Slightly OT, but important to this thread; Unfortunately Crumpp's "historical analysis" is seriously flawed - the British, with the likes of William Lanchester, were pioneers in laying down scientific principles for aeronautics, as shown by this extract: http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/61/1/39.full

I would have though that someone who is supposed to be a graduate of aeronautical engineering would have known of William Lanchester:http://www.guggenheimmedal.org/Pages...aspx?Year=1931

and also recognised the role of the likes of the Royal Aircraft factory (later Royal Aircraft Establishment) in laying down the principles of scientific analysis later used by NACA; instead we have these types of comments:

which are complete nonsense. This type of blinkered ignorance about the role of the British, and the Royal Aircraft Factory and RAE, in laying down the principles of scientific aeronautical analysis beggers belief, and Crumpp's idea that only the USA and Germany "had measurable and definable stability and control standards" during WW2 is farcical.

Great document Lane!!

It gives us a measurement of the divergence and the slope of the Cm increase.

Not only that, it is unstable. That means your coefficient of moment increases each cycle instead of decreasing.

So if you pull a 6 G turn and did nothing except hold the stick fixed, the next oscillation will exceed 6G and continue to increase with each cycle until the airframe is destroyed.

That is the reason why "flick" maneuvers were not allowed in it.

Let's summarize the behavior that occur at normal and aft CG positions and categorize them to be implemented in the game. Then we can build a list for the bug tracker. These are all at NORMAL CG. If the game models a shifting CG then they increase in severity at aft CG positions.

1. The Spitfire should be twitchy and unstable gun platform. IIRC, in IL2, people used to complain about the "twitchy" behavior or the Corsair and P-51's so I am sure it is within the games engine to model a twitchy airplane.

It should take very careful and small stick movements to get the gun sight on target. That means a Spitfire pilot will require more skill to hit a maneuvering target than he would need in a stable platform such as the Hurricane.

2. Above Va, large or abrupt elevator control can more easily exceed the airframe limitations of 6G for damage. Currently, it is impossible to stall the Spitfire in a turn or a dive. The reality is it requires careful flying so as NOT to induce an accelerated stall or exceed the airframe limitations.

3. In the turn, the violent buffet is a double edged sword. There is no such thing as a free lunch especially in physics. In the NACA measured results, encountering the buffet represents a change in available angle of bank. The airplane goes from 78.5 degrees of bank to 60 degrees of bank in one second.

****5G @ 147.73KIAS:

ROT = 1091*tan(78.5) divided by 147.73 KIAS = 36.2 degrees a second

****2G @ 141.647 KIAS:

ROT = 1091*tan(60) divided by 141.647 = 13.34 degrees a second

As a quick ballpark using IAS to get an idea of the scope of the effect on turn performance, we see the rate of turn drop from 36.2 degrees a second to 13.34 degrees a second. That means our time to complete a 360 degree turn changes from 10 seconds to 27 seconds!!!

As the Operating Notes relate, you do not want to turn any airplane in the buffet. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, all the energy that was being used to achieve an instantaneous performance rate of turn of 36.2 degrees a second from our ballpark went to warn the pilot of an impending stall, taking the aircraft right down well inside its sustainable performance envelope of 13.34 degrees a second.

The longitudinal stability characteristics of the Spitfire requires skilled flying to achieve a maximum performance turn. In a stable airplane, the pilot would have a much easier time keeping the aircraft at the maximum rate of turn velocity and a less violent buffet would have subsequently reduced effects on the turn performance.

4. Below Va, the Longitudinal instability of the Spitfire make it more difficult for the average pilot to prevent an acelerated stall or overcontrol the aircraft by pulling deeper into the buffet zone.

Exactly. That is our goal to recreate the flying qualities of all of these aircraft.

In this thread we have focused primarily on the Longitudinal stability. Most of the Spitfires issues stem from that.

For example, the heavy lateral control forces would not be an issue if the control forces were equal on all axes. The control harmony was poor in the Spitfire and Gimpy raises a good point:

The pilots ability to apply lateral control would be reduced by the longitudinal control characteristics.


