Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[winny]

I have another question, the RAE refer to the bf-109 as being " too stable for a fighter".

So is instability a good or bad thing?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

ACE the Spitfire was unstable....it just wasn't a problem, it was easy to fly

Agreed

Note I did not say it was not unstable.. My point was if it was as 'unstable' as some would have us belive than those Spits would have been falling out of skys as soon as the pilot moved the stick

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by winny

I have another question, the RAE refer to the bf-109 as being " too stable for a fighter".

So is instability a good or bad thing?

It depends if one is BLUE or RED.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

There's a quote I remember reading from a pilot who said he actually had to push the stick almost all the way forward to hold a turn, because the aircraft kept wanting to tighten up.

I too have read such anecdotes, however the aircraft had to be returned to the factory for a new monocoque, as for some reason a batch of Spits had been produced out of shape.

Dangerous to trust pilot's anecdotes, as we keep being told.

Edit: Plus you'd be unconscious well before you endangered the airframe.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by winny

I have another question, the RAE refer to the bf-109 as being " too stable for a fighter".

So is instability a good or bad thing?

I've read that quote, but Mike Williams seems to have sort of picked it out without including a lot of context from the original source, so it's hard to know exactly what they were referring to.

Here's the quote for people unfamiliar:

Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.

Now, the way I interpret it is that they're referring to the trim problem. I could be wrong. There could be a truncated sentence or two preceding the quote that makes it more clear, but that's how I interpret it.

Edit: I think in this case that they're correct. You don't want the pilot's attention on trimming the aircraft every five seconds; you want the pilot's attention devoted to situational awareness.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Agreed

Note I did not say it was not unstable.. My point was if it was as 'unstable' as some would have us belive than those Spits would have been falling out of skys as soon as the pilot moved the stick

Yep, and if instability was a problem then Mustangs would have been falling out of the sky too, oddly enough the Mustang case was the reverse situation with regards to fuel load, a full fuselage tank made it unstable in all conditions.

[CaptainDoggles]

This quote says it best, IMO:

Originally Posted by robtek

Exactly, one of the quirks of the Spit was the extreme easy elevator, great for experts, more difficult for beginners; The difference to planes with "normal" handling should be in the game.
Same for the very heavy elevator at very high speeds (>600 km/h) in the 109, i.e.

I guess it comes down to those who want a faithful depiction of reality, or those who want their favourite aircraft to be the best.

Right now, the Spit and 109 handle very generically, if you will. We have a situation where there's two aircraft, and they're not really a spit or a 109, it's more like we have two aircraft where one turns better and one climbs better. That's why I want threads like this to continue; because these are two of the most-researched and most-documented aircraft of the war. They should have distinct, unique handling qualities. You should be able to feel the 109's slats deploying, etc.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Yep, and if instability was a problem then Mustangs would have been falling out of the sky too, oddly enough the Mustang case was the reverse situation with regards to fuel load, a full fuselage tank made it unstable in all conditions.

Exactally!

Fact of the mater is most if not all modern fighers are designed to be unstable.. It is what makes them so manuverable..

It is true now and it was true than

Only difference is today it takes a computer to act as a middle man between the pilot and the plane to keep it from falling out of the sky.. Where as in WWII the pilot was responsable.. That is to say they can make them even more unstable and thus more manuverable today due to computers..

In summary

What ever the instability was in WWII wrt the Spit, Mustang, etc..

It was not so much that the pilot could not deal with it to get the job done..

Put another way a cessna is a great plane for modern civ pilots in that it is so stable that it practaly flys itself better when the civ pilot lets go of the stick.. But a cessna is not and would not make a good WWII figher!

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This quote says it best, IMO:



I guess it comes down to those who want a faithful depiction of reality, or those who want their favourite aircraft to be the best.

I think you are spot on, and every time this Crumpp chap is cornered when debating the alleged problems with the Spitfire his usual 'thugs' jump in to cause a disturbance, in a way to prevent their favourite fighter being outclassed in 'any' way.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This quote says it best, IMO:
I guess it comes down to those who want a faithful depiction of reality, or those who want their favourite aircraft to be the best.

So, you want the light elevators of the Spit, and the heavy elevators of the 109.

Where does the 'normal' bit come in? Which of the aircraft in the game behave 'normally'.

And does it make a difference whether i've got a G940 or a 3D Pro?