So then Mr Crumpp exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.07.18301+Hot Fix ?

Yeah, right, it's HUGE - all 68 pages and 16 mb! :rolleyes:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1993083829.pdf

Now Mr Crumpp

*Exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.07.18301+Hot Fix ?

*How exactly can Crumpp's bugtracker replicate the longitudinal stability characteristics Crumpp thinks the CLOD Spitfire I & II should have, when there is no option for rough air conditions?

And you are limited to 14.31 zipped.

It will be in the bug tracker. Why don't you do some testing?

Because you are the one pushing this, how about you explain in this thread exactly what needs to be fixed, and how you propose to fix the perceived problem?

How exactly will Crumpp's bugtracker replicate the longitudinal stability characteristics Crumpp thinks the CLOD Spitfire I & II should have, when there is no option for rough air conditions - one of the main warnings posted in the Pilot's Notes described flying in bumpy conditions.

How will Crumpp's proposed changes affect other flight characteristics of the CLOD Spitfire I & II?

You are the one who started this thread regarding real world Spitfire stability. In your opening post you tell us all that this is to be a discussion on Spitfire stabilty:

"This thread is going to cover the definable and measure stability and control characteristics of the Spitfire. It is not going to cover opinion outside of stability and control engineers.

What this thread is not going to do:

1. Get into a debate about "easy to fly". It is not definable and has no bearing on the measured facts.

2. It is not going to discuss the sustained level turning ability of the aircraft. That is also measurable and definable. For Example, anyone who is capable of doing the math will see that the Spitfire outturns the Bf-109 is steady state constant altitude turns at low velocity."

You then decide its an item for the bugtracker which deals with Sim behaviour. bugtrqacker is for bugs. The onus is on YOU as the thread starter and intended Bug tracker author to prove there is an issue in game.... so far you have not.

When you do make sure its in a definable,measurable and to an accepted standard.

IvanK, all of this is measured, defined, and easy to test in the game.

What question do you have on how to test it?

None just eagerly awaiting the results of your tests.

One thing that isn't represented in game is the possibility to rip the wings of the Spitfire with a sudden stick movement of about 50% travel at cruise speed, exceeding 10 to 12g this way.

If that would be in game, 80% of bounced Spitfires would loose their wings as the instinctive reaction is to yank at the stick.

According to the tests and pilots handbook it should be that way.

If the wings aren't ripped off at least a immediate hi speed stall with a flick into a spin should occur.

That also isn't so in game, the Spitfire lateral controls are by far not sensible enough.

The ailerons then are too sensible.

Do we know what 'g' a spit would break up at?

Interested as not seen this written anywhere. Will look later when home from work unless someone else is bored?

Other than the Italian fighters (whose design load spec was amongst the highest of all nations in WWII), 12G Symmetrical would most likely result in some sort of structural damage/failure in pretty much any WWII fighter (and just about any current fighter as well). Rolling G damage would occur at very much lower values.

Structural G modelling is in IMO poorly modelled in CLOD and was the subject of debate before release.

This is thread drift though :)

Edit: Basic Spitfire Design load was 10G. Source : Spitfire at War vol I Ch 19 "Stronger, Safer Swifter" by Eric Newton MBE,Ceng,FRAes

Yeah right, now we are into the theatre of the absurd with claims that at least 80% of Spitfires would lose their wings because tests and the Spitfire Pilot's Notes say so. :rolleyes:

I guess that means that the NACA Spitfire V lost its wings or, at the very least, flicked into a high speed stall then spun. I don't see anything in the NACA tests showing this, nor do I see 80% of Spitfire pilots claiming that they lost control, went into a high speed stall and flicked into a spin - unless they were the ones who lost their wings.

10g. Blimey thats past blackout isnt it? Will be ok i rarely push it that hard.

Depends on the onset rate and exposure time.

You won't necessarily pass out in RoR (rapid onset rate).

GoR (gradual onset rate), you have been asleep for a while!!

He said "ingame", and he's right knowing the skill of many players out there (myself too): it's not a matter of plane, it's a matter of how hard they pull the stick. :rolleyes:

There was a problem in IL2 1946 v4.10 about the 190s' negative G-force: with the stick's linear setting at 100 you had not to push the stick at high speed at all since the wings would come off (many times it's happended to me and my teammates, and my main KIA reason): instead you could pull as you want.

If I understand correctly Robtek asks to have the same effect linked to the pull up manouvre in a Spitfire (but far weaker compared the one above, that was horrible and I noted that in HSFX6's Hellcats!): in this I fully agree with him.

The pilots notes warn explicit that ripping of the wings is possible if not carefully flown.

The short stick travel and low force needed to get high g-loads are undisputed, aren't they?