*****Not a silly argument on actual turn performance, just a quick ballpark so readers understand the importance and general effect of encountering the buffet on turn performance.

:rolleyes:

You are confused about this whole subject. Of course, there were some brilliant British engineers.

What does he have to with an adopted measureable standard for stability and control????

You understand, an engineer in the United States or German designing a fighter could go look to see the measured characteristics that he must meet.

Gates was the British engineer who tried to shoulder that task of getting the Air Ministry to adopt a measureable standard. He eventually achieved it in the post war.

So why was the Mustang III considered longitudinaly unstable too?

So, now all we need is the same data for a MK I and II.
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, they didn't test them at NACA.

I'm pretty sure that if I came on here saying that the 109 E was wrong, and used an F or G's data I'd get laughed out of here. Especially by you.

So I'd like some hard data on the same phenomenon in I's and II's, please.

Thanks.

Edit: and bear in mind that the spitfire in lanes docs is around 300lb lighter than a spit in BoB trim.

It was designed for a load factor of 10, not 6. Calculation showed wing to be the weakest point, it was tested and met specification. Specification was changed to 12 for later marks.

This is being disingenuous; your argument is flawed. The fact that someone didn't mention Lanchester when discussing a subject that was mostly unrelated to him doesn't mean that that person has never heard of Lanchester.

The airframe of the Mk Va is similar to the Mk I and II

is similar a good enough benchmark? even the Mk9 airframe was similar.

I think Winny's point is valid, would it be accepted if the aircraft being analysed was a 109?

Flick manouvres were permitted in the Mk2 (from pilots' notes) at slow speeds, there are several other aircraft including the P-40 which were prohibited from 'flick' rolls and intentional spinning.

The Fw190 had a nasty tendency to do a crazy maneuver when in a banked turn that was very dangerous to the pilot, especially the low time pilot and Germany had many, many of these. It didn't matter if the turn was to port or starboard, the a/c always ended up going to starboard.

No doubt we will hear that this was caused by incorrectly adjusted ailerons.

Wrong again, Lanchester's work on aerodynamics, as well as other British academics, provided a basis for the adopted measurable standards for stability & control worldwide - the British did indeed have such standards, and adopted them well before NACA; to claim that only the Americans and Germans had such standards is farcical. Read the articles and do some historical research of your own before making such claims. What work, for example, did the National Physical Laboratory in Britain do during WW1? http://www.npl.co.uk/about/history/

IMO, the difference between a MkII and a MkV is much less than the difference between a 109F and a 109G.

My understanding is that a MkV is basically just a MkI but with a Merlin 45. True?

By contrast, the 109F is drastically different, structurally speaking, from the 109E. Different wings, different tail empennage, lack of wing guns, different engine cowling, etc.

If we were talking about, say, Fw 190A variants it might be a different story.

in very basic terms yes, but there were relatively significant differences, the bob weight, but even an engine change makes it a different beast, it performs differently it is loaded differently, the pilot's notes between the 2 reflect that, so I don't think it's a fair comparison at all.

It's essentially a MK I airframe, yes. There are differences though.
The airframes were strengthened (I must admit I don't know what this involved)
The radiator scoop under the wing is bigger, and there was a difference in weight .
MK V's had the inertia weight fitted into the elevator system as well. There's also a difference between early V's and late V's, they got heavier as more mods were added.

It's all a bit confusing, I've got Crumpp saying that the stall is horrid and yet I've got a NACA report on the Spitfire stall that says that it has the best stall characteristics of any fighter they had tested and that they were 'desirable'

The other problem I have with this whole argument is that there is no data for the same tests on any of the other a/c in the game (AFAIK). How many WW2 aircraft would have also been considered unstable by NACA?

winny it is all about making an Olympus Mons out of a mole hill.

:lol:

Read the NACA report.

Stall warning is NOT buffet effect on turn performance.

Accelerated stall is NOT a 1G wings level stall.

