Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

Well,

I can't post any pictures on bugtracker to show the documentation even using the same account as NzTyphoon.

Very Strange....

Perhaps 41 Squadron Banks who is the manager of Il2bugtracker can look into my acount settings and see if there is some reason for this.

I have tried every method available at photobucket as well as other hosting sites.

[Crumpp]

Unfortunately for you there is little if any evidence of any bad outcomes.

??????

[Glider]

J Quill in June 1941 they did tests re wing failures. So until then it wasn't a noticable issue or the tests would have started in say Oct 1939

X4381 lost a wing in a dive. Quite possible when exceeding the dive speed

X4421 lost its wings when in a high speed stall after a steep dive ignoring the pilots notes

X4354 lost its wing in Dec 1941 at an OTU when in a dive. An old aircraft in a training unit in a dive probably exceeding the dive limitations

X4381 lost its wing in an OTU in a high speed dive out of cloud. An old aircraft probably exceeding its dive limits after loss of control in a cloud

Is that the best you can do?

PS what about all those that broke up when spinning, another major weakness (according to you)

[IvanK]

Bug tracker is for Bugs.

Have you demonstrated that the Spit in Ver 1.08.18956 is actually bugged ? You indicated in this thread when asked about in game testing that all would be in the bugtracker post. All that is there is a series of statements replicating your posts in this thread.

I dont see any Ver 1.08.18956 test data to support your case in your bugtracker entry.

[Crumpp]

Have you demonstrated that the Spit in Ver 1.08.18956 is actually bugged

Dive to Vne and pull up. You can't break the airframe even with full rudder applied at pull up.

Make an abrupt pull up from level flight and release the stick. The airframe loads on a normal slope and gently settles.

At Vmax, make a steep bank and abrupt turn to 180 degrees from heading.

Release the stick and the turn stops. If above Va, it should increase to airframe damage and accelerated stall.

It is all measureable.

[Crumpp]

Ivan,

This is all easily seen in the math. I would think the program accounts for a Center of Gravity.

[Crumpp]

Is that the best you can do?

????

I never said it was complete. I counted 13 incidents only halfway thru the serial listings for the just the Mark I in Morgan and Shacklady.

There some 9 pages of this irritating tiny print. You can go through them.

Again,

The measured and defined stability and control of the early mark Spitfires is neutral to unstable at normal and aft CG.

That statement holds true for any measured results.

Unfortunately, there are only a few measured results from the United Kingdom because there was no standard in place. In otherwords, there was no ruler outside of pilot opinion.

[Crumpp]

when another NACA document on the Spitfire's stall characteristics was presented it was dismissed as being irrelevant:

Where do you get this stuff?

Nobody dismissed it as irrelevent. In fact, it agrees with the first NACA report.

Do you think the NACA was contridicting itself?

Did you read the report and note the conditions??

It all agrees, bud. Stop with your pointy tin foil hat theories.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

????

I never said it was complete. I counted 13 incidents only halfway thru the serial listings for the just the Mark I in Morgan and Shacklady.

There some 9 pages of this irritating tiny print. You can go through them.

Again,

The measured and defined stability and control of the early mark Spitfires is neutral to unstable at normal and aft CG.

That statement holds true for any measured results.

Unfortunately, there are only a few measured results from the United Kingdom because there was no standard in place. In otherwords, there was no ruler outside of pilot opinion.

I know it isn't complete and I appreciate the effort but all the ones you mention are not relevent to the case, so as I said, is this the best you can do.

Have you found any at all so far re spins, you will recall that you were once very keen saying that spits broke up in a spin and so far nothing to support it. In a similar manner we have nothing to support the piles of bent wings, or an unusual number of accidents, nothing at all. No mention of this as an issue in any of the hundreds of books that have been written about this aircraft and the BOB.

All we have is your spin of a known factor which pilots were warned of.

All we have is you making a worst case scenario out of something everyone was aware of and wasn't a major problem.

Edit - I should add that also have yet to prove that the level of instability admitted by one and all, is an unsafe level or even that it is unsuitable for a fighter.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Glider

.......

All we have is your spin of a known factor which pilots were warned of.



All we have is you making a worst case scenario out of something everyone was aware of and wasn't a major problem.

No, all we have is a few people belitteling documented quirks of the early marks Spitfire with a energy that borders on fanatism.

The same people will probably fight with the same energy, to have all others planes quirks included in game.

Crumpps only mistake was not to start with the 109, i believe, not that this would have changed the then future Spitfire discussions, imo.