British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[Glider]

JtD
I wouldn't disagree with your summary, nicely put.

[Crumpp]

Glider says:

Give us more than your theory

What Theory???

What are you talking about????

[Crumpp]

Long period oscillations were not. This was however, typical for aircraft of that era

If it is typical then we should have a huge list of designs.

I can't wait see this long list!

I can only think of three designs that suffered from this issue.

Now how many continued on in service with this issue without it being addressed and fixed?

That is a very short list....

NONE

[Crumpp]

So, to sum up the latest spin on the Spitfire instability....

On to dynamic stability - short period oscillations were sufficiently damped by the Spitfire. Long period oscillations were not. This was however, typical for aircraft of that era, and opposed to what one poster claims, fighter aircraft of that time in general were no hands off aircraft. In fact, the Spitfire stability in long period oscillation is above average from what I've seen, much better than say a Hurricane. .

It was not a big deal, it enhanced the aircraft's combat capability, and those meddling engineers said,

"Hey we can't have the Spitfire be better at everything, let's pork the stability by adding these inertial elevators!!"

One of NACA's chief test engineers states that all fighter aircraft they tested were dynamically unstable in long period oscillations. .

Please point this out. I smell a misquote or misunderstanding!

[winny]

Seriously?

We're back to using a MK V test to change the FM for a MK I/II again are we...?

[SlipBall]

I've been flying red for a few weeks now, the 8 guns are very addictive!

[Crumpp]

We're back to using a MK V test to change the FM for a MK I/II again are we...?

All the early mark spitfires, until fixed with inertial elevator systems had the instability at aft and normal CG as tested by the RAE.

The NACA gives us the more detailed measurement and insight into specific behaviors. Unfortunately, the RAE did not have the level of sophistication or equipment at the NACA disposal.

All we can prove is that the RAE said the early marks were unstable at aft and normal CG, we have one measurement of stick forces, stability diagrams for long period oscillation.

We can prove that the basic stability characteristics in the game are not representative of the real aircraft.

Technically, you are right though, we don't have the level of detail provided by the NACA reports from the RAE and none of the NACA material is about the early Mark Spitfires.

Maybe your right and we should not model the stalling characteristics of the Mark V either.

Just go with what the Spitfire Mark I and II Operating Notes say about the sudden, violent, stall that results in immediate spin if not corrected.

[robtek]

No, crumpp,

[irony]dont you know that the famous pre stall warning of the Spitfire made it physically impossible for the pilot to enter a high speed stall, let alone the following spin?
There is no way that a pilot could ignore this mighty shudder and move the steering column another quarter inch to get this violent reaction, even with only a few pound pressure needed.
No sane pilot would do this, so it doesn't have to be modeled.[/irony]

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Technically, you are right though,

Aww, thanks.. x

You see my point though. Save it for if and when we actually get a MkV.

The temperature 'issue' is more interesting atm.

Got any data on that?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by winny

Aww, thanks.. x

You see my point though. Save it for if and when we actually get a MkV.

The temperature 'issue' is more interesting atm.

Got any data on that?

Having gone through the Battle of Britain Then and Now Mk V I can say that 33 Hurricanes and Spitfires were lost or damaged through non-combat related engine failure, while 43 Bf 109s were lost or damaged because of non-combat related engine failure between 10 July and October 31. Given the relative strengths of the aircraft types this would be a fairly even attrition rate.