Topsy

Hey Art-J, thanks for your response. Sorry about the black on black, was unaware of the pb as I tend to prepare texts elsewhere then copy/paste. Good you pointed me back to the manual which I hadn't re-read recently. The fact that the plane flies 'neutral' (in DCS) with 2 notches of Nose Up is almost what I get at certain speeds. Pitch trim in my setup may be altered by the fact that I use a replica control column with asymmetric fore & aft throw in an effort to replicate the movements of the real thing. This means that my rest position could be slightly forward of true center (ie giving nose down input in the sim) - I am not sure how well the Windows calibration takes asymmetric centering into account. The DCS Spit manual p109 states that the gauge indicates the position of the trim tab. However in the image shown this seems wrong as with the trim tab up, the elevator goes down and the aircraft pitches nose down. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of drawing 30034 SHT 9. Nearest i've got of the Instrument panel is 30034 SHT 10 which effectively refers to drawings 30034/9 or 30034/42 for this gauge. However I take your point about this being a sim, it not being necessarily perfectly true to life and that the module is now getting old. DCS do announce from time to time updates on WWII modules. On the Spitfire there are tons of threads about the startup procedure being different to the AM Pilots Notes, plus other issues. I have posted about the DCS control column cinematic which incorrectly rotates fore & aft around the elevator control rod attachment. Even if Nineline responded to this, it doesn't seem to bother people much as we rarely look down into the well in front of the seat - but it does effect the relatively feeble amount of column fore & aft visual throw in the sim. These "errors" frustrate Spitfire lovers and we are envious of the time and effort that DCS spends correcting seemingly minor details on other perhaps more modern aircraft. Regarding modern warbirds, I guess they fly at meetings with minimal amounts of fuel, they hopefully don't carry war mission loads, so they are surely trimmed differently to wartime aircraft. Anyway thanks again for your time and interest.

Does the elevator trim gauge on the DCS Spitfire show the correct settings ? Firstly I should tell you that I am not a real world pilot and I only have basic knowledge about aerodynamics. My aim here is not necessarily to gripe about bugs, but more to understand if my interpretations are right and if not why. An apparent inconsistency occurs on take-off, where the AM Pilot Notes, suggest to trim 1 notch nose down at normal loads - and this works fine in DCS. What is strange, is that when raising the undercarriage one would expect that without the friction of the wheels on the runway and the drag on the landing gear, that the aircraft would naturally tend to pitch up. However in DCS it is necessary to quickly add nose up trim to get the aircraft to fly level - this is counter-intuitive. When lowering the gear and flaps for landing in DCS it is necessary to add more nose up trim - this seems perfectly logical. When flying at a cruise setting of 6 boost and 2650 rpm at around 260 mph the DCS Spitfire flies level with the elevator horn balance slightly raised above the tailplane horizontal centerline. This seems to be correct as when looking at photos of real Spitfires in level flight their elevators are often trimmed slightly down with the horn balance slightly raised. However in the DCS cockpit we see about 3/4 notch of NOSE UP trim on the gauge. This again seems counter intuitive as with an elevator trailing edge trimmed slightly downwards one would imagine that the aircraft is being trimmed to raise the tailplanes, ie it is being trimmed nose down. So how does one explain that the aircraft is physically trimmed slightly nose down while the gauge indicates slightly nose up ?. At greater trim settings the gauge correctly translates what is effectively happening to the aircraft a-o-a, so why does it seem to show an inverse reading at cruise settings ? Does this mean that the Spitfire mainplane profile induces variations in pitch at different speeds ? For information, my non scientific home made table of trim settings at various flight phases & speeds with relevant DCS AoA. Flight Phase Mph Kn AoA DCS Cockpit Gauge Alt Ft Aircraft on ground 0 0 11,8° na na Cruise level flight 265 228 - 0,2° up 0,8 3,000 Climb 2K/min 160 143 + 2,0° up 0,9 10,000 Gear Down level flight 160 145 + 2,6° up 1,2 2,000 Gear & flaps down level flight 140 114 -0,7 up 2,6 2,000 To conclude, I guess that DCS more or less correctly models the elevator trim action, as when winding the trim up or down it does have the correct effect on aircraft pitch and the visuals of the tabs tend to match with the real aircraft maximum angles of 20° up and 7° down. Is the issue more to do with the in-flight centering of the cockpit gauge ? Or have I missed something ? Does the seemingly bizarre effect in DCS exist in the real aircraft ?