The manual even say that the pilot has to brace himself not to get pilot induced over-g in bumby conditions.

If one pulls the joystick half the way back that would be equal to about 6 inches in RL -> as there is 3/4 inch for a 3 g load, which will even climb when not released immediately, 6 inches would either snap the wing, or result in a hi-speed stall with following spin, and blackout.

Other planes, i.e. 109, where the stick force and travel (lateral) are larger by far, should't react this way, as it is now.

Generally, a longer stick travel gives the pilot much more fine control, here in the pitch axis, and that should be modeled.

All of this will be ok. Most of the fandom in this thread do not understand the big picture.

Here we go again, Crumpp knows all while everyone else, apart from those who agree with him, know nothing.

If this was moddeled by robtek explaination could we not just get round it by making the joystick half as sensitive, if you know what i mean.
It would give unfair advantage over109 astheres is limited by how far the stick can move instead of pilot overpulling it
I am a fan of the spit,, i dont know an englishman who isnt.

Some info on bob/inertia weights fitted to Spitfires.

It was first trialled in the prototype MkIII, then a MkII

From everything I've read the reason it was fitted was that lots of pilot's were writing off airframes by overloading them. Bent wings were a bit of a reccuring theme. Caused in the majority of cases by pulling out of a high speed dive or too tight a turn.

In June 41 it was decided that all Mk V's should have inertia weights fitted.
3.5lb for a VA and 6.5lb for a VB

After RAE trials it was decided that all the following marks must have the 6.5lb weight fitted. Mks F VI, PR IV, VI and VII, Seafires I and II.

No weights needed for Mks I and II and V's, provided that with the browning only wing the rear oxygen cylinder was removed, and with the cannon wing the oxygen cylinder, signal discharger and IFF radio were removed.

In '42 a VB Merlin 45 (BM589) did handling and stability trials with special reference to pull out from dives and tight turns. Tested with and without 6.5 lb inertial weight. (This after reports from pilot's who did not like the inertia weight). The outcome was that it was suggested that the inertia weight only be fitted into aircraft (V's) with the Rotol prop.

The inertia weight was quite unpopular: Hornchurch reported "All pilot's are beginning to complain" Biggin Hill " Condemned for making Spitfire difficult to land and reducing manoeuvrability" Kenley "Did not notice effect of the weight but opinion of the Spitfire was in general, low" Tangmere "Do not care for the the device"

In this case one wouldn't have the full deflection needed for a three pointer or in a really slow turn, i think.

And there is no doubt that the pilots notes did what they were supposed to do, warn the pilots of potential issues and advise them how to avoid it. I did post a breaskdown of all the structural failures of Spits during the war

23,000+ spits built 121 failures, 22 due to a problem with fabric control surfaces, a number of others due to pilot error re use of oxygen, some due to engine fires.
How many flights do you think those 23,000 spits did during the war, no idea but easily in the millions. How many of those accidents were in training units again no idea but safe to assume a good proportion of the pilot error ones.

And you want to build something into the game to take the wings off in a tight pull up.

If you do this can we assume that you will agree to similar factors into the 109F and 109G both of which had serious issues with wing failure

what i meant robtek was haveing different settings for the stick, say not very sensitive at near-center stick then more sensitive at the full back position, thus nulling out the intened sensitivity in the game whilst giving full range. The 109 wouldnt allow this as its modelled in game how the plane will move as it wasnt possible to pull the stick full back at speed as no pilot would have the strength to do so. basically an easy exploit (crap at explaining i know) :-P


surely putting enough g on any plane and the wings will fold, just need to know how much for each plane but i would have thought this be a bit down the line to do this sort of dm considering its current problems :mad:

Sure you can pull the wings off but I don't think the data so far indicates it was a problem: Figure 12 b in the NACA Spitfire test gives the g-load gradient at 4.7 lb/g. Granted the curve does not go to really high g but assuming the gradient holds for higher loads as well and assuming a failure g-load of of 10-12 g that equates to a pull force of 47-56 lb needed to pull of the wings. So even if the actual deflection of the elevator was small you still needed quite a bit of hauling on the stick to pop the wings.

And remember that control without excessive deflection but by force input is practiced today: At the extreme was the F-16 which at some stage in development IIRC had a FIXED stick with no deflection at all. However, if memory serves me they had to introduce some some small deflection (1/16"?)in order to avoid PIO but essentially the control is by force input.

So frankly I do not see a problem if I need to pull all of 50-60 lb before the wings comes off: The porpoising that would result from flying in turbulence without wedging your arm would be annoying to be sure but you would hardly pull the wings off if you happen to sneeeze or fly through some rough air :)

As i've posted quite a few times, i want the documented quirks of all planes reproduced as close as possible.