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940.

What do you think the "violent shudder" is.....hint....PRE-STALL BUFFET.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2471/page15j.th.jpg

Great!! A basis is not an adopted standard, Capeesh??

There were several British pioneers of stability and control. In fact, Gates is the one who came up with Aerodynamic Center and Stability Margin.

It made Center of Pressure theory obsolete and was integral part of Gilruths work. Like I said earlier, Gilruth and Gates were good friends.

That does nothing to change the fact the Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place until after the war.

Your link is a meaningless and has no bearing on stability and control standards.

See my post above with the Mk I Operating Notes.

We also have Cm's on the Spitfire Mk I.

The only part you are right about is that there were several British pioneers of stability and control - the National Physical Laboratory had long before NACA, - to claim that the "Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place" until after WW2 shows an abysmal ignorance of the history of aeronautical science in Britain - something which a supposed graduate in aeronautical engineering should know and understand.

Do some basic research Crumpp, before making claims you cannot substantiate.

Is not an adopted standard....

:rolleyes:

That Mk I is way too early. Doesn't have the pilot's armour, bullet proof windscreen, etc.. It's at least 300 lb lighter than a Spitfire in BoB trim (around 6,100 lb auw). Check the serial number.

Ok.. NACA report on stalling characteristics of the same MK V
http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/aebc089d.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/ff51dc44.jpg


Further on in the report

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/59551859.jpg

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/6f5ead08.jpg

Why exactly is this relevant in any case? the US managed to put aircraft into production with almost exactly the same 'apparent' problems as the Spitfire, the Mustang III was actually longitudinally 'unstable' while the Spit was neutrally stable, most of the pilot's notes I have read on several WWII aircraft do not permit intentional spinning and do not permit 'flick' manouvers, the free lessons in aerodynamics make for interesting reading to the Layman I'm sure but I'm wondering what the actual point is, the Spitfire never had a bad reputation for stability.

Precisely....and with an aircraft that is easy to control because it is light in pitch it is much easier for the pilot to control it to the edge of buffet, a Spit pilot only needs to use two fingers to unload the wings at the buffet, easy peasy.

Wrong, again - the British adopted standards that had been set by the likes of Lanchester, the NPL and Royal Aircraft Factory- the assertion that neither the RAE or Air Ministry had set standards is completely false. See, for example http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/reports.html

and
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-002a.jpg

Crumpp claimed right at the start of this thread that only the Americans and Germans had adopted standards for stability and control and that the RAE and British Air Ministry had not adopted such standards until after WW2 - such claims show an abysmal ignorance, bias and a lack of objectivity from someone who claims to have in-depth knowledge of aeronautical engineering.

Yes, this is what I find most confusing, it seems the Spitfire is getting a character assasination based on some entries in pilots notes and flight tests, yet I can find many of the same restrictions in many other pilots notes on other aircraft....American ones no less, so with all these 'adopted' stability and control standards the Americans were producing aircraft with the same apparent problems? the Germans also produced aircraft with what might be considered 'dangerous' characteristis....so why is the Spitfire getting all this attention?

Because Crumpp :grin:

:rolleyes:

You don't seem to grasp the difference between research and adopted standard.

This is an adopted Standard:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.11.2.158.27


You keep making these claims without proof.

Go search the forum. I have posted the document.

You can buy the book yourself too and read it.

It is pretty interesting.

:rolleyes:

Read the thread. Spitfire is just the first one.

The history is interesting but a sideline. Start another thread if you want to discuss it.

The Spitfires Longitudinal stability characteristics are well defined and measured. The NACA and Air Ministry were very much aware of it.

It is not to this thread about the Spitfire. So please start another thread if you want to discuss it.

First of all there is no need for the little blue sarcastic face, secondly....start a new thread to discuss what?
the Spitfires Longitudinal stability characteristics were actually quite unremarkeable and yes that 'is' very well documented, can you explain why the P-40 was not allowed to spin or flick roll? these seem to be important facts you use to back up claims about Spitfire stability issues.

