Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[robtek]

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.

[macro]

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?

[IvanK]

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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

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.

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.

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.

[macro]

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

[Crumpp]

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!!

[robtek]

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.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

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.

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

[macro]

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)


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

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Glider

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

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.