bongodriver

I'm sure a 5 year old would struggle if you gave them the keys to a spit too.

They did just fine, saying the Spitfire was not as good a gun platform than a Hurricane does not necessarily mean it was not a good gun platform.

Correct, a condition that any aircraft will suffer with a CG to the rear.

Well no, what it actually said is it was not considered dangerous if flown by experienced pilots, you know, experienced as in they are regularly flying and have done so for some time, a bit like military pilots do really, at no point did I read any embellishments such as very experienced and extremely dangerous.

A bicycle is unstable when standing still, they become stable when moving, balancing with feet off the ground on a stationary bike is difficult, riding a bike is easy, likewise flying unstable aircraft is very difficult to near impossible (we have computers to do that for us now), the Spitfire was famously easy to fly, 19 year olds with 10 hours on type were flying into combat and anybody with time on the type has said exactly that, it is simply not unstable.

Not a big deal really, as your document shows the MkIX Spit was well within the range at full fighter load and even had capacity for some fuel in the rear tank.

Surely you have the figures switched, even Crumpp has done the 'math' and shown the rear CG limit to be 9" on the Spit, it's actually 9.9" on the shown rear fuel tank tests.

Yes, you did say that, many many times over many many forums for a long time now, and we are still waiting for the evidence, I mean actual evidence, not a NACA report on the wrong aircraft and a bunch of hypothesis. Got anything on a Spitfire MkIX? Yet the MkIX Spitfire was the key to countering this very aircraft and did it very effectively. I've almost heard it all now, a stability 'margin' is not 'felt' the stability of the aircraft is what is felt, if the aircraft 'feels' stable then it actually is. in a single isolated test on a completely different mark know for its loading issues. This caveat should be the opener to your posts. Other than putting bigger heavier engines, lengthening fuselages, redesigning internal structures, redesigning wings, tails and control surfaces you are absolutely correct, if you don't change a MKV it is still a MkV. You may need to read that again, it states that once 34 gals had been used (approx. half capacity) from the rear tanks the CG was 9.9 inches aft of datum, that is within range, it states clearly that 34 gallons burned was sufficient for the aircraft to engage in combat manoeuvring.

I don't believe anybody is talking about anything other than the standard definition of stability.

You're having a laugh surely? in a thread titled 'why is the Spitfire Mk IX still unstable', where he even makes a specific note that the Spitfire stability margin is 36.2% MAC and therefore in fact quite ordinary. making the point that changing the AC requires redesigning the wing, fuselage and horizontal stabiliser and immediately contradicting himself by denying any of those factors had an effect on the Spitfire, relying on a theory that the Spitfires light controls were the problem and then contradicting himself by denying the redesigned elevator solved it. The only thing the OP does consistently is to have his crackpot theories shot down and then skulk off to hide and leave you to try and clear up the mess. There is nothing obscure in the meaning of stability margin, if you are inside the margin the aircraft is stable.....simple as that.

Don't hold your breath, it's already being discussed, apparently using the controls as they were in real life is cheating and the issue has been marginalised to the 'white noise' bin. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=148094&page=21 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135556

Rotary trimming is not available in the 109 in game, it can be assigned to a rotary control but it doesn't work properly, it acts as if switched, if you make a small rotation on your controller the trim wheel continues to turn to full travel.

The OP's claim is a pure fantasy, there is no need for evidence beyond the materials he includes, one has to simply look at the documents in their entirety and not the cherry picked extracts. There is evidence already provided how the relatively mild instability issues of previous marks were solved, the onus to prove MkIX instability is with the accuser, it would be refreshing to finally see someone admit this whole topic is dead in the water. Aircraft instability with rearward CoG shift is a universal phenomenon, but 'someone' has a weird habit of putting Spitfire in place of the word aircraft.. Phrases like 'pool of snide remarks' are simply return fire from another 'usual' participant.