Sorry? i ask if something you posted is relevant and you say it's not, but as it's in this thread and I felt the need to enquire then why do I need to start another thread?

Please quit with the sarcastic tone.

But this is a 'post war' adopted standard, have you got a link to the evidence of adoption of standards during the war? and clear evidence the British did not have any?

p.s. not sure why you PM'd me the answer, but it is probably the most relevant post made, would you mind if I put your PM up on here?

Start another thread.

I PM'd you the answer because it has NO BEARING on the Early Mark Spitfires.

The purpose of this thread is to define the early Mark Spitfire characteristics so they can be included in the game. Those characteristics are measured, defined, and agreed upon by all parties involved in the Spitfires design.

It is not to debate the history of stabilty and control engineering.

Sorry but that doesn't really cut it, there is nothing 'off topic' in my asking for your sources for claims you make on this thread, it's an open forum and that all sounds a bit evasive if you ask me, not to mention the rude tone you keep coming back with once someone asks a question.

The link to the modern day adopted standards has no bearing on the Spitfire either but it seems no problem to include it here....the adopted standard here seems a double one.

That may be what you'd like it to be, in a one man show unhindered way, but it seems you have attracted a difference of oppinion, for the most part the enquiries into your sources have been valid and polite and deserve to be answered, it just seems the threat needs to titled 'according to Crumpp'

You did after all claim that the british had no adopted standards and have put NACA on a pedestal as an example of an establishment which had adopted standards.....this does not conform to what you put in the PM, I just think it's a little unfair to expect to have a thread dedicated to your 'sole' oppinions.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
So what? You have absolutely no evidence for this ridiculous claim that the British had no adopted standards, although I have searched through all of your posts to find a "document" you claim to have posted - without success...

this is exactly like Crumpp's assertions over 100 octane and 16 fighter squadrons - all this does is show his level of ignorance and biased POV about the British aviation industry and administration, and about the Spitfire.

Crumpp's introductory comments to this thread:

Yeah, right - the poor ol' British had no proper stability and control standards and no clues, until the heroic Americans helped sort it out for
them...:grin::grin::grin:

Sure, you can look at the design and its characteristics to easily see the behaviors that prohibited spins and flick rolls.

It is not that hard.

As for the Spitfire's longitudinal stability, there is nothing to dispute or argue about at this point. The only discussion that is really open is what can be modeled in the game.

People might not understand some things but the RAE Cm graphs, NACA measurements, RAE oscillation graphs, Operating Notes, and pilot reports are all in agreement.

Just as all the pointy tin foil hat CG position theory from people who do not understand MAC calculations, we are now just arguing because folks don't understand the results of the RAE Cm graphs, NACA measurements, RAE oscillation graphs, Operating Notes, and pilot reports.

I will be happy to take to PM and explain the results for the few who have questions.

Feel free to send me one.

DEFINE what you do not understand.

Posting "It flew great and was easy" is not an argument nor definable. It is opinion.

Actually the reason is even simpler, intentional spins were simply 'discouraged', there simply is no physical reason why the aircraft (any of them) could not be spun.

Well I would tend to agree on the basis that there is 'nothing' particularily remarkeable about the Spitfires stability, so yes I see no need to continue a thread like this one, it seems to be going nowhere....appart from trying to paint an innacurate picture of the Spitfire, what should be modelled in the game is a Spitfire with light elevator controls that gives plenty of pre stall warning simple as that, the Spitfire did nothing out of the ordinary in a high speed stall, you only have to look at other aircrafts pilots notes to see that.

Bold claims, are you sure nobody else but you understands them?

Why all the 'cloak and dagger' secrecy of PM's, this is a forum, why can't people ask you a question and you answer them?

I don't understand what you are trying to prove with this thread, I don't need to PM you to get that accross.

it seems to me that if we wen't down the road of how you would like the Spitfire 'defined' then it wouldnt fly so great and be easy.......which seems at odds with real world oppinion.