And yes, i want the pilots in CoD also to heed the warnings of the pilots notes and fly accordingly.

In most planes it was nearly impossible for the pilot to reach the structural limit without trim, not so in the Spitfire, there it was comparatively easy to do that.

+1

And let's not forget: "So then Mr Crumpp exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.07.18301+Hot Fix ?"

However, knowing Crumpp's modus operandi I'm sure he's preparing something lenghty with lot's of red underlined quotes to pounce on the wing fold issue in order to extricate himself from the embarrasing stability issue....

Actually it wasn't that easy to reach the limit and lose the wing, if it was, more would have crashed. There was an issue later in the war with the wings bending and some reinforcement was introduced but that was when the Spit was being used as a dive bomber with a 1,000 lb payload. I don't think we can blame the pre war designers for not thinking of that scenario. details are in the 2TAF series of books by C Shore

Its also noticable that when the limit was reached the wings tended to bend and let the pilot get home, not break and bury the pilot in a hole in the ground. The Spit was designed with more flexability than most aircraft of the time. That should also be covered

I hope you agree that the foibles should include what the Germans thought of the Spitfire. Easier to fly, very easy to take off and land as well as being faultless in the turn.

So, there's also room for replicating the Spitfire's desirable stall warning and stall characteristics

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-003a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-004a.jpg

It was well known that the Fw 190 was apt to flip upside down and crash at lower altitudes while attempting to recover from a dive, so IL2 might as well replicate that characteristic as well.

Oh, you guys :rolleyes:

I love it how for some people this is a red vs blue argument, so they make jabs at the 190 as if to "stick it" to the "blue guys".

Go back through the thread; comes up all the time.

:rolleyes:
Nope, I have nothing to do with red or blue - just pointing out that if Robtek wants to be consistent about aircraft control characteristics in IL2 replicating real life then there are lots of WW2 aircraft which had a problem with their handling.

If it was "comparatively easy to do", how is it that almost no pilots ever did it, even given the rushed training available in WWII?

The pilots did read the pilots notes for their machines :D :D :D

No, actually the overwhelming majority of those pilots had a sound survival instinct, lots of feedback from their bodys and their rides,
and, last but not least, some didn't dare to fly their aircraft so close to the edge that they were outperformed by technically lesser able planes with better pilots.

This is techno-speak to say that there are very few examples of Spitfires actually breaking up in accord with the Pilot's Notes and Robtek's beliefs about what a dangerous aircraft it was: in real life the Spitfire gave plenty of warning of an impending stall, as noted by NACA, and few actually encountered the theoretical extreme conditions noted by the PNs.

A, B, C, D, E ... it makes 5 different wing design. All with strengthening or correcting some aero issues. I don't see how you can write that Glider. And note that at the end the late E wing shape was far from being Elliptical.

Such as saying that out of 22000 built only 121 crashed when your source explain clearly that the study was only about some Spits that had crashed on Britain soil and which causes were investigated.

Yeah, there are lots. But this thread is about the Spitfire. You just "randomly chose" the 190, I'm sure.

Not because it was a German aircraft :rolleyes: gimme a break.

Keep the thread on topic and stop with the "red vs blue" baloney.

Ditto.... getting the picture gents?????

Thread open again.. gents please stay civil. Next time several of you will incur 5 point general infractions or worse if you cant keep it from getting personal.

As far as I can tell there are no rules against citing German aircraft as an example of potentially deadly flight characteristics - FYI four books I have bought in the last few months are on the Do 335, the Ar 234 the Bf 110/Me 210 and 410 series and the JG26 war diaries pt 1, so attempting to claim anti-German bias on my part is a waste of time.

Back to the Spitfire - with all the claims being made that early marks of the Spitfire had bad longitudinal stability how did this show itself in real life? Apart from a set of pilot's notes and a NACA report, stating that it did not meet certain criteria, how much evidence exists of pilots complaining that they were nearly killed by a sudden, dangerous stall leading to a spin while pulling up in a tight turn? Are there any reports from Luftwaffe pilots stating that a Spitfire they had bounced lost its wings while trying to escape? Is there anything proving that Spitfires were destroyed between 1939 and 1941 because of bad longitudinal stability?

Oh wow a website :rolleyes: How 'bout some tangible, documented evidence to back up these stories?

Alex Henshaw's observations:

(Note Comment on Spitfire as gun platform)
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-003a.jpg

something not mentioned so far, possible maladjustment of the tailplane fairing shroud, which could affect the handling: of further note the Spitfire could safely be dived past the Vne set by Supermarine and noted in the Pilot's Notes.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

There are stories of Me109s that made large craters after they failed to pull out of dives, because the aircraft was too stable...:

.

