Damocles

Finally had a chance to try T/O and landing circuits with the latest update. Certainly considerably easier to keep a straight line during T/O and landings, with a lot less tendency to swing or drop a wing. Landings also seem more forgiving with less ballooning if you misjudge your speed, although this also seemed to be the scenario that if I was going to ground a wing, it would happen. I wonder if this is down to changes in the damping for the main gear, it seems like it might have had a shot of viagra damping ? If I have any questions though it's the apparent shortness of the take off run, which always takes me by surprise ( It might just be a question of perception rather than actuality) also, for some reason their seems to be a lack of longitudinal stability just after take off that doesn't seem to be there during any other phase of flight, even when I try to recreate fishtailing once airborne.

Jeff Ethell's Pireps http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/supermarine-spitfire-134209906/ "All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop. Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life." Then there is also this: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/255/Flying-the-Spitfire--with-Mike-Potter.aspx "The only challenges on landing are poor forward visibility and the need to be pretty comfortable with three-point landing technique. A gently curving approach to the runway threshold will solve the visibility problem. (And, by the way, all those World War II Spitfire veterans were taught that way and will expect to see it.) Over the fence at 90 knots and a last look speed of 80 knots and you will be well set up. Take a good look at the cross wind as you come short final and program your mind for how much side slip you want to feed in on the flare, because it is not easy to judge the drift once that long nose starts to come up. Flare to a tail low or three point attitude, remembering again how light and responsive the elevator is, and enjoy the arrival. It may jiggle around a bit on that ridiculously narrow undercarriage, but there is no mean streak in this airplane. Although the tail wheel is free castoring, the big rudder is very effective as long as you are reasonable fast with your feet. Oh, and easy, very easy, on the brakes. At this point it is worth a moment’s thought for the Spitfire’s arch rival in the sky – Messerschmitt’s Bf109. When our Spitfire pilot disengaged from a fight and headed home, his thoughts might easily turn to a beer with his buddies in the pilot’s mess. The 109 pilot, on the other hand, must have still been giving some serious thought to getting on the ground safely. While the Spit is such a pussycat, it is estimated that about one third of all 109’s built were destroyed in take off and landing accidents with major loss of life. It is reputed to be a very difficult airplane to land."

Sounds like a controller conflict. I would check all axis inputs in the control panel, especially any that are tied to rotaries. You can also try turning any rotaries to their opposite direction and see if they cause you to veer to the opposite side. Also check that the brakes on/off isn't reversed.

It can be fitted out with a pretty lethal bomb dropper though :megalol:

If you don't see a bandit in your mirror, you're a dead man, you just don't know it yet.

I appreciate what your saying metzger, I'm just saying I seem to have more success, keeping tabs on my opponent if I look up and around rather than just purely left or right, given the present situation, whether it's realistic or not. Yes, Mr Burns, mirrors would be wonderful, it's just that they're a bit of a luxury at the moment and one that I can't afford.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before although a quick search pulled up nothing and as I've only recently discovered it I may as well pass it on just in case. Checking six is a real pain, one trick that helps me is, not just trying to turn my head right or left and look over my shoulder, but to look up and to the right or left, as appropriate, with the emphasis on the up. Sure it's not perfect but it helps me see that little bit more during those tricky dogfights.

:pilotfly: https://www.iafashions.co.uk/products/maclarenspitfire :D

Sorry Yo Yo but that is totally irrelevant. It's obviously a training machine, not a front line fighter and if the colour is anything to go by, nothing like PRU or Desert pink, then it definitely calls into question the attention to detail in other parts of the build.

I haven't time to try it now, but I don't doubt you for a second. It does beg the question though, if the retro fitting of a tail lock was so effective on the 109, why wasn't a tail wheel lock also used on the Spitfire if the Spitfire also had problems with ground loops ? I'll have to do some circuits in the 109 tomorrow night with the tail wheel unlocked. :joystick: :D

Am I correct in thinking that the weight balance of the Spit, fore/aft, i.e further forward was in the Spits favor, in mitigating against ground loops compared to the 109 ?

Pilfered/plagiarized from elsewhere, (not written by me) but adds something to the debate I think. "Ok, we're getting closer You have to remember that the generation of fighters designed in the early and mid-1030s with retracting undercarriages were the first ones to use what WE now regard as commonplace - oil-damped coil-sprung hydraulic dampers. In some cases they were only "lookalikes", the tubular legs being internally damped and sprung by rubber. All our cars use them for suspension nowadays, and we are isolated from the vibration of the engines in them by miniature versions of these dampers. However, at the time these aircraft were designed - this hydraulic suspension technology was ALSO very new and far more primitive than nowadays. "Seals" were just hard-vulcanised rubber "o"-rings, "suspension fluid" was just plain rubber-nonfriendly oils, NOT latex-friendly seal-swelling synthetics. Designers could design and have built struts that would support the tons' weight of aircraft on landing...but couldn't in any way "tune" suspension units like they can today. So, how in those days did you make a long-length and long-travel suspension strut that not only actually held up the aircraft's weight but at the same time was soft enough to cope with ALL types of surface? Remember, you CAN'T "dial in" performance like you can nowadays - how do you actually soften the suspension unit and still make it's preferably-long travel (to soak up the bumps) keeps the aircraft off the ground but isn't overly high? The answer is simple, and something that has been neglected with time and better technology. You cant it over. Here's examples of the same model of postwar Veolcette motorcycle...these bikes were originally designed with their trade mark "arc of a circle" bracketry to allow the UNADJUSTABLE suspension units to be moved. Why? Note the circled portion of the pic. The top mount of the suspension unit is moved closer to vertical - for a firmer ride with a fixed amount of travel... BUT ...on THIS bike the top mount has been moved, canting the suspension unit over more. Why? To SOFTEN the same amount of suspension travel when you have no form of adjustment ON the strut Thus a 109 with its struts canted forward and outward - canted in TWO directions from the centreline - has a softer but well-damped suspension action AND can have a longer travel. So although the earlier marks of 109s had problems courtesy of narrow wheelbase on landing...they had BETTER suspension action than the more upright-in-two-directions undercarriages of the Hurricanes and Spitfires - leading to these having traditionally-"weaker" suspension struts. They weren't actually weaker - just had a harder action with less damping and travel so took more impact and thus wear/damage on landing. (JF, check out the angle of rear shocks on 1970's twin-shock off road bikes you'll see what I mean) Motorcycles were the first post-war application of this suspension technology, which was so new that only a couple of racing bikes had it BEFORE the war - the Kompressor BMWs of 1935-39 and the Gardengate Nortons of 1939. Cars/lorries relied on boring old leaf springs for decades afterwards."

