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.