Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."

So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard?

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard?

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway.

First of all, it's been said already that not all the aircraft met the standard.

Secondly, why is it important? What difference does it make if Britain had a standard or not? Who cares? You keep bringing this Did-they/Didn't-they topic up over and over, but it's completely secondary to the purpose of this thread.

This thread is supposed to be about coming up with a good body of evidence so that the developers can add proper handling to the game. Are you saying you don't think players should have to deal with it by careful flying?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This thread is supposed to be about coming up with a good body of evidence so that the developers can add proper handling to the game. Are you saying you don't think players should have to deal with it by careful flying?

Yes, I agree, there is lots of room for improvement regarding the handling characteristics to make this game more realistic. I find flying in this sim a bit too easy in many aspects.

I'd like to see similar control lockup we have on the Hurricane on all planes, especially at 109s elevator and Spitfires ailerons. All in all, I very much like the increasing forces in the joystick as the airspeed rises, they are just somehow not balanced properly at this stage. I'd like the devs to fix the trim response (esp. elevator) so we're not able to perform this ufo-like manoeveurs anymore. I'd like them to fix the Spitfire flaps issue where you can exploit it and turn tighter if it needs be. Of course they should make the Spitfire elevator control a bit twitchier, but that o me is just another small detail. I could go for much longer with listing this small FM flaws (that is still my opinion only, ymmw).

For this particluar issue you'd need to have a proper atmosphere modelled so we can feel this bumpy air (we don't because we're flying through vacuum apparently). We would also need to have the structural G-Limits modelled so we can not do crazy stuff like we normally do. We don't have that either at this moment. Also HW issues can never be considered properly. Everybody has got different joystick and would be able to tweak the elevator curve (or sensitivity) accordingly anyway. With my game-time in the Spitfire I'd note that the plane is very unstable already compared to the 109 or G.50 or Hurricane. It requieres certain skill to control it at certain situations, e.g. keeping nose straight at the speeds close to the stall. Spitfire, she is a twitchy beast already, you'll see that when you try her a bit more

You're saying this thread is about 'coming with good body of evidence' so the devs can benefit from it and perhaps fix this issue. To me as unbiased observer it rather looks like this thread is about certain people showing off with their preferences and about trying to get certain things porked. This thread is also about avoiding questions and providing selective evidence or ignoring the counterarguments. It reminds me very much of John Cleese library sketch as they provide any information by cutting the unwanted bits and bobs so the result is ''England never lost a cricket match in last 70 years.'' I am not sure if you're familiar with it but you should watch it, it's hilarious. Not as hilarious as your kindergarden post but close enough. Funniest thing is that one of this guys dosn't actualy fly this sim at all and the other (that is you Doggles) only flies Messerschmitt. None of you 2 has got a clue about Spitfire stability in game to start with. But do carry on.

[CaptainDoggles]

Of course YOU are the unbiased observer, but there's no way that I can be unbiased, right? Because I have a 109 in my signature?

You know, it's a really sad statement when a person can't apply their relevant knowledge without being labeled as a show-off or a "luftwhiner". You think I'm showing off? I can be insulting too if I want.

This thread is also about avoiding questions and providing selective evidence or ignoring the counterarguments.

Point it out, then. The only questions I've ignored are the silly ones that have no bearing on the matter, like did 1930's Britain have a stability standard.

Funniest thing is that one of this guys dosn't actualy fly this sim at all and the other (that is you Doggles) only flies Messerschmitt. None of you 2 has got a clue about Spitfire stability in game to start with. But do carry on.

How do you claim to know how often I fly the Spitfire? Because when I go on ATAG I prefer to fly the 109?

It's possible to change one's handle, and also possible to fly offline or on private servers.

[6S.Manu]

Robo, you know I don't fly CloD so I really don't care about ingame performance (until a more realistic combar environment wuold be implemented by the devs).

Anyway I've found the info in this thread really interesting: we already know many of the historical issues of the german/japanese aircrafts (btw I would like the devs to implement the 109's takeoff/landing issues) and usually they are already in the game (at least in IL2, even if sometimes in a bad way).

Now what about the Spitfire? The only defects known by me were the negative G engine cut and the "worser weapon platform compared to Hurricane and Tempest" characteristic (but this does not tell us anything). When all we listen is "it's easy to fly", "it's like a ballerina", "the elliptical wings" ect it's nice to know that they got some more issues: for example I did'nt know of the oversensible elevator control that, imo, is a serious issue when the plane has to be flown at her limits... something that in IL2 we do a lot, but in RL usually it was not really required (so "it was easy to fly").

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Robo, you know I don't fly CloD so I really don't care about ingame performance (until a more realistic combar environment wuold be implemented by the devs).

Anyway I've found the info in this thread really interesting: we already know many of the historical issues of the german/japanese aircrafts (btw I would like the devs to implement the 109's takeoff/landing issues) and usually they are already in the game (at least in IL2, even if sometimes in a bad way).

Now what about the Spitfire? The only defects known by me were the negative G engine cut and the "worser weapon platform compared to Hurricane and Tempest" characteristic (but this does not tell us anything). When all we listen is "it's easy to fly", "it's like a ballerina", "the elliptical wings" ect it's nice to know that they got some more issues: for example I did'nt know of the oversensible elevator control that, imo, is a serious issue when the plane has to be flown at her limits... something that in IL2 we do a lot, but in RL usually it was not really required (so "it was easy to fly").