Again Red vs Blue????

Why is it red v blue?....AFAIK it's true, I'm not so sure what the apparent significance of an annecdote about Spitfire wings in piles is, presumably the aircraft returned home to have their wings replaced if it's true.

Having a note saying wingss got damaged is no good for the game. Need to know the g limit numbers for the aircraft to model structural damage from manouvers, regardless of what plane it is. That should have its own thread to find them for each plane in the game?

That data Macro is known. The issue is the FM doesnt really model structural G limits. DT have done this in IL2 4.10 and up.

It's amusing the fact that people need to bring on another plane (or better "those" other planes) to defend a plane issue clearly written in the pilot's notes book.

But it's not a Red vs Blue, of course...

At time we'll talk about those planes too...

Of course the RTBed aircrafts would have the wings replaced, but why did they need to replace them? Couldn't them still fight in that condition? Or maybe it was an issue this sim needs to reproduce?

Since I'm not sure that a plane with overstressed wings can be effective in the way many virtual pilots are used to fly it. Instead I'm sure that a plane with a damaged wings' structure will not fly as it did before and the pilot needs to take it back ASAP... above all if it's a high performance fighter!

If we make a mistake, pulling up too much so that the wings' structure is damaged (even if not critically) and we are enought lucky and the wings are still there does not mean that we can fight as nothing is happened.

It's an issue of every plane, and it should be simulated correctly: then there are planes more prone to this problem (the ones with sensitive elevator maybe?).

From the pilot's notes:
I don't recall to do it in any simulator... If I trim it's only to keep the nose on the target, not because of a probable structure damage. Probably only in IL2 1946 after the DT's work.. but only in planes carrying a heavy load.

Then we can talk about the effect of a slightly damaged wings' structure on the plane, but it's another matter: it's still sure that it's not a good thing for a fighter (until the new myth "Spitfires could fly at full performance even with damaged wings!")

Again, as far as I can tell there are no rules in this forum against citing German aircraft as an example of potentially deadly flight characteristics. ;)

What this doesn't say is that pilots who have trust and confidence in the handling and capabilities of their aircraft will carry that confidence into battle, which, in itself of tactical value. Secondly, the claim that aerobatic manoeuvres and handiness as a dogfighter are somehow tactically archaic flies in the face of modern fighters such as the Su-27 or F-16 or F-22 which were deliberately designed to be good at aerobatics and be handy in a dogfight, if need be.

You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.

Having confidence in the plane is a lot different from confidence in yourself... confidence in the machine is the one who kills you... it's one of the reason people get killed in motor accidents.

That statement it's clearly referred to the WW2, when it's WAS archaic.

I would really like to see some evidence of this being true and that it isn't just a piece of pop-psychology.

Who said it and why? Ahhh, found it and, wouldn't you know it, it is being used in the context of the Spitfire VC v A6M2 over Darwin, when RAAF pilots discovered trying to out manœvre an aircraft which was even more manœvreable and handy in a dogfight was tactically futile. What it also states is:

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

Is it an OP's fabrication?

Do you really think that this kind of issue has not to be simulated? On all the planes, of course.

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

You guys remember the topic of this thread, don't you?
It's about ONE specific plane and that one only.
Stop digressing.

They are simply warnings, not an indication of a particular dangerous characteristic....you know like 'always wear safety glasses'

So 38% of 121 investigations is proof?, it just means that from an already tiny amount less than half were attributable to airframe failure.

What the OP is fabricating is a larger problem, nobody claims 'no' Spitfires ever 'broke up', if you really wanted to you could 'break' any aircraft through overstress and the Spitfire was not notorious for it, just because it had sensitive elevators that 'could' do it it doesn't mean that it was a regular occurrence, the OP almost seems to be insisting that these problems should become apparent during normal operating ranges of speed and manouvers......I wonder why:rolleyes:

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

if they had anything to do with the BoB scenario in Cliffs of Dover.

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

Ivan can you point me to that info i couldnt find it

Can I said the same thing about your first statement?

It's easy to realize that the probability to make mistakes is bigger doing "easy" things, while people are more careful doing things who can have unforgivable reactions.

It's called overconfidency. The easier is the task, the bigger is the probabilty of overconfidence.

http://www.readperiodicals.com/201201/2592264861.html

About my statement I realize that it's wrong, and I wrote something different from what I initially wanted... and still I'm not finding a way to put it down firstly in my first language.

Anyway It's OT.

Don't change argument: it's not a statement related to the plane model... it's a general one about WW2 air warfare.

