Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

Where is your evidence that Supermarine was under no obligation to correct the Spitfire?

They knew about it in 1936!! Do you really think Supermarine is that stupid it took them four years to fix it???

It cost's money to add things to an airplane. Even more money to fix an issue that is the designers fault.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

They knew about it in 1936!! Do you really think Supermarine is that stupid it took them four years to fix it???

It cost's money to add things to an airplane. Even more money to fix an issue that is the designers fault.

Who knew about what in 1936? and no Supermarine were not stupid. And what relevance does the last statement have to with anything?

[Crumpp]

How did NA comply with the "standard" when they fitted the P-51B/C/D with rear fuel tanks

They restricted its use when full to non-combat flying. It was prohibited to dogfight with a specified amount of fuel in the tank.

That was so the CG would be within specs......

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

They restricted its use when full to non-combat flying. It was prohibited to dogfight with a specified amount of fuel in the tank.

That was so the CG would be within specs......

So, NA issued instructions to the pilot - isn't that exactly what Supermarine did in their Pilot's Notes?

And again I ask where is your evidence that Supermarine was not obligated to "correct" the Spitfire - what were they doing when they added bob-weights and later modified the elevator?

[Crumpp]

So, NA issued instructions to the pilot - isn't that exactly what Supermarine did in their Pilot's Notes?

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."

Don't you think in a simulation, players should have to deal with it by careful flying??

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."

So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard?

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard?

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway.

First of all, it's been said already that not all the aircraft met the standard.

Secondly, why is it important? What difference does it make if Britain had a standard or not? Who cares? You keep bringing this Did-they/Didn't-they topic up over and over, but it's completely secondary to the purpose of this thread.

This thread is supposed to be about coming up with a good body of evidence so that the developers can add proper handling to the game. Are you saying you don't think players should have to deal with it by careful flying?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This thread is supposed to be about coming up with a good body of evidence so that the developers can add proper handling to the game. Are you saying you don't think players should have to deal with it by careful flying?

Yes, I agree, there is lots of room for improvement regarding the handling characteristics to make this game more realistic. I find flying in this sim a bit too easy in many aspects.

I'd like to see similar control lockup we have on the Hurricane on all planes, especially at 109s elevator and Spitfires ailerons. All in all, I very much like the increasing forces in the joystick as the airspeed rises, they are just somehow not balanced properly at this stage. I'd like the devs to fix the trim response (esp. elevator) so we're not able to perform this ufo-like manoeveurs anymore. I'd like them to fix the Spitfire flaps issue where you can exploit it and turn tighter if it needs be. Of course they should make the Spitfire elevator control a bit twitchier, but that o me is just another small detail. I could go for much longer with listing this small FM flaws (that is still my opinion only, ymmw).

For this particluar issue you'd need to have a proper atmosphere modelled so we can feel this bumpy air (we don't because we're flying through vacuum apparently). We would also need to have the structural G-Limits modelled so we can not do crazy stuff like we normally do. We don't have that either at this moment. Also HW issues can never be considered properly. Everybody has got different joystick and would be able to tweak the elevator curve (or sensitivity) accordingly anyway. With my game-time in the Spitfire I'd note that the plane is very unstable already compared to the 109 or G.50 or Hurricane. It requieres certain skill to control it at certain situations, e.g. keeping nose straight at the speeds close to the stall. Spitfire, she is a twitchy beast already, you'll see that when you try her a bit more

You're saying this thread is about 'coming with good body of evidence' so the devs can benefit from it and perhaps fix this issue. To me as unbiased observer it rather looks like this thread is about certain people showing off with their preferences and about trying to get certain things porked. This thread is also about avoiding questions and providing selective evidence or ignoring the counterarguments. It reminds me very much of John Cleese library sketch as they provide any information by cutting the unwanted bits and bobs so the result is ''England never lost a cricket match in last 70 years.'' I am not sure if you're familiar with it but you should watch it, it's hilarious. Not as hilarious as your kindergarden post but close enough. Funniest thing is that one of this guys dosn't actualy fly this sim at all and the other (that is you Doggles) only flies Messerschmitt. None of you 2 has got a clue about Spitfire stability in game to start with. But do carry on.