Hi Manu, no worries, I know you don't fly too often and I understand why is that. I value your opinion because from 1946 I know you're experienced pilot.

I am all for it - I mentioned several major FM flaws in this sim and I stated all planes are too easy to fly at this moment, I agreed with Doggles when he said we need less generic behaviour and handling characteristics. I also said that with this particular issue (I am all for it, I will adapt easily) it's more complex than that - structural G limits and atmosphere are not modelled sufficiently for it to have desired effect.

I also find this thread very interesting and I am glad to read throught the posted documents.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Of course YOU are the unbiased observer, but there's no way that I can be unbiased, right? Because I have a 109 in my signature?

I didn't say that you were not unbiased.

I only commented on myself and I ment it like ''I don't really care about this arguments of yours, I only read this stuff to learn something new and interesting.''

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

You know, it's a really sad statement when a person can't apply their relevant knowledge without being labeled as a show-off or a "luftwhiner". You think I'm showing off? I can be insulting too if I want.

That part about showing off was actually not aimed at you really but other 'certain people' I don't think you're a luftwhiner (whatever that is) and I don't care about what you have got in your signature. I read your posts and I reply sometimes. You apply your relevant knowledge and I respond, that's how forums work. It's not personal and I actually agreed with you and corrected on few things you were wrong about (according to my relevant knowledge of that matter)

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Point it out, then. The only questions I've ignored are the silly ones that have no bearing on the matter, like did 1930's Britain have a stability standard.

There was one particluar question, we both know which one that was, where you chose to avoid it in a spectacular way. But as you say that was not important.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

How do you claim to know how often I fly the Spitfire? Because when I go on ATAG I prefer to fly the 109?

It's possible to change one's handle, and also possible to fly offline or on private servers.

I don't know but it's easy to assume so from your posts - like the one where you say Spitfire is just a faster Hurricane and similar. I am very sure that you have only very little experience with the Spitfire (or the RAF fighter aircraft per se) in the sim and I wondered how you feel confident to comment about it so much in this thread. And I told you so, that's all.

Have a good day!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Robo.

There was one particluar question, we both know which one that was, where you chose to avoid it in a spectacular way. But as you say that was not important.

You'll recall that I answered that question. That answer is here. If you aren't satisfied with my answer I'm happy to discuss it with rational people. But I'm not obligated to reply to posts on this forum, and I elected not to discuss things with people who are irrational, or in the same squad as known forum trolls.

I don't know but it's easy to assume so from your posts - like the one where you say Spitfire is just a faster Hurricane and similar. I am very sure that you have only very little experience with the Spitfire (or the RAF fighter aircraft per se) in the sim and I wondered how you feel confident to comment about it so much in this thread. And I told you so, that's all.

Well, just for you I went up on ATAG and shot down a 109 for you. Easy as pie.

As I was climbing up to altitude I repeated an earlier test that I'd done and, in level flight at ~10000 feet, pulled the stick back and then let go. The aircraft nosed back down gently like a stable aircraft would. It should have held that AOA until it ran out of speed (I was using the rudder to keep wings level), or possibly nosed up further, depending on if you choose to believe it had neutral or negative stability.

But I have no experience in these things, so what do I know?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

You'll recall that I answered that question. That answer is here. If you aren't satisfied with my answer I'm happy to discuss it with rational people. But I'm not obligated to reply to posts on this forum, and I elected not to discuss things with people who are irrational, or in the same squad as known forum trolls.

Sorry I only recall you don't play with Jimmy because Jimmy plays with George and you don't play with George in the first place.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Well, just for you I went up on ATAG and shot down a 109 for you. Easy as pie.

I don't mind what you're doing on atag, why exactly are you telling us this?

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

As I was climbing up to altitude I repeated an earlier test that I'd done and, in level flight at ~10000 feet, pulled the stick back and then let go. The aircraft nosed back down gently like a stable aircraft would. It should have held that AOA until it ran out of speed (I was using the rudder to keep wings level), or possibly nosed up further, depending on if you choose to believe it had neutral or negative stability.

This is an issue indeed but as I was trying to point ou in my previous post, rather small one compared the other issues with general FM and actual aircraft FMs. I hope all of them will be addressed at some point.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

But I have no experience in these things, so what do I know?

Yes indeed, you have obviously very little experience with RAF aicraft in the sim, judging from what you say about them, e.g. Spitfire and Hurricane feeling the same except for the speed.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

As I was climbing up to altitude I repeated an earlier test that I'd done and, in level flight at ~10000 feet, pulled the stick back and then let go. The aircraft nosed back down gently like a stable aircraft would. It should have held that AOA until it ran out of speed (I was using the rudder to keep wings level), or possibly nosed up further, depending on if you choose to believe it had neutral or negative stability.

How much fuel did you have? The evidence produced states that the spit was longitudinally stable with the CofG forward, i.e. a full tank, with decreasing longitudinal stability as the CofG moves aft with decreasing fuel load.

Personally, I'm very interested as to what the wording of the entry in the Bugtracker will be.