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

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

I'll evaluate this in due course. At present still evaluating issues brought forward in this forum that the Spitfire, in order of urgent importance:

So much to do, so little time!

I dont understand your sarcasm:

1) is too stable - Maybe. I have no opinion, i don't know the tests (ok, i know, it's not a criteria in this forum )
1) is too easy to bring sights to bear on target - All small caliber is stable. Other question the gun inaccuracy, which terrible worse in all planes imho.
1) won't enter into a vicious accelerated stall & spin and destroy aircraft - Who want such a thing? I don't even understand which maneuver you describe
1) rolls too quickly in a dive above 400 mph IAS - true
1) shows no sign of deceleration with open canopy - True, and you forgot the cooling flaps too. This is a general problem, not just the Spit
1) employs "sonar" when canopy is open - True. This is a general problem (G.50, 109 without canopy, etc.).
1) neg g cutout does not occur quickly enough with the latest beta - Maybe. It slightly reduced, but i can't measure accurate values.
1) quick engagement of elevator control at speed will not over stress and destroy aircraft - True, but it is a general problem, not only the Spit.
1) wings absorb far too much cannon shell punishment - I think it's rather question of the gun inaccuracy.
1) IIa is 60 mph too fast ....oops, not any more! - It was overmodelled, or not?
1) flying a Spitfire forces one to use bad tactics and no TS teamwork - Irrelevant
1) lands and takes off far too easily - Irrelevant. Depends mostly on the Pilot.
1) prolonged inverted flying doesn't cause oil sump to run instantly dry and destroy aircraft - True. But –again– it is a general bug, the DB was banned for inverted flight too (because of lubrication system).
1) engine cutout doesn't cause CSP to go fine pitch, over rev engine, and destroy aircraft - It was an example of this? I never see any. I do not like the favorite opinion, that "the operating instructions only for girls, the real man push the crap out from the plane, anyway, the merlin survive everything".

[Crumpp]

is too stable -Maybe. I have no opinion, i don't know the tests (ok, i know, it's not a criteria in this forum )

I noticed you voted against the issue when it was raised in the bugtracker.

Obviously I have done a poor job of communicating the issue.

It is a sad fact that this "red vs blue" is toxic to the progress of the game as well as the community.

There seems to be an almost mass hysteria among Spitfire fans about this issue but it sharply focuses the "red vs blue" mentality for the community.

I think it stems from several sources.

First is an deep emotional attachment to this aircraft. It is a cultural icon.

Second is a lack of technical insight as to why an aircraft with such unacceptable measured stability qualities could go on to be a successful fighter. Understandable, stability and control is not a common subject outside of aeronautical science. Believe me, if I discussed the science of stability and control with my wife, my daughters would have never been born!

it is like an ancient mariners map, labeled "Here be sea serpents".

Without the technical insight, the Spitfire fans are left with two possibilities.

1. the issue does not exist

2. the issue must not be a big deal and come naturally to most pilots.

Most of the discussion has been dealing with pointy tin foil hat theories that the issue did not exist.

It did exist and it was an issue. The instability was a defining characteristic of the early mark Spitfires and pilots had to learn to overcome it. Some even learned to turn it to advantage, btw.

The second point is both true and false . It was something the pilot could deal with and become second nature to most pilots with experience in the aircraft. Just as trimming the aircraft is second nature to piloting an aircraft and comes naturally to most pilots.
However, you still have to trim the aircraft in the game. Spitfire pilots still had to learn to deal with the instability.
It is a big deal because the aircraft would have been safer and more effective without the instability.
The lack of technical insight contributes to the misunderstanding. The Spitfire had some essential traits that without them, it would have been undesirable to fly the aircraft with the instability. As it had these essential traits, it was able to enter service and served well for a time without the issue being fixed. England did not have standards for stability and control so when the design firm said it was tested and the pilots said it was good, it was placed into service without modification.

1. The violence and depth of the stall buffet gave essential unmistakable warning of an impending stall. While the accelerated stall itself was violent, the buffet zone was large enough that it gave sufficient warning so the control characteristics were mitigated. Without that buffet zone, inadvertent stalling would have been very difficult to avoid.

2. The stick force gradient is stable. So while the forces are too light for good feel at low speed, at high speed they are light but not so much a pilot has no feel. Unless the air is bumpy or the pilot is excited and over controls, the airplane would be very pleasant to maneuver at high speeds. I would not try to hold it at a maximum acceleration steady state turn without practice. The instability would have to be controlled but the stable gradient makes it easier at high speeds.
There is more but I think most people get the picture about the toxic "red vs blue" mentality.

[Crumpp]

I don't see the relevence to the BOB

During the Battle of Britain, Spitfires were longitudinally unstable at normal CG.

Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

In the game, they are longitudinally stable both static and dynamic:

[Crumpp]

bob weight was to fix the long period oscilations?

Bongodriver,

The inertial elevator improves the control feel by increasing the stick forces. It gives the pilot a more solid foundation to feel the oscillation and more precisely correct it through control input.

[Crumpp]

also can you tell me exactly what effect your game controller is having on the perceived stability in game? have you considered the center spring is actually responsible?

It is a characteristic of the FM not the joystick.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is a characteristic of the FM not the joystick.

So what have you done to make your game controller act like the real control column?

[Crumpp]

pilots don't seem to note any actual problems

Well the pilots did note the same issues the NACA recorded.

for example, in the prototype:

From Handling trials of the Spitfire K.5054

The control is satisfactory as regards "feel" and response, but would be improved if the movement of the control column for a given movement of the elevators was slightly greater.

Keep in mind, he made absolutely NO MEASUREMENTS but this is all opinion from watching the ratio of blue and green out of the windshield, LOL.

Longitudinally the aeroplane is neutrally stable with engine on and stable in the glide.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k5054.html

Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Bongodriver,

The inertial elevator improves the control feel by increasing the stick forces. It gives the pilot a more solid foundation to feel the oscillation and more precisely correct it through control input.

This is just such a typical bloody engineering attitude, because some maths says there is a problem but pilots don't seem to note any actual problems they bloody try and fix it anyway 'the Spitfire had desireably light controls'.......but we went ahead and made them heavier anyway because according to a graph this thing is unstable.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

This is just such a typical bloody engineering attitude, because some maths says there is a problem but pilots don't seem to note any actual problems they bloody try and fix it anyway 'the Spitfire had desireably light controls'.......but we went ahead and made them heavier anyway because according to a graph this thing is unstable.

Oh yes blame engineers for making an aircraft safe, I mean who would want an aircraft to stay in the air I would much rather have it crash into my garden shed

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Oh yes blame engineers for making an aircraft safe, I mean who would want an aircraft to stay in the air I would much rather have it crash into my garden shed

Were not in a debate over safety here, it's about combat pilots finding a characteristic they enjoyed about an aircraft being neutered because of some officious pen pushing graph monkeys not being satisfied with measured results.

I personally have no gripes with the spanner monkeys and like to keep a good rapport with the engineers in my company, things actually get fixed when you are nice to them.