I generally find computer simulation rudder to be a little too sensitive and I'd really like a force feedback rudder one day, in real life it's quite easy to deal with lightness and sensitivity in pitch and roll, but no feedback from the pedals is just odd to me. Yo-Yo made that post and was referencing a report on a MkV, if we end up with a MkIX with a MkV FM then something has gone hideously wrong.

if the redesign changes the weight then it will have an impact on the CoG, and therefore will change the AC/CoG relationship. Tends to? or does, tends suggests it could go either way and is purely circumstantial. NACA tested a MkV, not a MkIX, maybe we should base 109G data on 109E data? His point still stands, it is you who claims with outright conviction of Spitfire MkIX instability without a shred of credible let alone official evidence. Look at the mess you make of it :music_whistling: 2 pilots of different skill levels would have different conclusions on a standardised aircraft, what a daft thing to say. Yes, a bob weight was fitted as a precaution while exploring the limits of the rear CoG range, sounds like a sensible precaution, it also mentions the weight only being fitted for 'some' tests, but it certainly never became a production feature. the normal CoG 'range' has moved back because the MkIX has more weight in the nose compared to a MkV, CoG range and CoG are not the same thing, this simply means more weight can be distributed further aft because it has more built in weight in the front. effectively meaning the MkIX is less critical to a rearward CoG. This makes sense as the MkIX could be fitted with an aft fuel tank and post war be converted to a dual seat trainer. it doesn't retain the instability, there is no evidence of it, it is purely an agenda led claim made by you, it's really quite shocking to see how someone can be so bare faced.

You said in the opening post that changing the length of the fuselage is an option, so I remind you that Is the case with the MkIX and you contradict your own theory........why am I not surprised. If the 'datum' is the end of the nose then it will change, but thanks for confirming the simple fact the CoG location is changed.

No, strangely enough I can find no comparison with a spitfire and the spirit of St. Louis. You are aware the Mk IX spit was longer in the nose than a MkV aren't you? You are aware this will affect the 'datum'?

Right, and the Mk IX had a redesigned elevator.....so what is your point? Also you claim that the AC is unchanged in the Spitfire therefore it remained (in your opinion) unstable, but you bizarrely forget that the stability is a relationship between AC and CoG, and CoG most certainly does change, especially in the Mk IX with the longer nose and bigger/heavier engine, you also even more bizarrely seem to suggest that a rearward CoG uniquely causes the Spitfire to become unstable when in fact this is a universal phenomenon and in this thread you have simply highlighted how Supermarine overcame an issue arising from the condition in a more sophisticated manner than crude mass balance. It has taken you months since you got 'stuck in south America' to fabricate this sad and desperate response to perpetuate your famous agenda and you didn't even do a good job, it's still a recycled and irrelevant NACA report on a MkV and huge contradictions.

it states clearly the bob weight is not recommended for the redesigned elevators.

rudder pedals sometimes had foot loops, it's possible to push and pull on a rudder pedal, maybe he used the better leg/prosthesis to do that, there is no denying Bader could use the rudder or he couldn't even taxy a Spit, you still need to operate the rudders to operate differential braking. I guess in theory it is still possible to push/pull on a pedal with an above knee prosthesis if you have enough leg stump to move. Amazing achievement for this man to be a top scoring ace with 2 missing legs. not a pleasant man by some accounts but nevertheless a very inspiring one.

using the trim on a rotary control is hardly anything to do with being an octopus, there are people who just want to use these sims for fun, act out a little historic nostalgia, set up the controls in a way they are comfortable with, not everyone needs to wave their E-peens around in fierce online competitiveness, it's not as if any one aircraft will benefit more than others.

We can't use the 109 trim on a rotary controller properly, it only works as if switch operated.

Which actually took less time than the ground demo.

I haven't brought a problem to the table, the only perceived problem in this is some sort of advantage/exploit of 'automatic' trim/flaps, but the fact is the current implementation of trim and flaps used on a rotary axis does nothing to eliminate this, you can still turn your pot and leave it to operate the flaps/trim, it does however just make life confusing for people expecting true to life behaviour from a rotating control on their physical hardware. I'm not asking for a means to cheat, I'm just asking for the current means to 'cheat' make some physical sense. As far as your timings of the flap control go, I have already checked in game and it seems to be true to life, I averaged 15 seconds to deploy flap and a couple of seconds longer to retract (retracting is physically more restrictive as demonstrated in the video)

VR is coming, keyboards will be useless, mouseclick helps.