose dances all around the place (compared to the Hurricane or 109) and she's very difficult to to control and aim, especially at slower speeds and / or in the climb. For me personally it's the matter of rudder response I guess. It's not so bad in mid to high speeds. Also, the stability of 109 got slightly worse in recent beta patches, or so it seems to me. Maybe it's also about flying style etc...

Lack of ammo is mater of what you're used to I suppose, when you adapt it's plenty. I agree it's very tough sometimes, that concerns mainly wings DM from visual point of view. You will find that if hit hard, this is no longer a fighter aircraft, like everything else in game. For flak damage, you also get lots of 'control lost' situations. The holes in the wing are not matching the actual FM imho, that's more of a visual bug. Just like Hurricane or 109 fuel tank explosion - funnily enough you almost never blow up the Spitfire, something is wrong in there!

Your summary is spot on of course, don't get me wrong, just correcting the stability issues for slower speeds, I find Spitfire much harder work in that kind of fight. Try the Hurricane if you care, that IS a very stable gun platform.

Just for interest here is what the NACA engineer (William Hewitt Phillips)
who compiled the report on the Spitfire VA
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...s-page-001.jpg

later wrote about the stability of many of the fighters tested, including the Spitfire:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg
(from NACA Monographs in Aerospace History Number 12)

If Crumpp wants to continue with his time wasting obsession over the Spitfire's elevators that's fine - it gives him something to do. There are more important issues to deal with, mainly the shortfalls in relative performance.

Incidentally the NACA report on the control characteristics of the Hurricane is available here

Tbh i have yet to fly the 109 in the latest beta patch but certainly in the previous beta patch the 109 was a terrible gun platform and from my experiance the spit is the better of the two so i will try the 109 tonight, I agree with you about the hurri its the best gun platform.

I also found this, it's an explaination of the requirements set by NACA when testing. It explains why they tested for instability, what they were looking for etc.

Written by Robert R. Gilruth 1941 Requirements for Satisfactory Flying Qualities of an Airplane

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/19...report-755.pdf

Exactly

..still going, it will never stop though..took 7 years in il2

Just wanted to post about the oil pressure / engine damage thing:

A standard engine isn't going to be hurt from decel with momentary loss of oil pressure. What I mean by decel is, the engine went from having fuel and cylinders firing to running out of fuel and engine taking a few seconds to come to a stop. A thin layer of oil is around the main/rod bearings to absorb the punishment of the piston going into its compression stroke only to be exploded the opposite direction with combustion. This is violent on the bottom end as all the preload for the rod bearings and that particular connecting rod go from the bottom side of bearing(s) to, when combustion happens, to the top 1/2 of the connecting rod bearing(s) ( all in a split second). Without combustion, freewheel, all you have is the compression stroke causing stress which is absolutely nothing in comparisone to the grenade in the hole slamming the piston down that is called combustion. The biggest chance for airated oil to cause damage is when you regain fuel and the motor kicks back in again, but even then you would have had to fly in such a way that when you ran out of fuel and the engine is on decel to a stop, that you had enough neg g's or were inverted enough that oil never came back into the sump in the 1st place before you fired back up. Kinda like firing up your car after an oil change. Either way, I think if this was to be modeled it would be such a rare occurance that it wouldn't even be worth doing. Basically putting this in the bug tracker isn't correct IMO.

+1

Without any proper data as to when and how damage will occur nothing much will be accomplished by attempting to replicate such a condition.

The typical rule of thumb for any combustion engine is you need at least 10lbs of oil pressure for every 1000 RPMs. That is bare minimum. The volume/flow of oil needed is different for every engine. One of the reasons to have a good volume of oil / high volume oil pump is the hopes that during normal startup, by the time combustion happens you have already lubricated the bottom end before engine start (during the cranking process). If the pump only put out 10lbs per 1000 RPMs, the engine could be oil starved every time you fire it up. The real key is having high volume when you need it and be able to slave off excess oil pressure via a bypass valve when you don't. Too much oil pressure can also wash the bearings and cause failure as well.

GEEZUS!! :evil:

How many time does it have to be said!! :rolleyes:

There is nothing in that snippet:

That contradicts the NACA conclusions! You confuse the comments on LONG PERIOD OSCILLATION with the SHORT PERIOD OSCILLATION measured by the NACA and noted by the RAE!!

Not the same thing...APPLES and ORANGES!!

Nice post!

Did I misunderstand?


I agree with Bliss but...

Lets read the 3rd point again...


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

Seems it will damage the pitch which will return to fine and then overspeeding of the engine that will cause the damage.


Maybe I should put it up then or it will never get done?

I thought the overspeeding prop after an engine cut was already modelled in this sim. Seems I have to quickly reduce throttle or the revs quickly climb above 3500+ when the engine restarts. Am I wrong on this?