:confused:

Just because these people put a ruler to it and measured against a definable standard, it is invalid because folks flew the plane around the pattern???

Pattern?.....are you equating air to air combat during WWII to flying a cirquit pattern?

Let's get back on topic:

This thread defines the characteristic that can submitted for the bugtracker.

Great document Lane!!

It gives us a measurement of the divergence and the slope of the Cm increase.

Not only that, it is unstable. That means your coefficient of moment increases each cycle instead of decreasing.

So if you pull a 6 G turn and did nothing except hold the stick fixed, the next oscillation will exceed 6G and continue to increase with each cycle until the airframe is destroyed.

That is the reason why "flick" maneuvers were not allowed in it.

Let's summarize the behavior that occur at normal and aft CG positions and categorize them to be implemented in the game. Then we can build a list for the bug tracker. These are all at NORMAL CG. If the game models a shifting CG then they increase in severity at aft CG positions.

1. The Spitfire should be twitchy and unstable gun platform. IIRC, in IL2, people used to complain about the "twitchy" behavior or the Corsair and P-51's so I am sure it is within the games engine to model a twitchy airplane.

It should take very careful and small stick movements to get the gun sight on target. That means a Spitfire pilot will require more skill to hit a maneuvering target than he would need in a stable platform such as the Hurricane.

2. Above Va, large or abrupt elevator control can more easily exceed the airframe limitations of 6G for damage. Currently, it is impossible to stall the Spitfire in a turn or a dive. The reality is it requires careful flying so as NOT to induce an accelerated stall or exceed the airframe limitations.

3. In the turn, the violent buffet is a double edged sword. There is no such thing as a free lunch especially in physics. In the NACA measured results, encountering the buffet represents a change in available angle of bank. The airplane goes from 78.5 degrees of bank to 60 degrees of bank in one second.

****5G @ 147.73KIAS:

ROT = 1091*tan(78.5) divided by 147.73 KIAS = 36.2 degrees a second

****2G @ 141.647 KIAS:

ROT = 1091*tan(60) divided by 141.647 = 13.34 degrees a second

As a quick ballpark using IAS to get an idea of the scope of the effect on turn performance, we see the rate of turn drop from 36.2 degrees a second to 13.34 degrees a second. That means our time to complete a 360 degree turn changes from 10 seconds to 27 seconds!!!

As the Operating Notes relate, you do not want to turn any airplane in the buffet. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, all the energy that was being used to achieve an instantaneous performance rate of turn of 36.2 degrees a second from our ballpark went to warn the pilot of an impending stall, taking the aircraft right down well inside its sustainable performance envelope of 13.34 degrees a second.

The longitudinal stability characteristics of the Spitfire requires skilled flying to achieve a maximum performance turn. In a stable airplane, the pilot would have a much easier time keeping the aircraft at the maximum rate of turn velocity and a less violent buffet would have subsequently reduced effects on the turn performance.

4. Below Va, the Longitudinal instability of the Spitfire make it more difficult for the average pilot to prevent an acelerated stall or overcontrol the aircraft by pulling deeper into the buffet zone.

Exactly. That is our goal to recreate the flying qualities of all of these aircraft.

In this thread we have focused primarily on the Longitudinal stability. Most of the Spitfires issues stem from that.

For example, the heavy lateral control forces would not be an issue if the control forces were equal on all axes. The control harmony was poor in the Spitfire and Gimpy raises a good point:

The pilots ability to apply lateral control would be reduced by the longitudinal control characteristics.


*****Not a silly argument on actual turn performance, just a quick ballpark so readers understand the importance and general effect of encountering the buffet on turn performance.

Could please a mod put a stop to the personal attacks and the derailing of this thread?

An unremarkable quality shared with many other types.

inconsistency, first quote you are already at 6G and expect airframe failure beyond that, second quote you say the limit is 6G, the limit was more like 10G

incorrect, the MkII low speed flick manouvers were permitted.

interestingly enough the Hurricane pilots notes describe a very similar longitudinal stability to the Spitfire

Why? the elevator controls were light, requring much less effort on the part of the pilot to correct.

