Spit IIa

[Crumpp]

The spitfire had issues but then so does every aeroplane.

Sure, no aircraft is perfect but very few safe designs have unacceptable stability and control. It is a fact that the stability and control of the Spitfire was unacceptable, resulted in fatalities, and bob weights were installed. Those issues should be modeled as they very much effect the relative dog fighting capability of these aircraft.

The major point being made on the stall is the engineering tradeoff for that large amount of stall warning in the form of early and hard buffeting is a reduction in turn rate before Clmax is reached.

The pilots notes (MKI anyway) mention is made in the Accelerated (or high speed) stall that if not quickly corrected could lead to structural damage.

A spin by definition requires an accelerated stall.

Err yes, 36 years professional flying,

How many different kinds of aircraft? Try to think of one that repeats the warnings found in the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes. Those warnings are all characteristics of unacceptable stick fixed longitudinal stability.

Just because something doesn't comply to a standard doesn't mean it lacks merit, it just means it doesn't comply to a standard.

In this case the standard is a little higher. It is not about comfort but rather what will cause the death of a pilot and what will not.

The longitudinal stick fixed stability of the Spitfire was unacceptable because it could kill the pilot. In fact, it did kill and bob weights were installed on the aircraft in response.

[RAF74_Winger]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

A spin by definition requires an accelerated stall.

No, just a stall.

W.

[TomcatViP]

Ok guys let's not make this an other "experts" issue.

Both of you are talented with no doubts.

Facts is that raising any suspicion abt the flying qualities of the SPit enclosed you immediately in a defensive posture thx to the grands Spitfire's popes tht cruise there and elsewhere on every WWII's sims forums

Reading Crumps I see that he tried only to lift the case on the difficulty to perform well in the spit in slow tight turns. There shld be a far more un-forgiving ctrls pattern for doing such in the sim just like what we have with the hurri (the hurri need cte monitoring of the slip needle).

Remind that there was some extensive washout on that wings to give artificial aileron authority near the stall (what the 109 and the hurri did achieved without any washout). This is a direct layoff of the EW (ellip. wing), the thin airfoil with a max camber point put far frwd).

I think it would be more interesting to discuss the doc IvanK has posted earlier and comments all the data and small info we can gather here.

For example the stick force for the 109 is nearly the same of that of the spit mkV at 400mph !!! That's by itself is a revolution in ll2 world !!!

[Bussard_1]

Whether the Spit is unacceptably balanced was not the issue, was it?

The discussion WAS; are aircraft in sim over/under powered, which developed into a turning discussion.

And then,..?

[IvanK]

"A spin by definition requires an accelerated stall. "

So are you saying you cant spin from a 1G stall entry ?

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Bussard_1

Whether the Spit is unacceptably balanced was not the issue, was it?

The discussion WAS; are aircraft in sim over/under powered, which developed into a turning discussion.

And then,..?

Bussard the way the SPit pop out in the skies each time it zoom up makes any comments regarding the boost and whatever useless.

Let them fix the drag of the Thing and then we will see what the Merlin has wrong (although as a Hurri pilot I don't see the issue)