With the latest DCS announcement of fixing Warbird bugs-anomalies, the issue with the Spitfire control column rotating about the elevator actuator rod, instead of being fixed at the base and moving the elevator rod, is still not corrected. Flying the aircraft with the current DCS control column visuals should mean that there is no action on the elevators and with the bottom of the column moving fore & aft that there should be some significant stretching of the aileron control cables, which would technically generate aileron flutter ! Another impact of the the column not rotating fore & aft about it's lower fixing point is that fore and aft amplitude of the spade grip is reduced and is thus not realistic. Earlier in the thread people have advised that ED would need to do major work on the cockpit to rectify this - they may have a point, but I have seen many other bugs attended to by ED that I am pretty sure were not 'simple' fixes. My son works in 3D animation, and I can't believe that correcting the control column visual is such a difficult fix. In a separate thread the incorrect engine start up procedure has been noted - this is still incorrect and does not involve re-doing any graphics - its a simple (?) question of software programming. So please ED please have a look at these two minor bugs.

What is the correct interpretation of NOSE TRIM on the Spitfire instrument panel gauge ? Example : when flying at a cruise setting of 6 boost and 2650 rpm at around 260 mph the DCS Spitfire can be trimmed for level flight with about 3/4 notch of NOSE UP trim per the gauge. When looking at the tailplane one sees the elevator horn balance slightly raised above the tailplane horizontal centerline. This seems to be correct as when looking at photos of real Spitfires in level flight their elevators are often trimmed slightly down with the horn balance slightly raised. With an elevator trailing edge trimmed slightly downwards one would imagine that the aircraft is being trimmed to raise the tailplanes, ie it is being trimmed aircraft nose down. So how does one explain that the aircraft is physically trimmed slightly nose down while the gauge indicates slightly nose up ?. At greater trim settings the gauge correctly translates what is effectively happening to the aircraft a-o-a, so why does it seem to show an inverse reading at cruise settings ? To conclude, I guess that DCS more or less correctly models the elevator trim action, as when winding the trim up or down it does have the correct effect on aircraft pitch. Is the issue more to do with the in-flight centering of the cockpit gauge ? Or have I missed something ? Does the seemingly bizarre effect in DCS exist in the real aircraft ?

Thanks Ala13, hope they get round to fixing it one day - i'll take your word that it's not an easy fix.

I've been flying the Spitfire for some time now but I have only just noticed a problem with the control column. I built myself some replica Spitfire MkIX flying controls, in particular the control column, to get a more realistic feel of the amount of movement required for pitch and roll. While roll movement seems to match up perfectly in DCS, pitch in DCS always seemed less than on my home built control column. I must say that I have a spring loaded strut fitted with asymmetric fore and aft stops to replicate the true column "throw". While this always intrigued me in DCS, it was only yesterday that I took a look down into the cockpit to watch the DCS column movement and to my surprise I saw that it rotates around the elevator control rod. ie when you pull back on the column, the elevator control rod remains fixed and the foot of the column way down below the cockpit floor moves forward. Suffice to say that the true situation is that the bottom of the column should be fixed, and when pulling back, the column should move the elevator control rod aft. This is not dramatic and does not affect flying, but if someone at DCS would like to fix this some day, we should get more realistic fore and aft control column movement. BTW to save searching here are the parameters for control column angle. Fully forward : 90° to fuselage datum (ie vertical) Rest (neutral position) : 79° (ie 11° aft from fully forward) Fully aft : 64,7° (ie 14,3° aft of rest position). When everything else on the Spitfire is so well modeled, it's a bit of a pity to have this anomaly.

Thanks guys. Egg on my face ! I didn't realize that the default MH which appears when the field is empty got overwritten when you added more than three characters in the serial number. So a customer need well anticipated by ED ! I trust that my post is nevertheless of use to those who are looking for appropriate serial number ranges for the Normandy landings period.

I made myself a replica control column which has no hard centering, just an adjustable friction control on the roll, so that the spade grip stays where you leave it. On pitch the column finds its own soft center thanks to two opposing springs. It is very important to trim out rudder and pitch, but with my set up I can fly hands off for a while.

Having done some research on Spitfire LF MkIXc's, with the Merlin 66, operating in June & July 1944 in Normandy, I note that the following serial number ranges were present for this model of Spitfire : MH, MJ, MK, ML, NH, PK, PL, PT, PV. However in the board number box in the load out menu we are limited to 6 characters, 3 for the squadron 2 letter code & aircraft letter and 3 digits for the serial number, with MH inserted by default as a prefix to the serial number. Example of current situation : entering LOD526 in the board number = LO°D MH526 on the skin. I wonder if ED would consider adding two characters to this field so that users could replace the default MH serial prefix ? (without having to create new skins). It would be a real plus for those squads who would like to re-enact missions of the era and who like to fly in historically accurate markings. What do the rest of you think about this ?