Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

The RAF did not have a Pilot's Handbook either, they had Pilot Operating Notes. Your post is nitpicky and irrelevant.

Sometime in the 80's by convention, everybody got on the same page as far as airworthiness documentation formats. Until then, the required information was in each nations own format but still required.

Completely wrong, neither individual CG drawings, nor weight and balance sheets were issued with the Pilot's Notes

Read the first paragraph of the very first document you posted. The specific weight and balance for that serial numbered aircraft is found in the RAF with the Aircraft handbook.

By convention, it is part of the airworthiness of that specific aircraft and part of the aircraft's maintenance documents. There will also be seperate engine, airframe, and propeller logs.

[Crumpp]

until Crumpp can prove that NACA had calculated the cg position correctly

It is proven. The math has been done several times in this thread. It is not my fault you don't understand it and continue to argue in ignorance.

If you start another thread, I will be glad to go over MAC calculations with you.

The only important information is the NACA's report is their percentage MAC.

What you are taking as evidence of an error is the NACA explaining how they did the weight and balance (percentage MAC) and their numbers might not match.

Percentage MAC does not require the specific numbers to match as long as the margin of error is the same throughout. It is a non-dimensional proportion!!!!

Look at your RAF documents!!! The RAF has the MAC as both 84" and 78.54"!!

Do you really think the RAF did not know what the wing chord was on their own airplane???

Because of the stations chosen for LEMAC and TEMAC, the NACA choose 85" as the MAC.

The fact that has to be explained over and over to folks who pass themselves off as "Gods of Aviation" is puzzling at best.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The RAF did not have a Pilot's Handbook either, they had Pilot Operating Notes. Your post is nitpicky and irrelevant.

First there is a Pilot's Handbook and then there is no Pilot's Handbook.

[TomcatViP]

You shld open another thread on Crumpp.

But it might be that an edito in the next Cosmopolitan issue will be more suited to your prose.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Crumpp does that alot, he hopes he can hide it in the reams of pseudo-braniac blabber.

It is truly hilarious that he says his own post is nitpicky and irrelevant.

[fruitbat]

I await with interest his thread on the 109.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I await with interest his thread on the 109.

Indeed, that's the one I'm really looking forward to aswell.

[Crumpp]

It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

Holy out of context, Batman!!!

You shld open another thread on Crumpp.

I am hoping the Mods will just clean it up. Delete all the pointy-tin foil hat "NACA can't do weight and balance" and sour grapes comments from "lurkers with an agenda".

OK, let me put it another way, what behaviour would you expect to see?

In layman's terms. What do you expect the Spitfire to do that it isn't already doing in game? Without going into the game engine.

Something like 'if you do xyz then this happens', please.

Just so everyone understands what it is you're asking for, not just the brainiacs..

Winny, I have a few more post's to put out before we get into the nuts and bolts for the game. Let's not put the cart before the horse. I would like to get somewhat of a consense and some input from people who know more about the limits of the game.

I hope that after defining the stability and control behaviors that represent the early mark spitfire, we should be able to produce a list that is reproduceable in the game.

[gimpy117]

well personally I would expect a much lower Roll rate at speed, and a very sensitive Unbalanced Elevator (unbalanced meaning it needs much more roll input than pitch).

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Winny, I have a few more post's to put out before we get into the nuts and bolts for the game. Let's not put the cart before the horse. I would like to get somewhat of a consense and some input from people who know more about the limits of the game.

I hope that after defining the stability and control behaviors that represent the early mark spitfire, we should be able to produce a list that is reproduceable in the game.

Put the horse before the cart? You're on the CLOD forum so I just want to know, even in a ballpark kinda way what all this means to a Spitfire in CLOD.

I can look at this thread all day and I'm never gonna be able to relate all this info and graphs and whatever else to what is actually supposed to be happening to the Spitfire?

Treat me like the idiot you normally do and spell it out for me!

Are we talking a small amount of movement, wobble, or whatever it is that this instability creates, in RL?

You keep saying that it's unstable but I still don't know What you actually mean.