You guys would know better than me but as Robo is a red pilot 1st I thought him offering to add it as a bug / feature ment it was not.

Ive just been thinking about it actually and it applies to a CSP. Is this not an automatic pitch propellor? What mark of engine is this manual for?

Trying to research this myself but red stuff is all new to me, found this:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/batt...ropellers.html

What is the rev tolerance? It is very strict in the 109. At the moment the engine rev reach the 3000 rpm, the engine immediately starts to shake, and start losing the power (and it will stop some time later, but it depends the throttle). This is absolutely correct, this is in the operating instructions ("if the engine reach the 3000 rpm, if the plane landed, the engine have to replace, and inspected for damage").

For example, if the Merlin XII can survive the 3600 rpm longer than 20 seconds (or the 3600+ any seconds) in dive, then it should be fixed (of course, the various throttle/boost may reduce these limits).

I'll evaluate this in due course. At present still evaluating issues brought forward in this forum that the Spitfire, in order of urgent importance:

1) is too stable
1) is too easy to bring sights to bear on target
1) won't enter into a vicious accelerated stall & spin and destroy aircraft
1) rolls too quickly in a dive above 400 mph IAS
1) shows no sign of deceleration with open canopy
1) employs "sonar" when canopy is open
1) neg g cutout does not occur quickly enough with the latest beta
1) quick engagement of elevator control at speed will not over stress and destroy aircraft
1) wings absorb far too much cannon shell punishment
1) IIa is 60 mph too fast ....oops, not any more!
1) flying a Spitfire forces one to use bad tactics and no TS teamwork
1) lands and takes off far too easily
1) prolonged inverted flying doesn't cause oil sump to run instantly dry and destroy aircraft
1) engine cutout doesn't cause CSP to go fine pitch, over rev engine, and destroy aircraft

So much to do, so little time!

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html
4.6. Flying Controls. – 4.61. Ailerons. – At low speeds the aileron control is very good, being similar to that of the Curtiss H-75 ; there is a positive " feel ", there being a definite resistance to stick movement, and response is brisk. In these respects the Me.109 ailerons are better than those of the Spitfire, which become so light at low speeds that they lose all " feel ".

"At 400 m.p.h. the Me. 109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply about 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. ; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to 45 deg. bank is about 4 secs. Both aircraft thus have their rolling manceuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."


http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html
"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109. Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and significantly disturb the aiming."

You forgot the part about the Spitfire never having participated in the Battle of Britain at all, which wasn't really a battle anyway, and it's all a conspiracy theory invented by Marilyn Munroe and Elvis who currently live on a double decker bus on the dark side of the moon.

Your problem with BugMeNot is the source you reference is Kurfursts "109 Worship Website".

@Snapper, nice post mate, us red sissyfire-cheat-whiners deserve all this, plus the hilarious 109 drivers who finally have a go in the Spit and say "nothing wrong with this" LMAO

The Pilot's Notes General don't apply to any particular mark or make of engine, they were issued to all pilots and used in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes issued for different aircraft types and models. The PNs Gen comments on propellers and overspeeding:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...lertypes1a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...roptypes2a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...peedprops4.jpg

@bugmenot

I am really refering to the elevator controls, I have never disputed the rolling characteristics, the Spitfire was very stable latteraly.

ok so whats the date of publication of this article?


Snapper, Dutch and Osprey I take it from your sarcasim that you object to having any negative flight model aspects added even though you constantly cry for a better, truer and more historically accurate flight model. I find it kind of odd when someone else makes a point that might add a realistic characteristic that you belittle the entire thread. Lets just get the facts so we can present them! Not sustain the red vs blue stance.

We can go over the 109 after if you like, I would enjoy that more. The narrow track landing gear physics do not operate as I have read them (when one wheel is on the ground and the other is not which causes the grounded wheel to move toward the centre - turning the aircraft over) for starters.

Osprey/Snapper your both getting out of hand no one here is saying that the spit is perfect far from it in fact they are saying the opposite.

I think we quite get the message, Krupi. In abundance.

These are the Pilot's Notes General (A.P 2095), 2nd Edition - April 1943. AFAIK the comments on the propellers are the same as those in the first edition from 1940, although that has to be confirmed.

Point well taken, Farber.

As for the 109, its shortcomings in this sim are well known:

1) it's too slow
2) the stall characteristics are too harsh
3) it's flat spin is not realistic
4) it's too difficult to bring its sights to bear on target
5) it's narrow-track landing gear characteristics is not accurately modelled (as you noted above)
6) prop pitch too slow in changing

Done. Anything missed?

