Quote:
|
The problem is, that crumpp doesn't present claims, he presents documented facts!
|
No, he presents documents and interprets them to an extreme, with Crumpp this apparent instability is 'total' and should render the Spitfire dangerous to fly, simply not true.
Quote:
|
The claims are coming from those, who are unwilling to accept those facts.
|
Funny how despite a similar weight of documented evidence is labeled aas 'claims' when on the other side.
Quote:
|
1. The early Spitfire marks had a inherent longitudal instability which led to the manufacturer-fix with bob-weights.
|
in the MkV which had a different engine, all up weight etc.....oh and was about to go into service with the US air force....who apparently heard it was a bit 'unstable'
Quote:
|
2. The stick forces for the elevator were extraordinarily small in the Spitfire.
|
Yes, as my link to the NACA report showed 'desirably light'
Quote:
|
3. The stick travel was extrordinarily small for large reactions.
|
as a real life pilot I can say that sounds like a perfect situation, who wouldn't like a responsive ride?
Quote:
|
It really doesn't matter how good the pilots then were able to cope with those circumstances, it should be reflected in game that the plane doesn't fly itself, but has to be flown, and that with precise, small inputs for the elevator.
|
I must be using a different game, it certainly isn't a hands off aircraft in game, but I sure would like some more of that responsiveness.
Quote:
|
Also the tests shown by crumpp say that if one doesn't ride the buffet in a turn, but gets into the buffet, the turn performance is reduced drastically.
|
Which is quite true of any aircraft, luckyly the Spitfire was so responsive that a pilot barely needed any effort to take the aircraft out of the buffet.
Quote:
It is up to the fm programmer to make it possible to feel the difference in game.
Every aircraft has its quirks, and i think we want them all represented in this game.
|
Yes, I agree, I am really looking forward to the promised 109 topic.