Anyway I love the way you keep posting only the parts that follow your agenda even if there are noone contesting it: it's a Zero's known issue the one about its high speed manouvrability...

Ah.., sorry I forgot: it's the "Look how better is my plane" agenda.

This is becoming trolling...

Do we have to make a poll do decide which plane is the first one to be analysed? Above all by a person who actually does it for free and it's not one of our employers?

I've not problem on which one is the first plane... we have to start from something.

Why useless? Does realistic mean useless?

You say "then"... if a new feature is been added to the FM engine I expect it to be modelled in every plane... implementing a new v2.0 FM for a model leaving the other plane with the v1.0 is not a professional way to act... of wait.. about IL2 I remember new Lods against old ones... I don't want something like that.

It's not about you... it's about a guy who I put into my ignore list since I was being anti-British claiming that the Spitfire myth is partially born because it's a simbol of the British's win. As P51 for the americans, T34 for the russian ect. does that make me an anti-american and anti-russian?

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

Completely, absolutely, utterly false and extremely dangerous attitude.

Engineering tolerances are naturally tight due to the physics of flight. The POH instructions are part of the airworthiness of the design.

In the famous 100 Octane thread, I posted the convention that makes compliance a legal issue. The Operating Instructions carry the weight of law from the aviation authority of the convention signer. Only by explicit instruction is deviation authorized. An example of that explicit instruction is found in the RAF General Pilot's Operating Notes.

Statistically, deviation from those instruction is a factor in the vast majority of aviation accidents whether the deviation, such as the allowance for combat in the RAF General Pilot's Notes, is authorized or not.


All of this is off topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss POH compliance issues.

The subject of this thread is directly related to the Spitfire's flight qualities, so pointing out that at high speed it could outmanœvre one of the most manœverable fighters of its generation is perfectly reasonable in the context of the discussion, so take your own advice and do this in a mature way.

Once again there are no forum rules stopping anyone from posting comments on the flight qualities of German, Japanese or Italian aircraft.

only if you decide to ignore the warning and 'not' wear the safety glasses.

Sorry fot the OT Crumpp, but I think that there's nothing more to talk about in this threat.

Are you planning to open a new one for the 109? I'm really interested about it!

Employers?

Who said anything about a poll?....there you go making bizarre statements again, I'm just saying it's no coincidence that the issue started with the Spitfire and I gave the reasons why.

easy to say

Lets see, it has to be so unstable that only very skilled pilots can fly it, it must break up if you do a hard manouver, it must have very dangerous stall/spin characteristics, it must have bad turning characteristics against a 109.....all of this has had evidence to show it's not true but because of one guy and his NACA report on a different variant everybody thinks it was written by god?

Whaa?

I still find the statement offensive...please remove it, at least I'm being 'grown up' about it and giving the opportunity....not a courtesy extended to myself very often.

Constant accusations of having a red v blue agenda are apparently trolling.....unless it's an accusation coming from the blue side apparently.

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

@Bongo: I'll reply by PM ;-)

I hope it to be about the 109, so that everybody is going be satisfied.

That would be the natural choice, so one has to wonder why another British a/c.;)

Reply to what?......still nothing received.

don't hold your breath hoping, Crumpp will never make a 109 thread, by the time the Hurri one is done he will say it's all not worth the effort because of red fanboys etc etc....

p.s. still waiting for you to remove the comment.

Why not a thread on the deadly stability and control issues of the Me109?

.

It is not a limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course
Please read the posting again. These were all the accidents from the beginning of 1941 until the end of the war.

There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability #
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error #
3 pilot blacked out #
17 engine failure/fire #

Those marked # cannot be blamed on the airframe
Which leaves 66 where the airframe was a factor out of 23,000+ built during the war and millions of flights
Of those 66 a number would have been when the aircraft were in training units number unknown. I am confident that you would be hard pushed to find a lower accident rate of any front line fighter of any Air Force

The number of 121 matches the losses in Morgan and Shacklady recognised book on the subject so we have two different sources. Also note that the author worked in the accident branch which is independent form the RAF

If you wish to state that I have incorrect figures you had better support that comment.



I certainly agree that it should be a mature debate, with evidence to support any statement. So I await with some interest your explanation of how you determined that this was a small sample.

People keep mentioning the problems the SPitfire had with the wings bending and having to be replaced as proof of the weakness of the Spitfires wings. As I have said before this did happen but it happened in the last 12 months of the war when the Spit was being used as a dive bomber with 1,000lb payload. Details are in the C SHores books on the 2TAF.
This was fixed with some changes in tactics and the clipping of the wings.

I attach a paper that supports this view. If anyone believes that this was a common situation earlier in the war I invite them to provide similar evidence.