What issues? the Spitfire never built up a reputation for any 'issues', can you at least give me the benefit of the doubt and provide some examples of documented events which gave the Spitfire any sort of bad reputation, it's a fair question.

it states clearly in the pilots notes that the exeptionally heavy ailerons were only apparent at very high speed, certainly not the sort of speeds one is likely doing in a combat turn where the speed is more likely decreasing, in a sustained turn there is little need for constant aileron correction, bad harmonisation is of no consequence here.

Again, only you seem to be able to understand this, just explain it in simple terms, how does elevator affect aileron control?

Quite right, no silly arguments here, just a need to have some very counter intuitive statements explained, Glider is 'spot on' when he said that buffet simply acts as a device to say 'hey bud ease off the back pressure a little'

I don't see any 'personal' attacks....unless asking questions or having a different oppinion is classed as an attack?

I am sure that you're aware that this is already the case in the sim.

Nice post winny. See also related R.A.E. Technical Note No.Aero 1106 - Comments on N.A.C.A. Advance Confidential Report Nos.A.R.C. 6423 and 6422 - "Stalling charteristics of a Supermarine Spitfire VA airplane" and "Measurments of the flying qualities of a Supermarine Spitfire VA airplane"

Spitfire I K-9787 & K-9788 were tested by A. & A.E.E. and a report issued in June 1939 on Fuel consumption tests, handling and diving trials.

Longitudinal stability was measured and records attached to the report: Fig 3. Stability Records

Regarding stability:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/S...87-pg18-ii.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/S...7-pg18-iii.jpg

Control and stability at the stall was tested in accordance with standards stipulated in A.D.M.293. The Spitfire I handling was found satisfactory and the aircraft deemed fit for service use. Of particular note it was concluded that during acrobatics: "Loops, half rolls off loops, and slow rolls have been done. These manoeuvres are easy to make and the aeroplane behaves quite normally in all of them."

Thanks for posting, Lane.

So at normal CG, the A&AEE concludes that the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. I'm sure certain characters will try to wriggle out of this one, but it seems open-and-shut to me. I'm sure we will be deluded with marginally-relevant allusions to British aerodynamics pioneers, and pilot quotes saying that the Spitfire was a dream to fly. Nobody's saying it wasn't a good aircraft.

Seeing people describe this thread as a "character assassination" has been amusing.

So assume for a moment that the Spit was as unstable as some would have us belive..

Than ask yourself.. How did such an unstable plane that was outnumbered win BoB?

At which point your BS meter should be pegged in the red! ;)

You mean like the British Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment?

It's the pilot, not the plane.

Appart from ACE there, can you quote 'anybody' that said the Spit was not unstable?

No I didn't think so, in fact nobody is denying it, the instability is 'not' the apparent problem that Crumpp is trying to emphasise, the Mustang was longitudinaly unstable, heres an example where you needed to take your own advice and pay attention to what people write.

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

the question should really be how did rookie pilots with barely any experience on type (lets face it even the experienced Spitfire pilots didn't have much time on type at the time of BoB) manage to fly it if it was so 'dangerous' to handle?

In fact, yes I can.

Here:

--

Foot in mouth, etc.

Now let's stop this silly derailment of this thread and stay on topic :)

Sorry no cigar, only NZTyphoons quotes actually mentions stability and even then it is more emphasis on the dangerous to fly part, which clearly the Spitfire was not dangerous to fly...at all.

So with a full tank, trimmed for level flight, pulling back on the stick then releasing to neutral would return the aircraft to level flight.

With a half full tank in the same conditions, pulling back on the stick would need a push on the stick to return to normal flight, and a bigger push when the tank is near empty.

That's my simplistic understanding of longitudinal stability or not as the case may be.

All modern military aircraft are designed with inherent instability which requires a computer to control. Instability is necessary for manoeuvrability.

