bongodriver

I get pitch up at all speeds.

it could be something as simple as the increased angle of downwash actually stalling the tailplane and causing a pitch down.

As far as I can tell it's a representation of a clean wing in a wind tunnel and possibly a computer model at that.

Hopefully Yo-Yo can answer your question jcomm, on the face of it, it does sound at odds with the manual, it would be surprising if the manual gives the behaviour for a unique set of conditions rather than normal. Maybe the manual is wrong?

Lancaster, Halifax, Wellington. B17, B24, B25, B26 Ju88, Do17, He111

I pretty much use DCS in the oculus exclusively so am not sure if this is oculus specific or a general bug. Whenever I shoot down an enemy and the pilot manages to bail out the pilot and his parachute disappear from view shortly after bailing and seem to reappear some time later shortly before hitting the ground, I tested this further by landing near the spot of my victims crash site and watched for the pilot under canopy and noticed that he would be invisible if I was looking directly at him but would pop in to view if I turned my gaze away slightly.

All matter of opinion of course, there are some who think primary trainers have their place, the choice will always be our own as to what we purchase.

...

I think it's only the FC3 aircraft that don't have clickable pits.

The Harvard has some vicious stall characteristics too and will flick without any warning.

Really, you spend almost every waking hour on forums trying to convince people about the Spitfire, it is very personal to you.

Stop questioning everybody's understanding when they put you on the spot, I understand perfectly well you don't know what you are talking about. I certainly don't need you to explain anything to me.

Nope, nothing missed, you simply haven't answered the question. it's not surprising to hear your theory it does both and in each case it's just wrong, it is after all one of the main themes of your agenda. Actually I'm not confusing anything, I really am keeping it as simple as it should be, the Spitfire loading diagram from A&AEE distinctly shows that there is 19.5" from the datum to the LEMAC for a MAC of 84", you can muddy the waters with the theorised NACA MAC of 85" and a different datum point all you like, you are not producing valid results to compare between a MkV and MkIX unless you use the same dimensions, you are creating a diversionary roadshow of your amazing math skills trying to dazzle the audience with your brilliance, the fact is you are just producing garbage. MAC is fixed in the design of the wing, if Supermarine calculate a MAC of 84" then that is the MAC and there must be 19.5" between it and the datum....end of story, 85" is a MAC for some other design of aircraft with different dimensions and therefore not a comparison in this case, you simply cannot arbitrtarily shift the position of LEMAC from the datum, it is fixed in the design.

Not really, they are surprisingly well damped, I have seen them left unlocked in aeros and it's really just a drag issue, you can still do a loop but you need to pull through quicker before you run out of energy. if you did lose the top wing you'd end up with no wings as biplanes need both to maintain the whole structure.

Shape/design....same thing in this case, the MkV and MkIX have the same datum point and the same airframe/wing so there will be no change in LEMAC. So, same datum and same wing no? or are you about to change the story again? Which intake? Spitfires had a few different intakes of various length. I'd hold off on acting like a condescending smartass, you really haven't got a grasp on anything yourself. 1. never fitted to production MkIX's 2. if you say so 3. if you say so none answer the actual question, was the redesigned elevator to increase or decrease stick forces?

did you have the leading edge slats unlocked? they must be locked shut for aerobatics in the real thing, if they are not then they create huge amounts of drag when they deploy and that can make all the difference trying to complete a loop.

Wow, I just noticed you really did say this.....talk about garbage in = garbage out LEMAC is fixed in to the shape of the wing and has nothing to do with adding length to the nose, you can't argue this point because you were at great pains to emphasise this very fact yourself at the beginning of this thread. if you wish to maintain this theory then it throws all comparisons between MkVa and a MkIX completely irrelevant. Even I agree that with the exception of the elevator and some changes to the underside of the wings (radiators) a MkV airframe behind the firewall is the same as a MkIX. Yes, we have been witnessing the endeavours of your fantasy for a long time now. So which is it? did they redesign the elevator to reduce or increase stick forces?

No, you are the main culprit for discussing MAC The NACA MkV does not have the late war elevator which even you have demonstrated makes a difference in behaviour.

I did not find a reference to 6.8Lbs/Gal in the A&AEE test report only the 7.2lbs in the load sheet, no need to be offended, it's just the 6lbs and 7.2lbs are exact figures relating to US/Imp Gallons so it seemed reasonable to consider a mix up.

He has mixed up between US and imperial gallons, it is 7.2lbs for imperial and 6lbs per US gallon.

I'm not building hours, it's keeping me ticking over after losing my Private charter job on the Learjet, puts the smile back on my face though, plus I fly Tiger Moths for someone else.

here's another video that sort of demonstrates stability, let's see how long it takes for the penny to drop.

NACA did not test a MkIX in your report and 7" is nearly as far back as you can load a MkIX without rear tanks, how did they get a MkV to 7"? without loading it tail heavy?

A CG limit that a MkIX with full war load (no rear tanks) and including tail ballast would not even reach....yeah they really limited the hell out of that. Funny how modern MkIX's with rear tanks have higher aft limits just like the wartime ones and shown in the many type certificates I didn't cherry pick.

No, it's the aft CG when all rear fuel is burned but still has a pilot, ammo and full forward tanks, which is well inside the CG range. I already said your maths is irrelevant here, we already have all the data we need.