Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[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.

[Crumpp]

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

IvanK, all of this is measured, defined, and easy to test in the game.

What question do you have on how to test it?

[IvanK]

None just eagerly awaiting the results of your tests.

[41Sqn_Banks]

[robtek]

One thing that isn't represented in game is the possibility to rip the wings of the Spitfire with a sudden stick movement of about 50% travel at cruise speed, exceeding 10 to 12g this way.

If that would be in game, 80% of bounced Spitfires would loose their wings as the instinctive reaction is to yank at the stick.

According to the tests and pilots handbook it should be that way.

If the wings aren't ripped off at least a immediate hi speed stall with a flick into a spin should occur.

That also isn't so in game, the Spitfire lateral controls are by far not sensible enough.

The ailerons then are too sensible.

[macro]

Do we know what 'g' a spit would break up at?

Interested as not seen this written anywhere. Will look later when home from work unless someone else is bored?