Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The DC-3 was unstable in cruise flight only at it's most rearward CG limit. That limit was moved forward.

You can of course prove that statement ?

[Crumpp]

I would post the NACA report but it is too big even zipped.

Yes, only at the rearward CG limit was the aircraft unstable and only below 120IAS. Above 160IAS, and trimmed out at the rearward CG limit, it was "almost neutral".

[Crumpp]

So to sum up you have no examples

No, I gave you a list of examples. You did not bother to read them.

[Glider]

Actually I did and I have checked what you have said. Unfortunately what you have said and what so far I have checked don't tally. For example the Me109 certainly doesn't fit your criteria, without a rudder trim then eventually the aircraft will need manual input. It is also stated in the Zero report that constant attention is needed on the rudder. The Fw190 has almost no trimming tabs on the controls and in my limited experience of powered aircraft without trimming tabs you cannot be hands off and always have to stay in control

It is a similar story when you gave me a list of books that said that the Me109 could turn with the Spitfire, I have checked two of them out and they don't seem to say what you said they say. I did ask where they did agree with your statement, but there was no reply.

I have asked for a list of the flight tests or reports from test establishents/test pilots that say that the SPit was difficult or dangerous or uncomfortable to fly. You stated that you had these but as we have discovered it only referred to the prototype and that was fixed in first production.

You have a habit of being very very selective over what you state and often don't read the papers in their entirity before forming a picture, I can give a number of examples if you so wish.

Take the regs you just quoted. I am pretty sure that MIL-F-8785 is to do with the rolling of an aircraft so what has this to do with longatudinal stability?
I could be wrong on this so if you could confirm this I would appreciate it. However it again from memory it calculated the characteristics of five different types of aircraft from transports to fighters defining what was acceptable for each.
However I cannot help suspect that you are trying to impress and blind us with a list of regs rather than concentrate on what is correct.

[Al Schlageter]

Like the 100 octane threads, Crumpp has struck out again.

[IvanK]

So then Mr Crumpp exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.07.18301+Hot Fix ?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I would post the NACA report but it is too big even zipped.

Yeah, right, it's HUGE - all 68 pages and 16 mb!

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1993083829.pdf

Now Mr Crumpp

*Exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.07.18301+Hot Fix ?

*How exactly can Crumpp's bugtracker replicate the longitudinal stability characteristics Crumpp thinks the CLOD Spitfire I & II should have, when there is no option for rough air conditions?

[Crumpp]

16 mb

And you are limited to 14.31 zipped.

So then Mr Crumpp exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.07.18301+Hot Fix ?

It will be in the bug tracker. Why don't you do some testing?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It will be in the bug tracker. Why don't you do some testing?

Because you are the one pushing this, how about you explain in this thread exactly what needs to be fixed, and how you propose to fix the perceived problem?

How exactly will Crumpp's bugtracker replicate the longitudinal stability characteristics Crumpp thinks the CLOD Spitfire I & II should have, when there is no option for rough air conditions - one of the main warnings posted in the Pilot's Notes described flying in bumpy conditions.

How will Crumpp's proposed changes affect other flight characteristics of the CLOD Spitfire I & II?

[IvanK]

You are the one who started this thread regarding real world Spitfire stability. In your opening post you tell us all that this is to be a discussion on Spitfire stabilty:

"This thread is going to cover the definable and measure stability and control characteristics of the Spitfire. It is not going to cover opinion outside of stability and control engineers.

What this thread is not going to do:

1. Get into a debate about "easy to fly". It is not definable and has no bearing on the measured facts.

2. It is not going to discuss the sustained level turning ability of the aircraft. That is also measurable and definable. For Example, anyone who is capable of doing the math will see that the Spitfire outturns the Bf-109 is steady state constant altitude turns at low velocity."

You then decide its an item for the bugtracker which deals with Sim behaviour. bugtrqacker is for bugs. The onus is on YOU as the thread starter and intended Bug tracker author to prove there is an issue in game.... so far you have not.

When you do make sure its in a definable,measurable and to an accepted standard.