Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[robtek]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

No.. are you?


Please re-read my post and note that I never said you did..

I simply noted how hypocritical some of the blue minded members in this forum can take one airplane trait, in this case the acc stall 'flick' and refer to it as a negative trait when talking about non-blue planes and refer to it as a positive when talking about blue planes..

That is to say I was not specifically talking to you, as much as I was talking about some of the the blue minded members of this forum.

In short, if the shoe fits, ware it, if not than don't.


Interesting..

So you agree that both the Spit and Fw190 had this trait..

And you also admitted how it can be a good trait when used to escape..

Yet in your previous post, when talking about the Spitfire you made no mention of the positive..

Only the negatives!

And it was not until I called you out on it that you agreed this trait can be a good thing.

Which speaks volumes about you IMHO..

For future reference

A more balanced approach, that mentions the pros and cons, would have brought a bit more credibility with it.

It is always boring when the old red vs blue flag is waved again.

You should remember that it is not about this trait that we are talking, but how to get there!

Willingly or inadvertently?

Of course it was done, as a last resort, even as flick maneuvres were explicitly forbidden in the pilots notes.

Also there are enough Spitfire fans which will point out every positive aspect possible.

Even in a very specific thread where by now at least 50% of the posts are slightly or completely off topic.

Even some of mine, sorry for that.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by robtek

It is always boring when the old red vs blue flag is waved again.

You should remember that it is not about this trait that we are talking, but how to get there!

Willingly or inadvertently?

Of course it was done, as a last resort, even as flick maneuvres were explicitly forbidden in the pilots notes.

Also there are enough Spitfire fans which will point out every positive aspect possible.

Even in a very specific thread where by now at least 50% of the posts are slightly or completely off topic.

Even some of mine, sorry for that.

Flicks were not forbidden in the MkII notes

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by robtek

It is always boring when the old red vs blue flag is waved again.

Agreed 100%.. Which is why I was so surprised to see you waving the blue flag here in this spitfire thread.. In that your posts are typically balanced.. But here, clearly your bias was playing a part when you only made note of the negative aspects of this trait.

Originally Posted by robtek

You should remember that it is not about this trait that we are talking, but how to get there!

Willingly or inadvertently?

Agreed 100%.. I noticed that you (and others) were only talking about the 'inadvertently' case.. Which I suspect was done because it was the most negative aspect of the trait.. That is the reason I brought up the 'willingly' case to show how there is a positive aspect to this trait.. And to point out how the blue minded members typically only bring that aspect up when talking about the Fw-190.. Your post is a perfect example of this.. In that you knew in advance there was a positive aspect of this trait.. But you made no mention of it 'here' in this 'spitfire' topic.

Originally Posted by robtek

Of course it was done,

Glad to see you agree with me

Originally Posted by robtek

as a last resort,

I don't know if I would go as far as to say last.. I suspect the order in which it was used depended a lot on the pilot and how comfortable he was with it and the situation at hand.

Originally Posted by robtek

even as flick maneuvers were explicitly forbidden in the pilots notes.

Got Link?

Originally Posted by robtek

Also there are enough Spitfire fans which will point out every positive aspect possible.

Oh don't get me wrong!

I realize there are blue and red biased members of this forum

Just up until now, I always considered you to be pretty balanced.. but now I see you have your moments of bias too!

Originally Posted by robtek

Even in a very specific thread where by now at least 50% of the posts are slightly or completely off topic.

Even some of mine, sorry for that.

Enh!

Topics are like a river.. They flow and bend and change direction.. No big whoop! Mater of fact I think one would be hard pressed to show any thread that has not had more than one or changing topics.. Except for the ones that get locked within the first page!

[IvanK]

So what is this thread all about ? The stated purpose by the OP is:

This thread is going to cover the definable and measure stability and control characteristics of the Spitfire. It is not going to cover opinion outside of stability and control engineers.

What this thread is not going to do:

1. Get into a debate about "easy to fly". It is not definable and has no bearing on the measured facts.

2. It is not going to discuss the sustained level turning ability of the aircraft. That is also measurable and definable. For Example, anyone who is capable of doing the math will see that the Spitfire outturns the Bf-109 is steady state constant altitude turns at low velocity.

