Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[IvanK]

Other than the Italian fighters (whose design load spec was amongst the highest of all nations in WWII), 12G Symmetrical would most likely result in some sort of structural damage/failure in pretty much any WWII fighter (and just about any current fighter as well). Rolling G damage would occur at very much lower values.

Structural G modelling is in IMO poorly modelled in CLOD and was the subject of debate before release.

This is thread drift though

Edit: Basic Spitfire Design load was 10G. Source : Spitfire at War vol I Ch 19 "Stronger, Safer Swifter" by Eric Newton MBE,Ceng,FRAes

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah right, now we are into the theatre of the absurd with claims that at least 80% of Spitfires would lose their wings because tests and the Spitfire Pilot's Notes say so.

I guess that means that the NACA Spitfire V lost its wings or, at the very least, flicked into a high speed stall then spun. I don't see anything in the NACA tests showing this, nor do I see 80% of Spitfire pilots claiming that they lost control, went into a high speed stall and flicked into a spin - unless they were the ones who lost their wings.

[macro]

10g. Blimey thats past blackout isnt it? Will be ok i rarely push it that hard.

[Crumpp]

Blimey thats past blackout isnt it? Will be ok i rarely push it that hard.

Depends on the onset rate and exposure time.

You won't necessarily pass out in RoR (rapid onset rate).

GoR (gradual onset rate), you have been asleep for a while!!

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Yeah right, now we are into the theatre of the absurd with claims that at least 80% of Spitfires would lose their wings because tests and the Spitfire Pilot's Notes say so.

He said "ingame", and he's right knowing the skill of many players out there (myself too): it's not a matter of plane, it's a matter of how hard they pull the stick.

There was a problem in IL2 1946 v4.10 about the 190s' negative G-force: with the stick's linear setting at 100 you had not to push the stick at high speed at all since the wings would come off (many times it's happended to me and my teammates, and my main KIA reason): instead you could pull as you want.

If I understand correctly Robtek asks to have the same effect linked to the pull up manouvre in a Spitfire (but far weaker compared the one above, that was horrible and I noted that in HSFX6's Hellcats!): in this I fully agree with him.

[robtek]

The pilots notes warn explicit that ripping of the wings is possible if not carefully flown.

The short stick travel and low force needed to get high g-loads are undisputed, aren't they?

The manual even say that the pilot has to brace himself not to get pilot induced over-g in bumby conditions.

If one pulls the joystick half the way back that would be equal to about 6 inches in RL -> as there is 3/4 inch for a 3 g load, which will even climb when not released immediately, 6 inches would either snap the wing, or result in a hi-speed stall with following spin, and blackout.

Other planes, i.e. 109, where the stick force and travel (lateral) are larger by far, should't react this way, as it is now.

Generally, a longer stick travel gives the pilot much more fine control, here in the pitch axis, and that should be modeled.

[Crumpp]

Will be ok i rarely push it that hard.

All of this will be ok. Most of the fandom in this thread do not understand the big picture.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All of this will be ok. Most of the fandom in this thread do not understand the big picture.

Here we go again, Crumpp knows all while everyone else, apart from those who agree with him, know nothing.

[macro]

If this was moddeled by robtek explaination could we not just get round it by making the joystick half as sensitive, if you know what i mean.
It would give unfair advantage over109 astheres is limited by how far the stick can move instead of pilot overpulling it
I am a fan of the spit,, i dont know an englishman who isnt.

[winny]

Some info on bob/inertia weights fitted to Spitfires.

It was first trialled in the prototype MkIII, then a MkII

From everything I've read the reason it was fitted was that lots of pilot's were writing off airframes by overloading them. Bent wings were a bit of a reccuring theme. Caused in the majority of cases by pulling out of a high speed dive or too tight a turn.

In June 41 it was decided that all Mk V's should have inertia weights fitted.
3.5lb for a VA and 6.5lb for a VB

After RAE trials it was decided that all the following marks must have the 6.5lb weight fitted. Mks F VI, PR IV, VI and VII, Seafires I and II.

No weights needed for Mks I and II and V's, provided that with the browning only wing the rear oxygen cylinder was removed, and with the cannon wing the oxygen cylinder, signal discharger and IFF radio were removed.

In '42 a VB Merlin 45 (BM589) did handling and stability trials with special reference to pull out from dives and tight turns. Tested with and without 6.5 lb inertial weight. (This after reports from pilot's who did not like the inertia weight). The outcome was that it was suggested that the inertia weight only be fitted into aircraft (V's) with the Rotol prop.

The inertia weight was quite unpopular: Hornchurch reported "All pilot's are beginning to complain" Biggin Hill " Condemned for making Spitfire difficult to land and reducing manoeuvrability" Kenley "Did not notice effect of the weight but opinion of the Spitfire was in general, low" Tangmere "Do not care for the the device"