![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Fighter planes are no airliners to be designed with a stone steady stability. More stable the design, less maneuverable it gets. Moreover, ever bigger engines brought the planes more destabilizing area in front of the CG, as well as more engine torgue to burden their stabillity. The answer to that, on the example of the yaw stability was an increase of the vertical tail area. Compare the vertical tails of the early and later variants of the WWII fighters. Now if you think this has been unknown to the Supermerine engineers, please compare the tails of the variants beginning with I, then V, VIII and IX, XIV, etc. It is rather obvious the Spitfire couldn't have been in a quite a different world in matters of stabillity compared to its contemporaries, isn't it? But in the 4.10 the Spitfire has a third league stabillity compared to all the rest of game planes. In all probability the game planes behave rather more benign in this sense then their RL counterparts. Until 4.10 that went for all the planes, including the Spitfire. Even the I16. which really has been rather unstable in the RL behaves stone-steady as a gun platform in the game. Now the 4.10 makes the Spifire the only exception to this general oscillation amnesty, giving it the dubious honor of being the only plane to wallow around in a manner the DT considers a realistic one. Can it really be the unfairness of such a move never even crosses your mind? It seems not to, 'cause you repeat like a gramophone about the Spit FM RL comparison. (apart from repeatedly telling me I whine and express the skepsis at my abilities to control the game planes) I feel the oscillations on the Spit being overdone in 4.10; the guys who made the FM are probbably going to say it s reallistic, but even if it is so, it is completely beside the point. It is totally unfair to give only this one single plane the allegedly and possibly more reallistic but certainly much more difficult type of FM. Or is the fairness a concept you simply do not care care for? BTW, you are right about the NACA report discussing the dynamical stability of the plane; I only swept over it with my eyes the first time. Your insulting tone is certainly not right, on the other hand, and having tolerated it on several occasions - don't bother continuing in that manner if you expect an answer. Last edited by PE_Tihi; 02-07-2011 at 10:32 PM. |
|
|