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/688...13ch41page.jpg

After the application of an inertial elevator to fix the longitudinal instability, the aircraft would have NEAR neutral longitudinal stability.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6...htelevator.jpg

Before that fix, during the Battle of Britain, Spitfires were longitudinally unstable at normal CG.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4...yexplained.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/4...ctlongstab.jpg


That is not representative of an early mark Spitfire.

When I purchased the boxed version of this sim it included a replica of the historic Spitfire aircraft pilot notes (with the addition of the sim company logo). I therefore presumed that I would be able to fly the Spit in accordance with the reproduced notes provided. However, I have not been able to fly the Spit in accordance with these notes as the sim Spitfire under performs against the information provided in the said notes.
I am not sure whether anyone has ever managed to get the Spitfire to fly as per the notes provided, but I would be very surprised if they have. I feel somewhat let down by this and hope to be able to fly a more accurate representation of the Spitfire soon. In the mean time, I very much appreciate the efforts of those who have put the time and effort in to genuinely help the developers of this sim to achieve as near as possible historic values for the Spitfire and all the other aircraft involved.

Crumpp....have you read all of that modification list? the 30 Gal wing tank...... yeah that was a fleet wide modification wasn't it? I think you will find that list of modifications was not a list of universaly applied mods but rather just a list of things that were tried.

You will also realise the need for an elevator mod was for the same reason it the MkV had one, with all the extra equipment being fitted to Spitfires the CoG was changing.

I would love to do a thread on the Bf-109. I think the Hurricane needs to be covered too.

I did not pursue it because it was obvious that fans of their aircraft did not want the flying qualities modeled.

The issue with the Merlin is due to the propeller governor cannot change pitch fast enough with the cut out.

The engine itself will cut out negative G and restart without issue but the propeller cannot keep up. It will over speed if the throttle is not closed at the cut to give it time to work properly.

Bongodriver,

Read please:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4...yexplained.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/4...ctlongstab.jpg

I dont understand your sarcasm:

1) is too stable - Maybe. I have no opinion, i don't know the tests (ok, i know, it's not a criteria in this forum :grin: )
1) is too easy to bring sights to bear on target - All small caliber is stable. Other question the gun inaccuracy, which terrible worse in all planes imho.
1) won't enter into a vicious accelerated stall & spin and destroy aircraft - Who want such a thing? I don't even understand which maneuver you describe :)
1) rolls too quickly in a dive above 400 mph IAS - true
1) shows no sign of deceleration with open canopy - True, and you forgot the cooling flaps too. This is a general problem, not just the Spit
1) employs "sonar" when canopy is open - True. This is a general problem (G.50, 109 without canopy, etc.).
1) neg g cutout does not occur quickly enough with the latest beta - Maybe. It slightly reduced, but i can't measure accurate values.
1) quick engagement of elevator control at speed will not over stress and destroy aircraft - True, but it is a general problem, not only the Spit.
1) wings absorb far too much cannon shell punishment - I think it's rather question of the gun inaccuracy.
1) IIa is 60 mph too fast ....oops, not any more! - It was overmodelled, or not?
1) flying a Spitfire forces one to use bad tactics and no TS teamwork - Irrelevant
1) lands and takes off far too easily - Irrelevant. Depends mostly on the Pilot.
1) prolonged inverted flying doesn't cause oil sump to run instantly dry and destroy aircraft - True. But –again– it is a general bug, the DB was banned for inverted flight too (because of lubrication system).
1) engine cutout doesn't cause CSP to go fine pitch, over rev engine, and destroy aircraft - It was an example of this? I never see any. I do not like the favorite opinion, that "the operating instructions only for girls, the real man push the crap out from the plane, anyway, the merlin survive everything".:rolleyes:

Why are we bothered about 'long' period oscilations? you have said it yourself enough times this is just not worth bothering about, are you really suggesting the bob weight was to fix the long period oscilations?

also can you tell me exactly what effect your game controller is having on the perceived stability in game? have you considered the center spring is actually responsible?

Crumpp
A couple of comments on your positing 288

1 The observation that the US were talking about the Lateral and Yawise coupling. A good point but as far as I can see they do not mention any of the problems that you keep raising. Can you point out where these are highlighted

2 The observation that they were not talking about the Spitfire. I disagree they were making a general comment about fighters of the period and this would have included the SPitfire. I don't see where they exclude the Spitfire from that statement, again could yo point that out to me. It would be appreciated

3 Adding Inertia weights to Spit 1 in July 1941. This I agree is a very good point but I don't see the relevence to the BOB. Between the BOB and the adding of the inertia weight a number of other changes were made, in particular:-
a) adding firproof bulkhead behind pilot
b) adding electron lower fuel tank
c) changing the Merlin to a Merlin 45 as used in the Spit V
All these would have added weight and impacted the handling quite possibly necessitating the introduction of the inertia weights in July 1941. In other words the Spit 1 in July 1941 was a very different animal to the one in the BOB, it was more like the Spit V.

