Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

NACA was as dependent on test pilot's opinions as any other nation throughout most of WW2 and probably beyond.

No, it was dependant upon a set of defined standards and measured results.

Pilot opinion was a factor of secondary importance. He was a monkey in the cockpit that operated the measuring equipment and flew the specific profiles.

He did not fly around on a sunny day to report back how wonderful the airplane felt.

[Crumpp]

Ergo: Not one of the aircraft fielded by the Americans during WW2 was designed to Crumpp's set of "standards" - until things were standardised some time after a series of conferences held in October 1944 the American aviation industry was operating to a similar system to that of the British. This whole waste of time argument has been a huge red herring by Crumpp because it is completely irrelevant to anything to do with the design of the Spitfire.

Only a few narrow minded individuals see this as some attack on their favorite gameshape.

It is the measured and defined flying qualities that make up the "personality" of the airplane.

These characteristics are what make an early Mark Spitfire a unique airplane with its own individual behaviors.

Of course, not all of the airplanes, like the Spitfire, met every requirement. Nobody has claimed anything different. Most were designed before there were any defined standards.

The NACA standards provide a good frame of reference to model these behavior because they measured and defined so many of the WWII aircraft. Most of these airplanes were fixed as a result but many served for long periods of time before their flying qualities were evaluated under a measured and defined system.

That gives us some great information to see those flying qualities added to the game.

Otherwise, it is not much of simulation of a specific airplane if the gameshape does not have the same flying qualities as the airplane it supposed to represent.

This has nothing to do with how well an airplane turns, how fast it goes, climb, or any specific performance. This has to do with how the airplane behaves in achieving that performance.

[IvanK]

"Otherwise, it is not much of simulation of a specific airplane if the gameshape does not have the same flying qualities as the airplane it supposed to represent."

Other than quoting reams of academic data this is the very thing you are yet to prove.

You have raised a Bugtracker tracker entry on a subject but have yet to provide any proof to support it that in fact it is a bug in game. You have by your own admission not flown the Sim that much or for example kept up to date with the numerous Beta patches. You opined that gun recoil should be modelled, If you flew the sim you would know that in fact it is.

When you started this thread its purpose was to discuss this issue as it pertained to early mark spitfires IRL, not for a bug tracker entry. It then morphed into this academic treatise that spawned your bug tracker entry. When are you going to actually do some some in game flight testing to actually substantiate your claim that the FM is porked in the Sim ?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is the measured and defined flying qualities that make up the "personality" of the airplane.

These characteristics are what make an early Mark Spitfire a unique airplane with its own individual behaviors.


Otherwise, it is not much of simulation of a specific airplane if the gameshape does not have the same flying qualities as the airplane it supposed to represent.

This has nothing to do with how well an airplane turns, how fast it goes, climb, or any specific performance. This has to do with how the airplane behaves in achieving that performance.

To mitigate the fact players could dial out the most important characteristic that made an early mark Spitfire unique, the sensitive elevator and heavy ailerons. Since players are going to cheat, developers can too. I did this in Warbirds and it worked great when I did the Bf-109 and Spitfire models.
If an accelerated stall is reached, the aircraft spins. This keeps players in the mindset to stay off the stall point.

So it eliminates a nice feature of the Spitfires stall characteristic but realistically, Spitfire pilots did not seek the stall except as rare method to escape an unwanted combat. If the players are going to cheat, let the developers do so as well.

Not only has Crumpp failed to realise that this is a flight sim, with all the variables of hardware and software adopted by players, he is also proposing to make the Spitfire so hard to fly by inexperienced gamers that many will just give up after constantly crashing and burning, or having the plane fly apart, as soon as they make a small mistake. He also wants to deny players even the option of using the Spitfire's good stall characteristics.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No, it was dependant upon a set of defined standards and measured results.

Pilot opinion was a factor of secondary importance. He was a monkey in the cockpit that operated the measuring equipment and flew the specific profiles.

He did not fly around on a sunny day to report back how wonderful the airplane felt.

What a sad, sad commentary on Crumpp's attitude towards test pilots who often put their lives on the line in all countries. I wonder what Chuck Yeager, Richard Bong or Bill Bridgeman and others would say and do to Crumpp were he to tell them that they were nothing but monkeys in a cockpit operating measuring equipment and flying set profiles...one can only dream!

[Crumpp]

You have raised a Bugtracker tracker entry on a subject but have yet to provide any proof to support it that in fact it is a bug in game.

Dive to Vne, stomp on the rudder, and pull back as hard as you can.

Fly the airplane in the buffet and time your turn.

Pull back on the stick, release, and note the behavior of the airplane.

Fly at Vmax, pull hard back, hold it at full deflection, and note the behavior.

Fly the airplane trimmed for slow flight, let go of the stick, fire the guns, and note the behavior.

I have played the game and note the behaviors as I play. Just because I don't spend my time making excel spreadsheets does not mean the points are invalid.

NZtyphoon

[Crumpp]

The job of a Test Pilot as per MIL-Spec Standards...



Same as it was under the NACA.

[DC338]

Why don't you read the rest of the statement. The must be some pretty smart monkeys.
Still waiting for analysis of figures 16 17 18 and why 15 isn't an anomaly.

[IvanK]

"I have played the game and note the behaviors as I play. Just because I don't spend my time making excel spreadsheets does not mean the points are invalid."

No just your gut feeling not actually measured and or recorded. You post so many charts to support your statements in this thread then jump in the sim and just wing it !

[klem]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Dive to Vne, stomp on the rudder, and pull back as hard as you can.

Fly the airplane in the buffet and time your turn.

Pull back on the stick, release, and note the behavior of the airplane.

Fly at Vmax, pull hard back, hold it at full deflection, and note the behavior.

Fly the airplane trimmed for slow flight, let go of the stick, fire the guns, and note the behavior.

I have played the game and note the behaviors as I play. Just because I don't spend my time making excel spreadsheets does not mean the points are invalid.

What were your five results, what were your expectations and how did you come by them?