I Want my 4.09 Spit FM's back.........

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by JtD

You're not helping.

Why? I thought discussion and debate helped find the truth?

You have correctly understood that aircraft could be pre trimmed on the ground, even though your understanding is limited to the Spitfire

.

How condescending. I know a fair bit about trim and a/c having been 6 years in the RAF cadets, flown a glider solo and generally done my research over the years. I've also got a lot of material on The Spitfire, some old, rare books that aren't widely known and therefore quoted.

However, this has never been a part of il-2. If you want that different, make a feature request, posting in a Spit FM topic is a waste of time.

I'm not after this feature; as in depth and great it could be even I with my incredibly limited knowledge realise what a pig that could be to programme in game.

Currently the aileron pre trim is that the plane can fly hands off stick with no slip in a shallow climb. It requires a little slip to fly straight and level hands off stick over most of the speed range. Your personal preference is different. Tough luck. That's all there is to it.

That's my problem - I DO NOT THINK IT IS CORRECT FOR ANY AIRCRAFT TO BE TRIMMED FOR THE CLIMB. Logically, it seems common sense to me to put the trim neutral state of any flying surface, aileron, elevator, rudder, whatever in the approximate middle of that a/cs speed range or at least at around the combat cruise setting, since then the out-of-trim-forces are balanced at opposite ends of the speed-range.

What I mean by this is if your aircraft is trimmed for the slowest regime of flight at max power, and you go diving it to max speed it'll require a helluva lot of force to keep the a/c attitude.

Arbitrarily say an a/c has a aileron stick force requirement of 20kg when trimmed out in the middle of her speed range. For arguments sake call it 250mph. That means at lowest, e.g. 100mph that should require 20kg of pressure to, let's say, the right against the torque. Similarly at max speed, say 400mph, that required 20kg of pressure is now to the left to compensate for the inherent trimming of the airframe.

Cool. Ok. What happens if we make our datum 175 mph instead? Well down at 100mph against torque we only need 10kg of pressure - however at 400 suddenly you need 30kg of pressure to keep the a/c on keel.

It's counter intuitive to me to think that any aircraft that will regularly fly at any of theses speeds would be so set up to give such variance of 300% in trim forces, and although only an example, reflects my attitude regarding the aileron trim modelling.

If you've never heard about aileron reversal in Spitfires, that's probably what you should research next. Don't waste it on researching individual Spitfire aileron trim settings, 20000 have been built, flown by lots of different pilots under lots of different circumstances, each with individual trim settings. Posting slip free hands off stick speed range for individual planes is therefore meaningless.

I have the Quill book, amongst many others. Nowhere does he say the Spitfire suffered from aileron reversal.

He says given the high speeds being reached by 1944, they would have run into aileron reversal had they continued adding more and more power and strengthening the airframe thus pushing it beyond the 450Vne of the airframe, but absolutely NOWHERE does it state that any operational mark of Spitfire suffered from aileron reversal.

[swiss]

That's my problem - I DO NOT THINK IT IS CORRECT FOR ANY AIRCRAFT TO BE TRIMMED FOR THE CLIMB. Logically, it seems common sense to me to put the trim neutral state of any flying surface, aileron, elevator, rudder, whatever in the approximate middle of that a/cs speed range or at least at around the combat cruise setting, since then the out-trim-forces are balanced at opposite ends of the speed-range

Here's the problem, you "think".
That means you don't "know".

Is suggest you bring proof for your theories. Why drop a line to Flying heritage?
Or, maybe your even able to contact a ret. RAF testpilot.

Defending your point of view is much easier if you have something to show which actually backs ups your argument.


Edit:

Nowhere does he say the Spitfire suffered from aileron reversal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

"Elliptical wing" & "Improved late wing designs"

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by swiss

Here's the problem, you "think".
That means you don't "know".

Is suggest you bring proof for your theories. Why drop a line to Flying heritage?
Or, maybe your even able to contact a ret. RAF testpilot.

Defending your point of view is much easier if you have something to show which actually backs ups your argument.


Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

"Elliptical wing" & "Improved late wing designs"

Swiss, you and I don't see eye to eye on much, I know. Regarding the think and feeling, please re-read my posts. These sentiments are not based on over romanticised History Channel thinking, but 20 years of learning all I can about Spitfires, with plenty of airtime, flight training, and research thrown in.

To quote your wiki link:

...the possibility that pilots would encounter aileron reversal increased...The original wing design had a theoretical aileron reversal speed

There is no documented case of Spitfire aileron reversal. This was a rare case of an a/c designer pre-empting a potential problem, NOT reacting to an existing one.

[swiss]

Fenrir, I which country do you live?

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by swiss

Fenrir, I which country do you live?

I'm in the UK.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

I'm in the UK.

Suggestion for your next pleasure trip:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by swiss

Suggestion for your next pleasure trip:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/

Thanks Swiss, I'll look into this.

Also, to clarify, I don't want a return to the 4.09 Spitfire FMs; I quite like the new stall/energy characteristics.

The only issue I have is with the lateral trim.

[Azimech]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

I'm not after this feature; as in depth and great it could be even I with my incredibly limited knowledge realise what a pig that could be to programme in game.

I have strong doubts about that. It could be a simple search in a folder, where people could make a simple text file with the name of the type, in the right format. No file means standard trim. Changing the GUI of the game to include sliders to adapt standard trim is too much work indeed, and people themselves should spend some time and energy. If loadout affects a style of playing, for example if you usually fly at high speed and this time you're doing a long range bombing run in formation, it could be nice to be able to adjust that too.