Cripple

Still beavering away with the sanding. However I've had my thinking cap on too. Currently I'm considering using this foam underlay from B&Q for skinning her - it's fairly cheap, easy to bend, easy to handle, aluminium on the outside (!), and gridded (which will make the application of the split-peas for rivet heads sooooooooooooooo much easier). Anyway, pics. I'm very happy with how the framework is looking. :)

1) I'd agree with that, and take it as read that the Pilot Notes say that (haven't got them to hand). I've certainly read that in some official document recently. 2) Mrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp! Nope. You have fallen in to the common fallacy (as we discussed earlier) of comparing a 2015 sensation of "pleasant" to fly with one from 1945. A plane could be unstable, but markedly less unstable (or have mitigating positive characteristics...) than the *contemporary* competition - resulting in it still being described as quoted. By way of analogy, I am sure that a number of hotels described as "pleasant" in the 1940s would not be described so favourably in the early 21th century (if unchanged). I suspect the lack of Wi-Fi might be commented upon... ;)

+1 And thanks for posting that article earlier. It will help a lot with the control-loading for my wee Spit.:)

Please don't feed the trolls. I smell a Sock-puppet... The typos are too deliberate and the barbs too focused. Anyone been banned recently?

Troll alert.:doh: It's not BF4. It's not an easy "game" to get in to, which tends to have people who can't stick at it to say it is "bad". Bottom line: does DCS have any direct competition? No? Well, it'll tick along just fine then... (However I agree that some more overall focus is required, rather than just adding Joe Dev's Brother's Cousin's Boyfriend's favourite jet trainer... again).

Actually, here's a suggestion. Remember how German's are portrayed in UK/US war films? There are three types: 1) English Germans. Usually officers, who speak with RADA English accents. 2) Accented Germans. Zey still speak ze English und mit ze heavy accent. 3) German-Germans. Usually front-line troops, who speak single words or short phrases in their native tongue. "Hande Hoch!" etc. So, how do we adapt this when regionalising the game? Well, plot or exposition should be in Accent 1, radio conversations in Accent 2, and short cockpit announcements etc should be in Accent 3. Kinda seems the best compromise between immersion and comprehension.

I'd like *my* native language for the Spitfire when it comes out. That's English... English (or Scots Standard English, if we are being picky), not American English.

Actually I'm doing something very similar for the (as yet unreleased) Spitfire IX. A) Just go for real-life P-51 dimensions. One can assume that the DCS cockpit is modelled accurately. Any wee inconsistencies can be ironed out by adjusting virtual position of the headset as and when. B) Nothing "extreme" per se. I looked in to doing a P-51 before I settled on the Spit. The P-51 cockpit is pretty much a box, the control stick is of the usual type, the throttle has a sensible number of levers (unlike the P-40...), and the majority of the switches simple toggles. There a few odd ones though... I'd advise gathering as much info as you can on the P-51 internal dimensions (starting with the free stuff) and work up a couple of sketches from there. You can also look at the cockpit models used for detailing larger scale model aircraft to get a feel for how everything fits together. Keep us posted on how it goes.

Strictly speaking that isn't logic... :P So, we are suggesting that the correct weight was added to give "necessary to achieve the flying qualities they wanted in the Mk9", yes? That doesn't mean it magically became "stable". Nor can we assume that raw "stability" was foremost in the minds of those who added the weight. Actually, we can't assume anything, can we? I agree that we should essentially be using Occum's Razor to simplify this discussion down. However you seem to be adding more (unsubstantiated) suppositions to an already muddied field. Nae ice-cream just yet... :smartass:

It's not actually "obvious". In my experience what we personally believe to be obvious often needs to be made explicit in order to avoid confusion over semantics. My point is that we, the prospective players, are not (in the majority of cases) trained pilots - let alone ones who are trained on vintage tail-draggers. Ergo, what the 1940s pilot manual might describe as "easy" should not be taken at face-value and considered easy by 21st century gamer standards. (By way of an analogy, I suspect most of would find manipulating two analog thumb-sticks to be "easy" in a way our hypothetical time-travelling NACA employee would not.) Actually, there is really no need for the facetious comments to try and make your point. In fact, I agree that concessions must be made to avoid alienating prospective simmers - a point I made elsewhere about not expecting desktop "pilots" to have 300+ quid of Warthog on the desk, and rudder pedals under it (it just becomes a lot easier if you do). That however, is a designer/FM/accessibility issue, not ours.

I don't want to rehash the point I made earlier, but that we have to qualify the terms "stability" and "easy" by adding "for a trained pilot, and compared to other aircraft of that period". We could also add "(not Joe Console who has just graduated from playing with his thumbs"). I believe elsewhere it has been noted that it would be a lot easier to control the Spitfire "quirks" (as I shall diplomatically call them) with a full scale column that with a desktop joystick.

Nails, that's really nicely done! How di you do the fuel gauge (they are like gold-dust) and the labels? (I've got a wee box full of period switches all ready for the later stages. The only problem is that the old toggle switches are just too addictive not to play with...) I hope DCS do a Hurricane at some point. It's a good basis for all sorts of fun variants too.

Well said. I suspect that all parties here are actually more in agreement that some of the posting would indicate. I don't think the OP is suggesting that the Spit IX bucked like Bronco, but that there was some inherent lack of stability (whether he can "prove" this is a separate issue, but it seems she didn't fly like she was on rails - as you say). Similarly, I too have read the favourable contemporary reports about the Spitfire's handling (compared to other contemporary aircraft, one presumes), and concur that these are at odds with the OP's assertion, but am cautious about use of anecdotal reports as evidence - particularly when the underlying concept of stability has not been defined to the satisfaction of all parties prior to discussion commencing. In short, I too am on the fence.... but it is an interesting point to discuss and ponder. Personally I hope the option of flying with a full rear tank is in the final release. It would be interesting for us to see how "stable" or otherwise she really is. Which is the beauty of simulators - you push the envelop and experiment in the way you just don't with a (very expensive!) flying museum piece.

