British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Please provide a link to what you think I said. Don't do it in this thread. You can just PM me. In all probability, you are confused and we can leave it out of this thread. If you are right, I will be glad to post it in another thread.

You and I know exactly what you said, it seems it is you who are confused if you don't recall the 94 page thread you started discussing this very issue.

Heres the link that you asked for.....very odd you need reminding.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245

Now can you please explain how stick force per G is nothing to do with stability and control without going against everything you contributed to that thread?

[Crumpp]

Now can you please explain how stick force per G is nothing to do with stability and control without going against everything you contributed to that thread?

I said:

Stick force per G is a control characteristic, not stability.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=200

It was in answer to your claim:

if there was no resistance to input then by definition it has no stability (the nature of returning to original condition) it is that resistance which pulls the controls back to original position therefore the relationship between stability and control force is almost proportional

There are numerous designs that have both very light control forces and good stability. One of them is in my hanger right now. Good stability with light control forces does make for a very pleasant airplane to fly.

It is false that stability and control forces are proportional such that you must have instability to have light control forces. The designer has considerable freedom in the management of control forces.

Please point out in anything remotely close to your claim of:

you raised exactly this point yourself in 'that' thread, remember?

Please provide a link to the exact claim you think I am making that is wrong.

[bongodriver]

I said:


Quote:
Stick force per G is a control characteristic, not stability.

and I said stick force per G is a control characteristic affected by stability



http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=202


So are you saying now that the Spitfire didn't have oversensitive elevators due to longitudinal instability?

There are numerous designs that have both very light control forces and good stability

Yes by means of things like servo tabs, stabilators with anti balance tabs, PFC's etc etc......none of which applied to Spits or 109's....nope just good old fashioned hinged control surfaces with nothing but the stability of the aircraft to determine their effectiveness....oh and of course there was the famous 'bob weight'.......strange.....why would increasing control forces make an aircraft more 'stable'? it's almost like theres a relationship between them

It is false that stability and control forces are proportional such that you must have instability to have light control forces

if an aircraft is unstable it takes less effort to make it react through control inputs, if it is stable it takes more effort to make it react through control inputs......how is this not getting through?......less effort = light controls, more effort = heavy controls.....is it making any sense yet?

Please point out in anything remotely close to your claim of:

I already did but what the hell...here it is again

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=33245


..........