NightRush

The simple answer here, there is no known or published data on the full G-Limit of a Spitfire C wing. There is data as someone pointed out earlier where testing was done on damaged wings. I have worked on the restoration of a airworthy Spitfire, as well as the maintenance of a already flying aircraft. One a Mk IX and a Mk XVI. In the certified world of aircraft, in North America atleast, none of our aircraft had a G limit imposed by the airframe, maintenance manual or POH as there is quite simply no data on wing overload G limits. We did however impose company limits, as well. We are not at war anymore. So to put a simple answer, the pilot would and should black out before the aircraft ever thought about over stressing and breaking a wing. DCS should reflect that in my opinion.

Hey Sith Im not talking about in the takeoff run, but taxiing the aircraft. In the takeoff prop blast seems to be taking effect fine and loading up the tailwheel, and it behaves very reasonably. The times when the tailwheel is acting like a shopping cart, is at taxi and slow manoeuvring speeds. The other time is at landing when there is no power, instead of the tail-wheel wanting to centre at touchdown speeds it has a tendancy to caster instead of track the aircraft. Of course here the tailwheel should caster if there is any side load due to not landing straight and the tail starts to swing. Example, imagine the tailwheel had been spun around in flight and is facing 90 degrees to the fuselage centreline. When it touches down the tail wheel should immediately centre to the direction of the aircrafts ground track. (In real life it will shimmy, and the tail wheel will eventually dampen out) However what feels like is happening in DCS, is the tailwheel from this position would continue to divert and have no tendency to track the centreline/ground track of the aircraft at touch down

I probably should have mention that I am an aviation engineer, and have experience taxiing and operating Spitfires on the ground

Yup it did, however the external oil sump only has a pick up at one end, the low end right under the engine. The sump is directly under the engine following the cowl line up, the far end just being a cap. Because of the angle it sits on there is considerable air gap inside the sump for the oil to slosh into when inverted Compare that to say a Pitts Special which has a pick up and breather on both the top and bottom of its inverted oil system.

The aircraft can withstand negative G, however it can not handle sustained negative or inverted flight. There is no inverted oil system, and no inverted fuel system. So the engine wont cut out immediately but it will after several seconds of sustained negative G or inverted flight. If the engine doesnt cutout from fuel starvation, it will eventually seize from oil starvation.

Hi! I have several bugs here I would like to report with the Spitfire! First thing, beautiful aircraft the work that has been done is fantastic. Engine The problem is the in game engine model does not have any Automatic Boost Control. How this behaves in game, is that after setting a given Boost setting with the throttle and the aircraft either climbs, descends or RPM changes the boost is either rising or falling. In the real aircraft, the Automatic Boost controller is maintaining any given boost input through a operational range. So in practice what this means, that if in a climb I set 8" boost at 2600RPM the controller will maintain 8" of boost until the engine reaches its "boost critical altitude". Where the set RPM and air density is not sufficient for the supercharger to provide the set boost. From here the throttle will be wide open, and boost will continue to drop until Supercharger Hi kicks in or critical altitude is met. Now the solution to this, is probably only going to come with a educated guess. I looked through all my manuals and I can not find a Automatic Boost operating range. Not being a DCS developer I cant really help too much. However my idea would be to use a time to climb chart for the Merlin 66, find the transition point from where the engine no longer can hold 12" boost before Supercharger Hi and work back from there. For any subsequent lower RPM setting the delta between air density would be reduced. Anyway, snipped from the appropriate maintenance manuals. The information can also be found in the Rolls-Royce Two Stage, Two Speed Engine Maintenance Manual; Publication No TSD 94 Ground Handling Tail Wheel Castering Tail wheel, currently in game the aircraft's tail wheel behaves like a shopping cart; in that is has reduced or no centering force to bring the tail-wheel aligned under the fuselage centerline. So what is happening in sim, the aircrafts tail refuses to stay behind the main wheels even when centered, and no external force is added (Power applications or wind) In real life, while it is true the tail wheel is free-castering that is not the full story. The tailwheel design has a built in weight and geometry centering. I will do my best to describe it here with images and words. The first is the weight/geometry holding the tailwheel centered. The axis that the tail wheel rotates through horizontally is on a tilted plane. Unlike say a shopping cart where the wheel rotates in a plane parallel with the ground, the wheel has a high point and a low point in its travel. What this means is for the tail wheel to move from its centered position, there needs to be enough side load to compress the tail wheel oleo strut to effectively raise the tail. As the contact patch of the tail wheel rotates to say 180 degrees to centreline, the angled plane mean the wheel is in a "lower" position that when it started from its trail position. (See next picture) Please note that the image is showing the tail wheel oleo uncompressed, ie no weight on the wheel (and also those sweet sweet photoshop skills) This means the tail wheel has oleo compression force centering the tailwheel once there is forward movement. Ontop of which any elevator and prop blast forces needed to be added to this as well. The other centering force thats acting on the tail wheel is simply the wheels axis is behind the yawing axis/horizontal plane. This trail force naturally makes the tail wheel want to be behind the rotating (castering) axis due to friction. What this means in practice with the above two scenarios, is as the aircraft starts rolling forward the tail wheel naturally wants to allign itself with the center line of the fueslage. However in game, we currently have a tailwheel that wonders around aimlessly. It however does feel like it has some centering force as ground speed increases and elevator loads hold the tail wheel to the ground. But its at the slow speeds where the tail wheel should have a little bit more natural centering force. Once the aircraft is at a walking pace, brakes should only be required to turn the aircraft, not keep it straight (in a zero wind scenario) Main Gear Struts After a fair bit of testing, as much as I can in 3 days. The main undercarriage oleos are just slightly out in regards to dampening/spring rate and oleo compression. This shows itself initially when starting the aircraft as it rocks back and forward, its hard to make a definitive point from an animation so Ill use handling instead. Currently as side load is added to the gear when taxiing or landing, the aircraft simply falls over on a wing. There is little or no progression/takeup load on the outside undercarriage oleo of the turn. My theory is based in reality, that the oleo part of the undercarriage absorbs some side load (ground loop force) as it compresses. In game it feels like this is not happening, that simply the side loads on the main gear is being directly sent to the fuselage, with very little absorption though the gear legs. I think the solution would be slightly decreasing the dampening/spring rate (I know there is no spring, but its the force we are talking about here). its probably just worth mentioning the spring rate should be progressive and not linear due to nitrogen being the "spring". This would allow more progressive uptake of torque and side loads on the fuselage/undercarriage. Also this would in turn allow the oleos to have slightly more travel in compression. Its only a very small thing (The main gear thing) But if the physics within the sim are good, it will greatly enhance the model of the aircraft. The end Thanks, I really hope this helps with a beautiful plane. Regards Rush