I totally fail to see the point in this thread, other than to ask the devs to model a changing CofG and longitudinal stability according to fuel load. Is that the point?

Here's a simple example from the game: Right now, to hold a turn in the spit you have to hold the stick back a significant amount.

In reality, after initiating the turn I believe it was necessary to relax your pressure on the stick (move it closer to center). Otherwise, the aircraft could tighten its turn, and if you are above corner speed that means it would be easy to inadvertently exceed the G limits and damage the airframe.

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 also think that the very light stick forces and (lack of) control harmonization should be modeled.

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?

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

It depends if one is BLUE or RED. ;)

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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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! ;)

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.

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?

Sad but very Very VERY true

I think you will find there are just as many 'thugs' on the Allied side of things, who get hot under the collar when there's the potential that the Spitfire might not be the aircraft equivalent of Zeus himself.

For your reference, the quote, in context.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/e3a496bc.jpg

Apologies for the quality, it's an iPad screen grab.

Only when the other thugs try to castrate the Spitfire.

Among other things, yes.

Well for example the Hurricane, by all accounts, was a very stable gun platform. I don't think you'll find anyone disputing this. That could maybe be classed as "normal".

Every aircraft has its quirks and problems, of course. But right now the major difference in game between a Hurri and a Spit is that one is faster. That really shouldn't be the case, don't you think? They should feel different.

Of course it does.

I don't consider asking the developers to model accurate handling characteristics to be a castration.

i think you will find it's the total closed mindedness of people like Crumpp who inflame things, every time he gets nailed with an awkward question he vanishes and then you and some others jump in and start some kind of riot with all the 'please stay on topic bla blah', why is it when I've asked Crumpp all these questions I end up in a debate with you?

The Hurricane is described as longitudinally unstable in the pilot's notes.

The Hurri was a stable gun platform largely because of the close grouping of the guns, as against the wide spread along the wing of the Spit. The instability in the Spit when firing was in the yaw axis owing to the uneven firing of the guns.

The Hurri and the Spit in game feel completely different. The Spit is lively, light on the controls, the Hurri is sluggish in comparison and stalls far too easily for me. They're completely different Doggles mate. ;)

If you don't want other people jumping in, then take it to PM. This is a public forum, not a dueling arena.

I furthermore don't think that wanting to stay on topic is "starting a riot". This thread is cluttered enough as is, and I hope the moderators come and remove some of the clutter.

Accurate by whose standards? Ok let's see how it goes when Crumpp starts the apparent topic on the 109.

Well, according to the docs that Lane posted, the A&AEE's standards.

I'll be just as active in that thread as I am in this one. See you there.

Ah pseodo-righteousness, yes it's a public forum, I asked Crumpp some questions on his claims, I see no need to go to PM for that.

I have asked nothing of Crumpp that is off topic, I merely want some answers to questions on his topic, so please kindly reffrain from speaking to me and I won't bother you, yes I have a feeling the Mods will be getting plenty of requests for clean ups and complaints about users, it seems to be the MO with Crumpps thugs.

Goodluck!

I highly recomend you don't hold your breath waiting on that one! ;)

Would you mind pointing out where those standards show clearly how dangerous and what a 'death trap' the Spitfire allegedly is?

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever

Have you forgotten all the 100 octane threads?

It will be from the other side of the fence tho.;)

But it has been promised, this one has been done to death, Spitfire debates are getting boring, I wan't to get into the guts of the 109 anyway...it's everyones favourite.;)

No I haven't. Those threads were monumentally stupid from all perspectives.

There should be 87- and 100-octane aircraft in game. We have those now, so I feel the issue is moot and not worth discussing unless it's to correct the performance. But words cannot describe how much I just don't care if it was 100% or 0% of the RAF that was on 100 octane.

I never said it was dangerous, or a death trap, and neither do the A&AEE's conclusions.

Sowhat exactly is the point of this thread? Crumpp certainly seems to be saying that and you are avidly defending him.

As far as I'm concerned, the point of this thread is to provide a measurable definition of the spitfire's handling characteristics, and hopefully to assemble something that the developers can put in game.

