Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots. (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33942)

Quote:

If Crumpp wants to continue with his time wasting obsession over the Spitfire's elevators

GEEZUS!! :evil:

How many time does it have to be said!! :rolleyes:

There is nothing in that snippet:

Quote:

later wrote about the stability of many of the fighters tested, including the Spitfire:

That contradicts the NACA conclusions! You confuse the comments on LONG PERIOD OSCILLATION with the SHORT PERIOD OSCILLATION measured by the NACA and noted by the RAE!!

Not the same thing...APPLES and ORANGES!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 456341)

Just for interest here is what the NACA engineer (William Hewitt Phillips)
who compiled the report on the Spitfire VA
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...s-page-001.jpg

later wrote about the stability of many of the fighters tested, including the Spitfire:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

(from NACA Monographs in Aerospace History Number 12)

If Crumpp wants to continue with his time wasting obsession over the Spitfire's elevators that's fine - it gives him something to do. There are more important issues to deal with, mainly the shortfalls in relative performance.

Incidentally the NACA report on the control characteristics of the Hurricane is available here

Nice post!

Did I misunderstand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss (Post 456365)

Just wanted to post about the oil pressure / engine damage thing:

A standard engine isn't going to be hurt from decel with momentary loss of oil pressure. What I mean by decel is, the engine went from having fuel and cylinders firing to running out of fuel and engine taking a few seconds to come to a stop. A thin layer of oil is around the main/rod bearings to absorb the punishment of the piston going into its compression stroke only to be exploded the opposite direction with combustion. This is violent on the bottom end as all the preload for the rod bearings and that particular connecting rod go from the bottom side of bearing(s) to, when combustion happens, to the top 1/2 of the connecting rod bearing(s) ( all in a split second). Without combustion, freewheel, all you have is the compression stroke causing stress which is absolutely nothing in comparisone to the grenade in the hole slamming the piston down that is called combustion. The biggest chance for airated oil to cause damage is when you regain fuel and the motor kicks back in again, but even then you would have had to fly in such a way that when you ran out of fuel and the engine is on decel to a stop, that you had enough neg g's or were inverted enough that oil never came back into the sump in the 1st place before you fired back up. Kinda like firing up your car after an oil change. Either way, I think if this was to be modeled it would be such a rare occurance that it wouldn't even be worth doing. Basically putting this in the bug tracker isn't correct IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 456367)

+1

Without any proper data as to when and how damage will occur nothing much will be accomplished by attempting to replicate such a condition.

I agree with Bliss but...

Lets read the 3rd point again...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Seems it will damage the pitch which will return to fine and then overspeeding of the engine that will cause the damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 456329)

Very well! I'll do that at some point (if no one is faster).

Maybe I should put it up then or it will never get done?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 456386)

Did I misunderstand?

I agree with Bliss but...

Lets read the 3rd point again...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Seems it will damage the pitch which will return to fine and then overspeeding of the engine that will cause the damage.

Maybe I should put it up then or it will never get done?

I thought the overspeeding prop after an engine cut was already modelled in this sim. Seems I have to quickly reduce throttle or the revs quickly climb above 3500+ when the engine restarts. Am I wrong on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 456393)

You guys would know better than me but as Robo is a red pilot 1st I thought him offering to add it as a bug / feature ment it was not.

Ive just been thinking about it actually and it applies to a CSP. Is this not an automatic pitch propellor? What mark of engine is this manual for?

Trying to research this myself but red stuff is all new to me, found this:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/batt...ropellers.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 456393)

What is the rev tolerance? It is very strict in the 109. At the moment the engine rev reach the 3000 rpm, the engine immediately starts to shake, and start losing the power (and it will stop some time later, but it depends the throttle). This is absolutely correct, this is in the operating instructions ("if the engine reach the 3000 rpm, if the plane landed, the engine have to replace, and inspected for damage").

For example, if the Merlin XII can survive the 3600 rpm longer than 20 seconds (or the 3600+ any seconds) in dive, then it should be fixed (of course, the various throttle/boost may reduce these limits).

Quote:

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom (Post 456400)

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:

1) is too stable
1) is too easy to bring sights to bear on target
1) won't enter into a vicious accelerated stall & spin and destroy aircraft
1) rolls too quickly in a dive above 400 mph IAS
1) shows no sign of deceleration with open canopy
1) employs "sonar" when canopy is open
1) neg g cutout does not occur quickly enough with the latest beta
1) quick engagement of elevator control at speed will not over stress and destroy aircraft
1) wings absorb far too much cannon shell punishment
1) IIa is 60 mph too fast ....oops, not any more!
1) flying a Spitfire forces one to use bad tactics and no TS teamwork
1) lands and takes off far too easily
1) prolonged inverted flying doesn't cause oil sump to run instantly dry and destroy aircraft
1) engine cutout doesn't cause CSP to go fine pitch, over rev engine, and destroy aircraft

So much to do, so little time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 455924)

the Spit was easyer to fly because it had light and responsive controls as opposed to the heavy controls on the 109

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html
4.6. Flying Controls. – 4.61. Ailerons. – At low speeds the aileron control is very good, being similar to that of the Curtiss H-75 ; there is a positive " feel ", there being a definite resistance to stick movement, and response is brisk. In these respects the Me.109 ailerons are better than those of the Spitfire, which become so light at low speeds that they lose all " feel ".

"At 400 m.p.h. the Me. 109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply about 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. ; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to 45 deg. bank is about 4 secs. Both aircraft thus have their rolling manceuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html
"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109. Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and significantly disturb the aiming."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 456404)

So much to do, so little time!

You forgot the part about the Spitfire never having participated in the Battle of Britain at all, which wasn't really a battle anyway, and it's all a conspiracy theory invented by Marilyn Munroe and Elvis who currently live on a double decker bus on the dark side of the moon.

Your problem with BugMeNot is the source you reference is Kurfursts "109 Worship Website".

@Snapper, nice post mate, us red sissyfire-cheat-whiners deserve all this, plus the hilarious 109 drivers who finally have a go in the Spit and say "nothing wrong with this" LMAO