Please note that this happens with a full bomb load (1,000 lb) and the extra rear internal fuel tank. Obviously neither of these were around until late 1944

The interview start with:
"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces."

And finishes with:
"a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions"

Maybe I'm reading wrong, you know, but it does not state they were all the Spitfire's accidents during all the war... they are the ones reported to the Air Accident Investigation Branch.

Does this imply these were all the accidents regarding this kind of plane?
Could be that sometimes an investigation was not necessary?
What about accidents over the Channel and France, where they couldn't analyse the wrecks?

If you read the whole piece the next few lines gives the details:-

Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire

You are reading that bit right but you also miss the bit where it says:-

Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady).

Morgan and Shacklady is a very detailed book that details the history of the Spitfire including an entry for every SPitfire built. The number that the writer gives and the number in the Morgan and Shacklady book give for this type of incident match.

So we have two sources with the same number. Plus the Air Investigation branch are there for a reason. If you are in command of a unit of any type of aircraft and your planes start coming apart you will want to know why, so it isn't unreasonable to to expect losses of this type to be reported.

If you have better sources of information then put them forward, but until that moment I suggest this figure is as good as you are going to get.

I did have a breakdown as to when these incidents happened but cannot find it right now so cannot prove this next statement but the number that happened in training units was around 60-65% but I do put a caviet on that number but it wouldn't be unexpected. I can only say yes to the best of my knowledge for the reasons stated. As for the second part I cannot say but its unlikely unless someone has repeated a mistake and they know the reason and the numbers do match

Those 130 accidents also don't include those losses, where after a few insignificant machine gun hits, or even only tracers around the cockpit, the pilot overreacted and went in with his ride because of over-g or a spin, which shurely has happened a few times.

It shurely then was accounted under losses because of enemy action.

There were quite a lot Spitfires lost during the BoB and not all had been shot to pieces.

And glider, nobody has said anything about the Spitfire being weak!!!

Only that the Spitfire controls made it relatively easy to reach the structural limits.

Of course Glider, but I wanted you to focus on the bolded part. :-)

That "reported to us" is what gives me doubt about the numbers of total accidents.

It should be really interesting to read those reports: we ignore the investigation's method of the AABI and of course if, as you say, the known accidents were investigated again.

The essential problem and the neglected for most of this thread is how do you simulate it?

I think all sides would agree that the Spitfire had sensitive elevator controls. The degree of problem to the pilot is the issue. Yet with a simulator you have other issues that help or hinder the issue.

1.The problem is how do you simulate that in a game where control curves can be altered?

2.How do you simulate it in a game where you don't have the same control type as the real aircraft, with the same type and length of stick.

3.How do you simulate the different trim types. Some had stab trim which suits a return to center type arrangement such as the joysticks we all use. The majority however had trim tabs that change the stick position. how do you accountant for that in the sim? The shifting of the control curve as mentioned above.

4. How do you simulate the tactit feedback that a pilot gets in relation to G and buffet.

5. Who decides how strong the pilot is. This will become the issue when taking about aircraft with "heavy" controls. Heavy to whom.

This thread of 60 odd pages is like a merry go round.

To discuss the issue without addressing how you would simulate and the issues surrounding doing that, is a waste of %%(#ing time and energy.

You are arguing about degrees yet essentially want the same thing, accuracy. "forest for the trees" comes to mind. This is such a small issue in a sim that has much bigger problems, like aircraft not performing to spec.

How many other aircraft types spun in because of pilots over-reacting and getting into trouble? We not yet seen any documented evidence that the Spitfire was more prone to this than other aircraft types, nor has there been any evidence posted of (say) Luftwaffe pilots/aircrew witnessing Spitfires losing their wings during combat. Without such evidence speculation about how many Spitfires might have crashed is just that - unsubstantiated speculation.

Which is why we have undocumented stories, found on a single website, about stacks of buckled Spitfire wings. Read Henshaw's comments about the Spitfire's limits. Although Crumpp assumes that engineers were the most reliable people to assess the theoretical flight qualities of aircraft, pilots in the frontline and involved in the actual development of the aircraft have a far better idea of the real capabilities of the machine.

+1

For #1, dont make the controls adjustable, the pilot has to adapt to the plane, not the other way around.(only in game adjustments for axes, no native software)

#2, calculate the difference from the different steering columns to a average joystick and use this values for all.

#3, can't be simulated at the moment, same for all, no advantage for anyone.

#4, buffet can be simulated with head shake and g with increasing tunnel vision.

#5, must be 'Joe Average' for all pilots, in a few years maybe a body scan and a computerized fitness test in the setup. :D :D :D (With the body scan some pilots i know couldn't fly 109's anymore :D :D :D)

Just a few ideas, because it is easy to come up with problems, less so with solutions.