I also note that not all these changes were implemented a good example is the deletion of 4 x LMG and their replacement by 2 x 20mm in July 1940 which clearly didn't happen.

I would like to digress a moment and concentrate on the areas where we do agree. It have been pointed out to me in a PM exchange that these have been missed. If people can agree on these at least it will give the Developers somehting to work on while other areas are finalised.

Gun Platform.
I beleive there is a greement that the SPitfire was not as good a gun platform as the Hurricane. Its well documented and shouldn't be made impossible but more difficult

Tightening up in a high speed turn
Again I don't have a problem in making the pilot have to take action to counter this trendency. In the real world its almost instictive and I wouldn't expect a pilot to have any difficulty dealing with it but it a difference

Loss of lift when flying in turbulance
All aircraft lose performance when flying in turbulance and this should be reflected in the model.
regarding how to model it in the ideal world everyone whould have a feedback stick and feel it but a lot of people don't have this. I would suggest that a visual shaking on the screen piture be built in.

'Overcooking it' when in turbulance
If someone in a Spit is in turbulance, ignores the warning and tries to tighten the turn further I totally agree that the plane should flip and go into a spin.
Note - I do disagree that the plane should break up in the spin for the simple reason that examples are very rare and often had other factors which almot certanly played a part. Some examples I am sure exist but they are hard to find.

Hope that helps

I noticed you voted against the issue when it was raised in the bugtracker.

Obviously I have done a poor job of communicating the issue.

It is a sad fact that this "red vs blue" is toxic to the progress of the game as well as the community.

There seems to be an almost mass hysteria among Spitfire fans about this issue but it sharply focuses the "red vs blue" mentality for the community.

I think it stems from several sources.

First is an deep emotional attachment to this aircraft. It is a cultural icon.

Second is a lack of technical insight as to why an aircraft with such unacceptable measured stability qualities could go on to be a successful fighter. Understandable, stability and control is not a common subject outside of aeronautical science. Believe me, if I discussed the science of stability and control with my wife, my daughters would have never been born!

it is like an ancient mariners map, labeled "Here be sea serpents".

Without the technical insight, the Spitfire fans are left with two possibilities.

1. the issue does not exist

2. the issue must not be a big deal and come naturally to most pilots.

Most of the discussion has been dealing with pointy tin foil hat theories that the issue did not exist.

It did exist and it was an issue. The instability was a defining characteristic of the early mark Spitfires and pilots had to learn to overcome it. Some even learned to turn it to advantage, btw.

The second point is both true and false . It was something the pilot could deal with and become second nature to most pilots with experience in the aircraft. Just as trimming the aircraft is second nature to piloting an aircraft and comes naturally to most pilots.
However, you still have to trim the aircraft in the game. Spitfire pilots still had to learn to deal with the instability.
It is a big deal because the aircraft would have been safer and more effective without the instability.
The lack of technical insight contributes to the misunderstanding. The Spitfire had some essential traits that without them, it would have been undesirable to fly the aircraft with the instability. As it had these essential traits, it was able to enter service and served well for a time without the issue being fixed. England did not have standards for stability and control so when the design firm said it was tested and the pilots said it was good, it was placed into service without modification.

1. The violence and depth of the stall buffet gave essential unmistakable warning of an impending stall. While the accelerated stall itself was violent, the buffet zone was large enough that it gave sufficient warning so the control characteristics were mitigated. Without that buffet zone, inadvertent stalling would have been very difficult to avoid.

2. The stick force gradient is stable. So while the forces are too light for good feel at low speed, at high speed they are light but not so much a pilot has no feel. Unless the air is bumpy or the pilot is excited and over controls, the airplane would be very pleasant to maneuver at high speeds. I would not try to hold it at a maximum acceleration steady state turn without practice. The instability would have to be controlled but the stable gradient makes it easier at high speeds.
There is more but I think most people get the picture about the toxic "red vs blue" mentality.

During the Battle of Britain, Spitfires were longitudinally unstable at normal CG.

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4...yexplained.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/4...ctlongstab.jpg

Bongodriver,

The inertial elevator improves the control feel by increasing the stick forces. It gives the pilot a more solid foundation to feel the oscillation and more precisely correct it through control input.

It is a characteristic of the FM not the joystick.

This is just such a typical bloody engineering attitude, because some maths says there is a problem but pilots don't seem to note any actual problems they bloody try and fix it anyway 'the Spitfire had desireably light controls'.......but we went ahead and made them heavier anyway because according to a graph this thing is unstable.