So, you'd agree that - as it is a "sliding scale" (rather that three discreet states) - one individual's definition of neutral *could* be defined by another as unstable, yes? The definition being mostly subjective and based upon the relative skill and previous experience of the respective pilots.

Any proof to back that statement up? Cos I'm seeing at least three sweeping and unsubstantiated claims in a single sentence... a) "experienced" equates to simply "above average" in (piloting skill). "Average" is not defined. b) a pilot who was flying regularly can be considered "experienced" c) a "typical" pilot in a squadron would be flying regularly enough to be considered experienced (Note: the terms "average" and typical should be made explicit too.)

Ooooo! That was very interesting reading. I knew from the pilot's notes that the use of rear tank was strongly contra-indicated, yet it was never fully elaborated upon why this was the case. Thanks for sharing that. Links back to what I was trying to say initially though: should be thinking of "Stability" as a sliding scale, rather than an absolute?

No pics in this update as it's just tedious fine sanding and filling to get the ply and strip-wood to a nice surface for painting. Maybe it's overkill as it's just the frame, but it would be annoying for it to detract from the finished 'pit. Oh, and I can't stop grinning when I look at (and touch) the work so far. It's a very satisfying wee hobby this, isn't it? (For anyone thinking about start a simpit... Start! You'll learn loads of new skills and have nearly as much fun as you would flying it.)

Which isn't the point, is it? And certainly doesn't help the argument that the Spit was inherently stable. The thing is, I agree with the majority of your argument - everything I have read seems to indicate that contemporary pilots considered the Spitfire to be a relatively easy aircraft to fly. However I'd want to ask "compared to what?".

"Riding a bicycle is easy" - try tell that to a five year old, or someone who's never been on one... Instead it is a learned skill that becomes second-nature. Which is rather like flying or indeed flying the Spitfire. The crux of this debate seems to be whether the Spitfire IX was inherently Stable/Unstable, not how easy it was to learn to fly one (which is a factor of *how* stable/forgiving an aircraft is, rather than a litmus test of absolute Stability/Instability). (As an aside, I watched a documentary on the Mig21 last night. From this is seemed that the introduction of computer-assisted control was due to the increase in aircraft speed. The need for an aircraft that was stable at Mach 2+ lead to an aircraft that became unstable at sub-Mach speeds. That does not mean the aircraft was Unstable per se - in fact it was very stable at the speeds it was expected to engage the enemy, but landing again would be a bitch. :P Yes, I am aware that later fighter jets were designed to be Unstable throughout their flight envelope in order in increase manoeuvrability, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)

Ummmmmm... really? "If an aircraft feels stable (to a particularly pilot) then it is stable - QED"? I think this is what I alluded to when I suggested thrashing out a definition of (In)Stability in my earlier post. If we can take a step back from WW2 aircraft for a minute and look at the common bicycle. Is it "stable"? a) "Yes. Of course it is, don't be silly. Children can ride one. I see people riding them every day and they don't fall off. Proof." b) "No. The Bicycle is an inherently unstable machine and requires both sufficient velocity and a sufficiently experienced rider to dynamically balance the machine... risking over-controlling at slow speeds and Rider Induced Oscillations (remember those?) in the handlebars. Maths and stuff." Which is correct? Erm, they both are... depending upon how you *choose* to define Stability.

If I was a betting man I'd say "no". I was under the impression that DCS-2 and the second modern map were in the pipeline before it... neither of which has surfaced yet. The poor Spit, which made an appearance in the 1.5 beta, is still lacking cockpit textures and a properly rotating prop. IIRC that was a cock-up and it's "not even ready as an AI adversary" yet. Waiting (semi-) patiently here myself...

Great episode. Very interesting. "Proper" voice-over too... :P https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WedlI91iZG8

I think the clarity of this "discussion" would be helped considerably if the main participants could take a step back and agree a mutual acceptable definition of Stability (and, by association, Instability). It's refreshing to see that Ad Hominem arguments are not tolerated. At least not on this thread...

Agreed. And very eloquently put too...

And things get even more interesting once one starts ejecting little ballistic projectiles (aka "bullets") from the front of your aircraft... I've attached several pages from Wing Co. Donaldson's 1943 Notes On Air Gunnery and Air Fighting (as compiled in Fighting In The Air, 1978 ) for info. Short version of this is as follows: - Bullets go the way the plane is going, not the way the plane's nose is pointed. These are not necessarily the same. - The way the target's nose is pointing may not be representative of his flight path. - You must be flying in a coordinated manner in order to shoot straight. - Your rudder is only "trimmed" at one airspeed (duh!). Climbing or diving to engage the target will change this airspeed, requiring a change of trim to compensate (again, duh!). This should be done instinctively and with the rudder pedals rather than with the trim tabs to allow it to become second nature in combat. - Never use your rudder alone to nudge your sights on target as you will immediately impart skid/slip/sloppy-flying. Bank and use the rudder to remain in coordinated flight. - These slips and skids are barely perceptible, and therein lies the danger... (It may also be worth remembering that this is not Star Wars, and these bullets take time to fly to their target. So one is firing where you expect the target to be, rather than where it is when you press the button. If the target or you aren't pointing exactly the way you are flying... Well, you can see the problem. Oh, and that's without even touching on the other wee foibles of ballistics and aerial gunnery.)