British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Sadly some have an 'if I can't find the fault it ain't broke' attitude too.

True.. As noted, those working towards a degree (students) love to fix things that aint broke.. Than there are the bored types of engineers who are trying to justify thier existance.. There is no absolute rule in that human nature will win out in most cases.. Sadly as in this case/thread some 'feel the need' to say something needed fixing that the pilots themselfs didn't think needed fixing.. Human nature!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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.

Typical non-technical attitude. Doesn't understand something so he just brushes it off as irrelevant. Real men don't need math, right bongo?

If you don't understand it, then stay out of the discussion.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Not when Operating Notes are full of symptoms of instability, the test pilots continue to report the symptoms of instability, the pilot anecdotes convey the symptoms of instability, and an independent aeronautical research organization confirms the issue.

Oh yeah, the engineering solution to the issue was also enacted AFTER the Battle of Britain:

No, I don't think it is stretching feasibility at all.

It is one of the facts that helped Gates to win the adoption of stability and control standards in the UK during the post war period.

Operating notes with a 'few' refferences to instability much like many other types of the era you mean.
pilot annecdotes are acceptable now then?....but just not the ones with anything positive to say on the Spit?
and NACA independently tested a MkV which is a totally different aircraft in terms of weight and balance.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Typical non-technical attitude. Doesn't understand something so he just brushes it off as irrelevant. Real men don't need math, right bongo?

If you don't understand it, then stay out of the discussion.

Do they give out awards for hypocrisy? you must have a stack of them now.

[Crumpp]

It's interesting that all tested aircraft displayed longitudinal dynamic instability.

Where does this come from??



It is patently false as a generalization.

While many WWII fighters were unstable in very specific conditions such as in climb power with a specific speed range or landing configuration.... most were stable and met the requirements.

It is was very rare for a design to be unacceptable over the range of the envelope such as the Spitfire.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Where does this come from??



It is patently false as a generalization.

While many WWII fighters were unstable in very specific conditions such as in climb power with a specific speed range or landing configuration.... most were stable and met the requirements.

It is was very rare for a design to be unacceptable over the range of the envelope such as the Spitfire.

Read page 18 of the NACA report and note the conclusion of satisfactory for short period oscilations (remember they were the ones that really counted)
and was noted as satisfactory for stick force gradient appart from 'flaps down power on', page 19 is good reading too.
Then try to show your smug face here again when you realise you have been completely discredited.

http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/spit_flying.pdf a link to the report

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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.

Ah, yes, i remember now. I vote against it, because that issue strongly related to the stick movement, design and forces. You flying in RL, i don't have to say, in RL you have much more feedback from the plane, plus you have 1:1 sized, smooth force feedback stick You feel the plane movement, shaking, the forces on the seat, etc.
I dont think, it would be possible flying with a plane, which requires such a feedbacks, but the user able to fly with a non FF, crappy, 15cm high plastic toy. I mean, we're reach the limits of the PC games with it. No matter, how accurate game you want, it lacks the equipments, G forces, butt-forces

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Sadly some have an 'if I can't find the fault it ain't broke' attitude too.

So true

[JtD]

....most were stable and met the requirements.

Which requirements were there for long period dynamic longitudinal stability?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JtD

Which requirements were there for long period dynamic longitudinal stability?

And this is the million dollar question, even Crumpps NACA 'bible' states that long period stability was not looked in to much as it is of no particular consequence....so it seems the much maligned Spitfire failed 'slightly' in a characteristic of little to no significance, in summary it can be asumed they used a basic rule of stability is beter than instability in this regard so they gave the Spit an 'F' and Crumpp something to cling to.