So in summary..

Assuming this is even true..

This is NOT a bug!

It is a limitation of a simulation running on a PC and it associated hardware

Granted, with enough money this could be simulated, and similar things are in million dollar military and commercial simulators

But most of the CoD users can NOT even afford a decent video card, so god knows they are not going to shell out the money for the hardware to simulate this

Long story short, calling this a bug is just not accurate

If it's just a limitation of PC hardware, why have you and your cronies been fighting this issue tooth and nail for 70 pages?
If the developers will never implement it, why have you and your cronies been fighting this issue tooth and nail for 70 pages?
If there are more important things to fix, why have you and your cronies been fighting this issue tooth and nail for 70 pages?

The vicious lashing out against this issue and people who support realism in this regard has been eye-opening to say the least.

It will be the developers, not the one posting the bug-tracker, who have to make all of these calculations - assuming that there is a uniformity of equipment, and even player styles throughout the IL2 community - while trying to deal with all of the other bugs flowing into the bug-tracker report. I can just see them lining up pleading to tackle this so-called issue...:cool:

See my previous post, then. If they're not going to fix it, why have you and your cronies been fighting so hard against it?

I was staying out of this thread but joysticks/control hardware is something i'm very interested in, See http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29958
As much as anyone I want 'as realistic as possible' control behaviour, however I see some problems:-

Bit of a problem here as not all sticks have the same response.
Expensive sticks can have the ability to change curves outside the game(even on the fly). Therefore 'Joe Bloggs' with a 'cheap' stick is at a potential disadvantage. Personally the reduced range of control of sensitivity in CoD compared to IL2 is already quite good at preventing sticks being used in a totally non historic way.
Spiking pots would be a bigger problem

Umm... so someone who spent ~£1700 for a simcontrol spitfire column won't be able to 'tighten' his response to get the new realistic behaviour- or will l'ong stick' users be accused of cheatibg?

#3 opens up a whole can of worms, so I agree, leave it as is

good sound cues here also.

#5 A full medical:-P- nah- there'd be hardly anyone left

Very much so, but is also often easier to come up with solutions that are worse than the problem;)

Also, why in this entire thread has no real mention been made of the other two axes?

Why are you, and your cronies, trying so hard in having it implemented?

It certainly not a bug.

Ah, I see where you are confused..

Allow me..

You are confusing me saying this is not a bug with me saying this did not happen in the real world

Two very different things!

All I am pointing out is there are limits to what a $1,000 PC can do!

For example.. As your pulling 4g's in the simulation, your not physically feeling the effects of 4g's while sitting in front of your computer screen

You not feeling the effects of 4g's is NOT a bug but a limitation of what the PC can do (simulate)

Hope this helps! S!

No more eye opening than when the 109 pilots viciously lash out at the mention of the elevator being stuck in cement comes up!

It is a simple fact that if it was relatively easy to reach the structural limit then the limit would have been reached and a lot more would have broken up.

I am sorry but all the evidence is that they didn't. Despite being flown in combat often by inexperienced pilots in the most testing situations, they didn't break up.

When the limit was reached at the end of the war the wings tended to bend not break.

You build into the game a factor that makes it easy for the Spitfire to break up it will be a huge error.

40ish falures in combat, in thousands of aircraft, over the entire war in millions of flights isn't the sign of an aircraft that is easy to break structurally

The comment about some lightly damaged aircraft crashing because an inexperienced pilot over reacted is misleading because it obviously must have happened, but the same logic applies to any fighter in any airforce. Even here, its worth remembering that the Spitfire was easier to fly than the Me109 so logic would say that it was less likely to happen to a Spitfire.

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

Agreed 100%

The question is why did you want to focus on the bolded parts. Its always, always the entire picture that counts.

I hope at least that we have dealt with the comments about the Spit wings that bent and needed repair.

Agreed, but the elevator was not only light but also sensible. (short travel-large reaction)

There is a point where we all have to realise this it not real..

There are so many things we simmers don't have access to that real pilots had access to

Such that it would be silly to expect us to deal with every aspects of 'reality' in a 'simulation'

On the flip side, we never have to worry about a .50 cal hitting us in the neck while flying

So many things are done in software to make up for this fact.. But I would not refer to them as a bug (make up for the fact it aint real)

Take buffets for example..

In reality in some cases you would probally 'feel' it..

A buzz in your pants or the stick before you 'see' it in real life..

But since the sim can not simulate this (minus those with FFBJS)

The software inserts a screen shake and/or sound to cue the sim pilot into the fact that he is near a stall

At the same time there are so many things (like this topic) that can not be done in software.. But I woudl not refer to them as bugs either (limitations)

In short

No flight simulation ever WAS, IS, or WILL BE REAL!

