Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

Again Red vs Blue????

Why is it red v blue?....AFAIK it's true, I'm not so sure what the apparent significance of an annecdote about Spitfire wings in piles is, presumably the aircraft returned home to have their wings replaced if it's true.

[macro]

Having a note saying wingss got damaged is no good for the game. Need to know the g limit numbers for the aircraft to model structural damage from manouvers, regardless of what plane it is. That should have its own thread to find them for each plane in the game?

[IvanK]

That data Macro is known. The issue is the FM doesnt really model structural G limits. DT have done this in IL2 4.10 and up.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Why is it red v blue?....

It's amusing the fact that people need to bring on another plane (or better "those" other planes) to defend a plane issue clearly written in the pilot's notes book.

But it's not a Red vs Blue, of course...

At time we'll talk about those planes too...

Originally Posted by bongodriver

presumably the aircraft returned home to have their wings replaced if it's true.

Of course the RTBed aircrafts would have the wings replaced, but why did they need to replace them? Couldn't them still fight in that condition? Or maybe it was an issue this sim needs to reproduce?

Since I'm not sure that a plane with overstressed wings can be effective in the way many virtual pilots are used to fly it. Instead I'm sure that a plane with a damaged wings' structure will not fly as it did before and the pilot needs to take it back ASAP... above all if it's a high performance fighter!

If we make a mistake, pulling up too much so that the wings' structure is damaged (even if not critically) and we are enought lucky and the wings are still there does not mean that we can fight as nothing is happened.

It's an issue of every plane, and it should be simulated correctly: then there are planes more prone to this problem (the ones with sensitive elevator maybe?).

From the pilot's notes:

Diving: The aeroplane becomes very tail heavy at high speed and must be trimmed into the dive in order to avoid the danger of excessive acceleration in recovery. The forward trim should be wound back as speed is lost after pulling out.

I don't recall to do it in any simulator... If I trim it's only to keep the nose on the target, not because of a probable structure damage. Probably only in IL2 1946 after the DT's work.. but only in planes carrying a heavy load.

Then we can talk about the effect of a slightly damaged wings' structure on the plane, but it's another matter: it's still sure that it's not a good thing for a fighter (until the new myth "Spitfires could fly at full performance even with damaged wings!")

[bongodriver]

Of course the RTBed aircrafts would have the wings replaced, but why did they need to replace them? Couldn't them still fight in that condition? Or maybe it was an issue this sim needs to reproduce?

You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).

Is it an OP's fabrication?

Do you really think that this kind of issue has not to be simulated? On all the planes, of course.

I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

[bongodriver]

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

They are simply warnings, not an indication of a particular dangerous characteristic....you know like 'always wear safety glasses'

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

So 38% of 121 investigations is proof?, it just means that from an already tiny amount less than half were attributable to airframe failure.

Is it an OP's fabrication?

What the OP is fabricating is a larger problem, nobody claims 'no' Spitfires ever 'broke up', if you really wanted to you could 'break' any aircraft through overstress and the Spitfire was not notorious for it, just because it had sensitive elevators that 'could' do it it doesn't mean that it was a regular occurrence, the OP almost seems to be insisting that these problems should become apparent during normal operating ranges of speed and manouvers......I wonder why

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

if they had anything to do with the BoB scenario in Cliffs of Dover.

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions (where the worst is blamimg other guys to be anti-British) and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

[macro]

Ivan can you point me to that info i couldnt find it

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

Do we have to make a poll do decide which plane is the first one to be analysed? Above all by a person who actually does it for free and it's not one of our employers?

I've not problem on which one is the first plane... we have to start from something.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

Why useless? Does realistic mean useless?

You say "then"... if a new feature is been added to the FM engine I expect it to be modelled in every plane... implementing a new v2.0 FM for a model leaving the other plane with the v1.0 is not a professional way to act... of wait.. about IL2 I remember new Lods against old ones... I don't want something like that.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

It's not about you... it's about a guy who I put into my ignore list since I was being anti-British claiming that the Spitfire myth is partially born because it's a simbol of the British's win. As P51 for the americans, T34 for the russian ect. does that make me an anti-american and anti-russian?

Originally Posted by bongodriver

This is becoming trolling...

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

The subject of this thread is directly related to the Spitfire's flight qualities, so pointing out that at high speed it could outmanœvre one of the most manœverable fighters of its generation is perfectly reasonable in the context of the discussion, so take your own advice and do this in a mature way.

Once again there are no forum rules stopping anyone from posting comments on the flight qualities of German, Japanese or Italian aircraft.