Quote:
|
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 )
|
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.