To simulate the buffet realistically, the aircraft turn performance should be reduced if one tries to fly in it.

It takes more power to fly in the buffet than it does in smooth air.

The harder an aircraft buffets and more stall warning it delivers, the more power it takes to produce the buffet.

This is exactly why you see aircraft with little to no stall warning and the advent of artificial stall warning devices like stick shakers. With the advent of stick shakers, designers are freed from providing aerodynamic stall warning and can maximize aerodynamic performance.

Not at all speeds though, only at very high speed and only documented on a Spitfire Va on one NACA test.

Right and has nothing to do with piles of bent wings at the repair depots during the Battle of Britain.

That are purely anecdotal

The NACA did a study as part of the stability and control standards on the forces an average pilot can exert.

I am sure that data could easily build an "average joe" pilot.

It would be easy to implement a fatigue model as well.

It is very interesting, btw.

The current FAR's are based in this same research. The formula for minimum stick force per G required in a stick control column aircraft is:



(Weight of Aircraft / 140lbs) / (structural damage limit - 1)

So a 6500lbs aircraft using a stick as the control input and is fully aerobatic at a structural damage limit of 6G:

(6500lbs/140) / 5 = 9.28Lbs per G minimum required.

You saw/have a picture of piles of bent wings?

That would make a cool sig picture!

Not to mention how it would do alot to make your case for this argument!

With that said could you provide me a link to that proof/picture?

Thanks in advance!

If not, and this was just a undocumented statment of yours, no worries, Ill understand the lack of a link provided

There were no piles of bent wings around repair yards in the BOB. The wings only had a problem in late 1944, when being used in situations far beyond those that could have been thought of pre war.

I produced two lots of evidence, one an original document from the NA which is clear on the issue and the solution, the other points you to the C Shores books on the 2 TAF. Both these support my statement and its only fair to ask you to supply evidence to support yours.

With no evidence your statement is worthless.

PS I do owe you an apology.
You said that the design of the Spitfire wing was done at a number of colleges and I asked you which to which you gave me a number. It was a trick question which you fell for.
You may or may not know what is taught at the establishments you named, but you would not know what they use in their lectures unless you had done the course so your list must have been made up.
Also you said Cambridge as one of the establishments. Cambridge isn't a place where you study. Cambridge is in effect an admin centre for 31 Colleges or to be more precise seats of learning and none of them do aerodynamics.

I can tell you that Cranfield is the premier University for Aerospace in the UK its very advanced with their own test fleet of aircraft. We had visiting lecturers from Cranfield come to HMS Daedalus for some of our studies which included Hovercraft

We have been here before ! As has been stated before Buffet has depth. The very first onset is referred to as the the "Buzz" or the "Tickle" The current RAAF PC-9 Flight manual uses the term "Light Pre Stall Buffet". It is a standard technique (and was in WWII as stated by Geoffery Wellum in his book First light) when trying to get the best out of the aeroplane to smoothly pull to then hold on the "buzz". This is a STANDARD technique taught in most air forces even to this day. Whole training sequences in Military pilots courses are devoted to max performance turning. It is also a standard technique used by Glider pilots trying to get the best out of their machines as well in the thermal centering etc.

Stick Shakers are a relatively new device and have little to do with WWII era aviation. Stick shakers were designed to provide Stall warning as a primary goal not as a device to enable max performance turning..... AOA indicators do a better job in this department. Trying to fly an aeroplane on the shaker (like in a wind shear or GPWS event) is not an easy task as you are in and out of the shaker all the time. In general Stick Shakers are the preserve of the larger transport types from say the DASH 8, B757,B767 with conventional non FBW flight controls. Though some predominately Russian fighter types with conventional flight controls (early MIG29) do have similar devices (including pedal shakers) to provide Max AOA cueing.

We all know flying in deep buffet requires more power. I think you will find Energy bleed in CLOD is increased quite significantly IN the buffet.

Flying on the buzz is a valid technique to get the best turn performance out of the aeroplane.

I posed a situation before when this was the subject of another of these Mammoth "intellectual" threads... the answer was avoided. Picture this situation.

You find yourself in your Spitfire MKI 90 degrees nose down at very low altitude. You are not sure if you have the turning room to avoid the ground.
Your only chance is to get the absolute minimum radius turn RFN... how are YOU going to fly the turn .. no time to think ... delay compounds the issue.... FAILURE = DEATH.

Please explain how this translates to a computer sim, and how will the developers adapt this formula to cater for the different types of joysticks/rudder pedals used by members of the IL2 community?