Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[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?

[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!!

[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.