Something more concrete than a pilot saying "the spitfire was easy to fly" because you can't measure that, which means you can't code it.

People think I'm here to neuter the spitfire because I have a Bf 109 in my signature. If they have the data and want to run the 109 through the same process I will accept any conclusion that the data supports.

He should've stopped there, for all this thread's been worth.

I really don't think we will get that far, ACE is probably right and Crumpp will magically get bored of the idea of educating us all as soon as he is satisfied the Spit is well and truly jaffa, I see no reason he couldn't be running concurrent threads covering both aircraft....call me cynical but I have been watching Crumpp at work for a while.

I am sorry to remind it to some but the Hurri won BoB statically.

[OT_Mode=ON]
The fact that the airframe reached his limitation and she was pull out of air to air action after BoB does not allow you to negate this fact in favor of the Spit.

Also one thing that made the Hurri more stable is her thicker and more robust wings. The flexibility of the Spit was not the most suitable characteristic to put guns. I guess that the new wing design that came latter was also made to improve this.
[OT_Mode=OFF]

Is longitudinal instability suitable for a fighter ?
There is different philosophy here. It would be too long to be discussed here but basically if you want a fighter to be fast and fly longer you'll make it stable. Pilot input are draggy (ailerons, elevators, rudder and most notable oscillation around the desired velocity vector). Power was low at the time. Speed being of utmost importance during WWII, basically, it would have been a bad choice to go for such a design philosophy.

So, if some plane had some problem with instability it is more probable that these were unpredictable results sourcing from modification of the airframe, added equipment or bad predictions. For example the rear tank in latter Spits was seldom used and the Mustang was not allowed to fight with the rear tank not emptied. We all know that.

The fact that the MkV was stretched forward of the CG might have been a way to reduce this problem.

Anyway if you re-read the Spit MkII manual that was posted earlier (not the one on SptPerfdotCOM), it's clearly stated that there was a prob here.

So I don't know what are all this debate for. Crumpp work (because it is obvious that this has taken time to compile for us) shld inspire at least some respect and being debated with arguments and not feelings.

May I remind here that the Spitfire legacy is not privately owned by some individuals but belong to every one?

The RAF won the BoB, the Hurricane just shot down more enemy aircraft, this is statistically logical considering there were more of them and they concentrated on bombers, I don't think the outcome would have been quite the same if britain had only hurricanes...even if it meant more Hurricanes, the Spit was needed to tackle the 109.

it is if the design philosophy is geared toward manouverability.

Heres the thing, despite what we know of inherent problems with stability there never was any appreciable recorded issue with most of the aircraft at the time, and many of them were longitudinally unstable.

The fact the issue only got a 'stop-gap' remedy with the MkV shows that there probably was no problem of any pressing urgency.

Yes it's clear that the Spitfire has become a 'labour of love' for Crumpp.

Thanks for the context winny! Here is some more "context":

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ba-1640-1.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ba-1640-33.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/AAEE-me109-pg1.jpg

Bingo!

Just as I was saying.. Fighters, than and now, intentionally design an alittle instability to make them more maneuverable!

So I can understand how some modern civ pilots..

Who are already blinded by their agenda

Could fool themselves into thinking a fighter that does not have the same stability attributes of their putt-putt cessna is a failure.

For anyone who would like to read the full RAE evaluation of the 109 it's here in PDF.

It's 14 Mb and should open in your browser, you can then save it if you wish.

Just for the record - they are very very different indeed. Hurricane is much lazier in the climb and it flies ('feels') much heavier than the Spitfire, especially when the speed builds up. elevator feels different, the rudder is different and the rollrate is just horrendous. It does not retain it's energy nearly as good, if simply feels completely unique to the Spitfire and not only because of the obvious lack of speed. I can get into more details if you wish...

Other than that, I agree with what you're saying, there are many problems with the FM, but I wouldn't call them generic where plane A turns better and plane B climbs better, but I understand what you're saying.