Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

Those 130 accidents also don't include those losses, where after a few insignificant machine gun hits, or even only tracers around the cockpit, the pilot overreacted and went in with his ride because of over-g or a spin, which shurely has happened a few times.

It shurely then was accounted under losses because of enemy action.

There were quite a lot Spitfires lost during the BoB and not all had been shot to pieces.

And glider, nobody has said anything about the Spitfire being weak!!!

Only that the Spitfire controls made it relatively easy to reach the structural limits.

It is a simple fact that if it was relatively easy to reach the structural limit then the limit would have been reached and a lot more would have broken up.

I am sorry but all the evidence is that they didn't. Despite being flown in combat often by inexperienced pilots in the most testing situations, they didn't break up.

When the limit was reached at the end of the war the wings tended to bend not break.

You build into the game a factor that makes it easy for the Spitfire to break up it will be a huge error.

40ish falures in combat, in thousands of aircraft, over the entire war in millions of flights isn't the sign of an aircraft that is easy to break structurally

The comment about some lightly damaged aircraft crashing because an inexperienced pilot over reacted is misleading because it obviously must have happened, but the same logic applies to any fighter in any airforce. Even here, its worth remembering that the Spitfire was easier to fly than the Me109 so logic would say that it was less likely to happen to a Spitfire.

[41Sqn_Banks]

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

Agreed 100%

[robtek]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

Agreed, but the elevator was not only light but also sensible. (short travel-large reaction)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

There is a point where we all have to realise this it not real..

There are so many things we simmers don't have access to that real pilots had access to

Such that it would be silly to expect us to deal with every aspects of 'reality' in a 'simulation'

On the flip side, we never have to worry about a .50 cal hitting us in the neck while flying

So many things are done in software to make up for this fact.. But I would not refer to them as a bug (make up for the fact it aint real)

Take buffets for example..

In reality in some cases you would probally 'feel' it..

A buzz in your pants or the stick before you 'see' it in real life..

But since the sim can not simulate this (minus those with FFBJS)

The software inserts a screen shake and/or sound to cue the sim pilot into the fact that he is near a stall

At the same time there are so many things (like this topic) that can not be done in software.. But I woudl not refer to them as bugs either (limitations)

In short

No flight simulation ever WAS, IS, or WILL BE REAL!

[Crumpp]

buffet can be simulated with head shake and g with increasing tunnel vision.

To simulate the buffet realistically, the aircraft turn performance should be reduced if one tries to fly in it.

It takes more power to fly in the buffet than it does in smooth air.

The harder an aircraft buffets and more stall warning it delivers, the more power it takes to produce the buffet.

This is exactly why you see aircraft with little to no stall warning and the advent of artificial stall warning devices like stick shakers. With the advent of stick shakers, designers are freed from providing aerodynamic stall warning and can maximize aerodynamic performance.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

To simulate the buffet realistically, the aircraft turn performance should be reduced if one tries to fly in it.

It takes more power to fly in the buffet than it does in smooth air.

The harder an aircraft buffets and more stall warning it delivers, the more power it takes to produce the buffet.

This is exactly why you see aircraft with little to no stall warning and the advent of artificial stall warning devices like stick shakers. With the advent of stick shakers, designers are freed from providing aerodynamic stall warning and can maximize aerodynamic performance.

We have been here before ! As has been stated before Buffet has depth. The very first onset is referred to as the the "Buzz" or the "Tickle" The current RAAF PC-9 Flight manual uses the term "Light Pre Stall Buffet". It is a standard technique (and was in WWII as stated by Geoffery Wellum in his book First light) when trying to get the best out of the aeroplane to smoothly pull to then hold on the "buzz". This is a STANDARD technique taught in most air forces even to this day. Whole training sequences in Military pilots courses are devoted to max performance turning. It is also a standard technique used by Glider pilots trying to get the best out of their machines as well in the thermal centering etc.

Stick Shakers are a relatively new device and have little to do with WWII era aviation. Stick shakers were designed to provide Stall warning as a primary goal not as a device to enable max performance turning..... AOA indicators do a better job in this department. Trying to fly an aeroplane on the shaker (like in a wind shear or GPWS event) is not an easy task as you are in and out of the shaker all the time. In general Stick Shakers are the preserve of the larger transport types from say the DASH 8, B757,B767 with conventional non FBW flight controls. Though some predominately Russian fighter types with conventional flight controls (early MIG29) do have similar devices (including pedal shakers) to provide Max AOA cueing.

We all know flying in deep buffet requires more power. I think you will find Energy bleed in CLOD is increased quite significantly IN the buffet.

Flying on the buzz is a valid technique to get the best turn performance out of the aeroplane.

I posed a situation before when this was the subject of another of these Mammoth "intellectual" threads... the answer was avoided. Picture this situation.

You find yourself in your Spitfire MKI 90 degrees nose down at very low altitude. You are not sure if you have the turning room to avoid the ground.
Your only chance is to get the absolute minimum radius turn RFN... how are YOU going to fly the turn .. no time to think ... delay compounds the issue.... FAILURE = DEATH.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

Agreed, but the elevator was not only light but also sensible. (short travel-large reaction)

Not at all speeds though, only at very high speed and only documented on a Spitfire Va on one NACA test.

[Crumpp]

Please note that this happens with a full bomb load (1,000 lb) and the extra rear internal fuel tank. Obviously neither of these were around until late 1944

Right and has nothing to do with piles of bent wings at the repair depots during the Battle of Britain.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Right and has nothing to do with piles of bent wings at the repair depots during the Battle of Britain.

That are purely anecdotal