Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Martin

10. Off topic discussion - in full or in part. Purposeful and/ or continuous off topic discussion.

Here's a quote from another interesting sticky. Start another thread if you want to keep going.

[robtek]

I think the fact that you have to return the stick almost to neutral after entering a high g turn (>3 g) to prevent oversteering in a Spitfire should be in game, also the very sensible elevator with large reaction for small inputs and the roll rate as documented.
This will be a problem for ham-handed pilots, but a delight for the virtuosos, as it was in RL.
I don't see that as "porking" the Spit further, but to give it the characteristics that made it famous.
Every aircraft in CoD should reflect its pro's and con's as they where documented then.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by robtek

I think the fact that you have to return the stick almost to neutral after entering a high g turn (>3 g) to prevent oversteering in a Spitfire should be in game, also the very sensible elevator with large reaction for small inputs and the roll rate as documented.
This will be a problem for ham-handed pilots, but a delight for the virtuosos, as it was in RL.
I don't see that as "porking" the Spit further, but to give it the characteristics that made it famous.
Every aircraft in CoD should reflect its pro's and con's as they where documented then.

+1

[robtek]

Sorry bongo,
but your posts can be more readily interpreted as
first: a attack on the person, not the post
and second: as the endeavour to keep the status quo of the spit controls.
You seem to be too much emotional influenced, imo.
But thanks anyway, for supporting my position.

[MiG-3U]

Ok, one more as I've been asked how to do the CoG calculation.

The dimensions can be found from the AB197 graph:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197datum.gif

and from page seven of the RM2535:

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/dl...rc/rm/2535.pdf

Lenght of aerodynamical mean chord (MAC): 78.54"
Location of datum line: 18.65" behind leading edge at MAC
Aft limit at MAC: 34% 26.7036" behind leading edge
Aft limit at wing root: 2.638' = 31.656" behind leading edge
CoG used by NACA: 31.4" behind leading edge at wing root

The rest is simple math:
Aft limit behind datum line at MAC: 26.7036" - 18.65" = 8.05"
Datum line behind leading edge at wing root: 31.656" - 8.05" = 23.6024"
NACA CoG behind datum line: 31.4" - 23.6024" = 7.7976"
NACA CoG location at MAC behind leading edge: 18.65" + 7.7976" = 26.4476"
NACA CoG % at MAC: 26.4476" / 78.54 * 100 = 33.6741%

Over and out.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by robtek

I think the fact that you have to return the stick almost to neutral after entering a high g turn (>3 g) to prevent oversteering in a Spitfire should be in game, also the very sensible elevator with large reaction for small inputs and the roll rate as documented.
This will be a problem for ham-handed pilots, but a delight for the virtuosos, as it was in RL.
I don't see that as "porking" the Spit further, but to give it the characteristics that made it famous.
Every aircraft in CoD should reflect its pro's and con's as they where documented then.

These characteristics you describe are NOT representative of all Spitfires. Therefore they should NOT be in game. Read again my post on stability. It affected *some* - and it seems I need to remind some people here that does not mean all - Mk V aircraft. A Mk V is NOT a Mk I, or Mk II.

All I can suggest is that you guys go away and read the books I've read, go further make even more research and come back and make an informed opinion then. Please for pity's sake do not take the one single example of an agenda driven poster as gospel.

The NACA test discovered what they discovered - I can't argue with their findings, FOR ONE PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT. However I cannot agree that these are representative of the breed. And as for relevance, well, I've said it already. A Mk V is not a Mk I.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

The NACA test discovered what they discovered - I can't argue with their findings, FOR ONE PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT. However I cannot agree that these are representative of the breed.

What is it about the tested aircraft that makes it not a representative sample of the other aircraft?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

What is it about the tested aircraft that makes it not a representative sample of the other aircraft?

There are some awkward little phrases in the NACA test viz:



Now, until Crumpp, or anyone else, can prove beyond reasonable doubt that NACA got their cg calculations right there is a question mark over the longitudinal stability of this Spitfire VA as tested.

[CaptainDoggles]

You know Crumpp's right about expressing CG as a percentage of MAC. The Datum point doesn't have to be in the same spot for the results to be valid. That's why it's called a datum point.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

You know Crumpp's right about expressing CG as a percentage of MAC. The Datum point doesn't have to be in the same spot for the results to be valid. That's why it's called a datum point.

Crumpp wasted countless hours nitpicking the 100 Octane threads with minute, forensic examination of every single little detail - his contention, that the early marks of Spitfire had longitudinal stability problems which needs to be replicated by this game, needs to be proven to the same level that he demanded for 100 Octane fuel; nothing less should do.