It has now become the OP's intent to raise this as an issue for the Bugtracker

The issue is that a bugtracker item should be about some genuine bug. That assumes the author actually presents proof that the bug exists. Has he done that ? All I see is too and fro about Real World Spitfire stability. Not much about actual in game behaviour. The OP has stated that he doesn't even have the latest Beta version installed.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...4&postcount=12

Now we have yet another huge thread (53 pages as of today !) with opposing views that has supposedly become the ammunition to support a Bugtracker entry that the CLOD Spitfire FM is porked stability wise. 53 pages of discussion but not as far as I can see ANY actual attempt to determine if the existing game FM is actually porked stability wise. The OP opined a while ago that he found the Spitfire hard to trim accurately in pitch .... and which he also said that would make sense considering the stability characteristics of the real aircraft... which (if we accept the stability argument is correct) implies that the current FM stability wise (at the time of his comment) is reasonable.

So how about before raising a Bugtracker defect report the actual defect is demonstrated.

For the record lest we forget The OP has also made comments like :
".......and a dangerous instability exhibited by the Spitfire."
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...4&postcount=34

[CWMV]

Thank you Ivank for dropping the hammer!
/thread.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

You seem to forget that there is a very distinct difference between slow speed stall behavior, which is desirable, and high speed stall behaviour, which might result in a flick roll and is undesirable.

You just mix the resulting explanations as you like.

Absolute nonsense, both reports combined define the desirable stall behaviour as being both slow speed and high speed - the only one placing a false interpretation on the resulting explanations is your good self and Crumpp

The Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that it could be flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable. Violent buffeting occurred, but the control stick could be pulled relatively far back after the initial stall flow breakdown without causing loss of control.

Neither of the NACA reports make the completely unquantified and unsubstantiated claim made by Crumpp that the turn performance was curtailed:

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by robtek

Sorry, i didn't know that you are that old to be participating on the selection process then.
But please enlighten us all with your first hand knowledge.

Oh so if I didn't happen to be participant of the Battle of Britain I have no reason to point out that your opinion is wrong (with all due respect)?

/On the other hand, some other people in this thread would say my precious memories are just anecdotes anyway and they would prefer some piece of paper with a graph drawn on it /

robtek I understand what you're saying, but you are wrong that pilots were selected for Hurris or Spits on the criteria of ham-fistness.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Flicks were not forbidden in the MkII notes

Ok, in the Mk II notes "AIR PUBLICATION 1565 B" is written:

34. Flick manoeuvres.- The high-speed variety of flick-roll
or flick half-roll must ON NO ACCOUNT be done. It is liable to
cause severe strain, is clumsy and uncomfortable, and, being extremely
easy, has no training or other value of any kind. But a flick-roll
at low speed, and low r.p.m. done very gently, is a useful exercise
in timing and control at low speeds, and prevention of spin. It is
done by throttling well back, slowing down to about 140 m.p.h. A.S.I.,
and then very gently easing the stick back and, at the same time,
applying rudder. The nose will rise and yaw, and, as the control
angles are steadily increased, the aeroplane will suddenly start to
"auto-rotate", or flick. If the stick is kept back the aircraft
would then spin, but, as soon as the aeroplane approaches an even
keel (at about the moment when the wings are vertical) the stick is
put forward, and, as the flick ceases, the controls used to steady
the aeroplane until the roll is completed. If this is done too
late the aeroplane will continue to flick, until it does part of
a turn of a spin; if done too soon the flick will stop, and the
rest of the roll must be done by aileron control, in the normal way.

ON NO ACCOUNT CARRY OUT FLICK MANOEUVRES EXCEPT AT LOW SPEEDS,
but remember that low speed makes spinning more likely if the controls
are mishandled. Ample height should be allowed (see Stalling
and Spinning, paras. 17 and 19). other variations of loops, rolls
and so on may be carried out.

The word forbidden is missing and at slow speed they are allowed.

[Crumpp]

Exactly. And it was the only unstable oscillation with the Spitfire.

Did you read the NACA report? Do you need me to highlight the part about long period oscillation is not considered????

Do you understand that none of the Operating Note warnings or NACA measurements include anything about long period oscillation.

The RAE measured stick free oscillation. The NACA measured stick fixed.

In otherwords, the early mark Spitfire was not a hands off aircraft. Left to its own devices, it would eventually destroy itself without pilot input in conditions it was divergent.

[JtD]

You're repeating what I said yet you try to make it sound as if you disagree with me. Why?