Hey Habu_69 Threw together a quick video for you, sorry its a little sloppy production wise. But in anycase hope it helps. Rush twitch.com/aerosimgaming

Just a little video I made up talking about pursuit curves specific to the Mustang vs FW190. Showing energy management, and how best to maintain energy using different pursuit curves.

I would go as far as saying in the history of aviation there has never been a rudder that is so effective, that it can put an aircraft into a flat spin from 350KIAS, with a flamed out engine. Ever. The size of the control surface, in no way shape or form could overcome the drag of pushing the aircraft sideways through the air the way it does. The control would buffet and stall long before we have an aircraft turning sideways into a stream of air at 300 KIAS even with an engine running. I mean 2000+HP Piston aircraft, with huge amounts of slipstream effect pushing on one side of the vertical tail cannot do this. Aircraft like Edge 540's etc can do things like this, but again at vastly lower airspeeds. They have a short fuselage, huge controls, and slipstream, not a jet thats shaped like a dart. I can agree that the Mirage could spin like this; with a wing stall, incorrect control inputs, at stalling angles of attack. However this is no other control input other than rudder and at 350KIAS, straight and level

Table 1.2 list countries that the F-86 was exported to but Canada is missing, even though other countries are listed as operating CL-13's Australia could probably be listed as another export country, with the C-26/27. Although you could argue it was a completely different airframe. I mean these are listed in the text, but just seem to be omitted from the table

Yeah I tried that, cleared all bindings on all devices. Just ran keyboard and mouse, same thing. Its not the trim switch that isnt moving, But the stick in the cockpit and the tail. When you set trim before 2.0.1 the entire stick is displaced as you trim. So trim nose high the stick would move towards you, and tail would move. This doesnt happen, all I get is the Take off trim light comes on if you hold nose up trim long enough. In flight, triming in anyway has zero effect on the aircraft's pitch or roll

Yup, I reset controls to defaults used keyboard bindings. The take off trim position light comes on as if the trim has moved into takeoff position, but nothing moves. Control stick, tail plane, anything. This is on the NTTR 2.0.1 map, not 1.5.2 Edit: Ill do a repair and see if that does anything I did a DCS repair, uninstalled the module, reinstalled same thing :(

Here we go, quick video of the problem. Credit where credit is due; atleast the engine complete flames out during this maneuver, however after I recover the next lot of spins is done power off; showing it has nothing to do with thrust; but all to do with the apparently Nimitz aircraft carrier sized rudder. Also it was not shown in the 2.0.1 patch notes, but new in game sound can be confirmed. This ads a lot to the game play elements, increases the tactical element and also confusion to enemies. I am really glad they went ahead with this decision.

Hang on ill make a video

It seems elevator trim does not work. When setting trim for take off the, take off position light shows. However the control stick does not move, nor does the actual tailplane. In flight there is no change to trim, nose up or down. The lateral and longitudinal alternate trim switches also are non functional. This makes the aircraft basically un-flyable; with full aft stick displacement needed just to get the nose wheel to lift on the takeoff roll