I'm sorry if I've set the cat among the pigeons Yo Yo, it isn't my intent. I'm not criticizing just, possibly irritatingly, curious. I know that practice makes perfect but I've also read many times on FS forums that just because it's realistic doesn't mean it has correlating difficulty. My original question in this thread and I think it is still pertinent, and to my mind still not properly answered, was what is different about the 109's geometry that makes it less likely to drop a wing than the Spitfire in DCS. Both aircraft are very similar and yet, despite being no better or worse flying the 109, dropping a wing tip is just not a consideration for me. I'm not saying it doesn't happen it's just that it seams to happen as a result of an accident rather than the cause of one. The only answer in this thread of a physical characteristic of the 109 is the lockable tail wheel . Anyway I add the following just as a matter of discussion and just to emphasize I'm not saying anything is necessarily right or wrong, I'm just curious, and yes I can practice my way to getting it right but that doesn't necessarily make it right: "For decades I can recall reading that a third of all Bf 109s were lost due to landing and takeoff accidents. The design of the landing gear is frequently mentioned as a contributing cause. More specifically the wheel angle on the narrow, outward retracting gear being unlike the Spitfires vertical orientation greatly contributed to causing crashes. I am sure my first reading of this started with books I owned before they were “lost” by Movers in 1993. This 33.3% statistical claim is surprisingly similar to the claim that in the amount of man hours it took to build a Spitfire, three 109s could be built. Both statistical claims have shall we say, questionable parentage. I would like to investigate the family tree of the landing gear claim. Below I have listed a few sources referring to this specific claim or claims of landing gear design significantly contributing to 109 accidents and loses. I will continue to add to the list as I find new examples Please help me determine the origin of these claims by listing where you saw them, who made them, and the date they made them. PLEASE DO NOT POST REFERENCES OR OPINIONS DISPUTING THESE CLAIMS. If you find a published dispute of these claims, provide the source, name, date and quote of the claim they are disputing. I only want a list of where seen, who said what, and date so I can find the earliest date to determine origin of the claim of 11,000 Bf 109s lost in landing and takeoff accidents. Once that is found we all can figure out how these claims got started and why? 2003 August, Flight Journal, “The Best WWII Fighter” by Corky Meyer “....11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents...” “Chief aerodynamicist for the the Messerschmitt Me 163 rocket fighter, Josef Hubert ....told me that Willy Messerschmitt had adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109’s performance by adding the drag-producing wing-surface bumps and fairings that would have been necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry. This would have reduced its accident rate to within expected military-fighter ranges and made it a world standard!” 2000 Winter, Flight Journal Special Edition WWII Fighters, “The Bf 109s real enemy was itself!” by Corky Meyer Meyer sites a letter in 1980 written by Colonel Johannes “Macki” Steinhoff - “He sent me a long letter relating that I should be sure of the absolute vertical alignment of the tailwheel ais; he also wrote that its inherently weak brakes sould be in excellent condition because in WWII, the Luftwaffe lost 11,000 out of 33,000 Bf 109s to takeoff and landing accidents. Steinhoff directly attributed this terrible record to the bad geometry of the plane’s very unstable, splayed-out, narrow landing-gear configuration. In his letter, he said twice that if a German mechanic who really knew the Bf 109 wasn’t handy, I should not get into the cockpit.” 1999 December, Flight Journal, “Combat Warrior, The Historical View” by Captain Eric Brown “But the Bf 109’s deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most.” “I felt certain, too, that the landing gear’s being slightly splayed outward aggravated the ground-looping tendency and contributed to the excessive tire wear and bursts. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn’t show any ground-looping propensities.” Brown goes on to explain that high accident rates in 1939 resulted in a tailwheel lock being added to later models. More to come when you or I find it. I hope we can find out who originally made the claim in question."

Happens even with a couple of notches down. The 109 is much the same ( I haven't really flown the P51 or 190), unless I really shove the nose down the first couple of hundred feet feel more like a "Woh, how the hell did I get here" followed by a desperate shoving the control colum as far forward as possible. Even though I'm trying to get the tail up, for a nice gracefull departure, when I want and on my terms,presumably I just can't accurately judge my angle of attack/attitude on take off. It's nice that the take off run in the Spit is so short, it saves fannying around on the rudder pedals to much (much less chance of things going pear shaped) but occasionally I'm taken by surprise and think "How the f**k did I get up here so blooming quickly?"

While my takeoff and landings are mostly reasonable, or at least good enough that the aircraft can be reused, I still find that unless I'm careful on takeoff I either end up hopping/bouncing off the runway or at the other extreme ballooning up several hundred feet, usually the later. I find it difficult to find a happy medium or to judge exactly when my wheels have left the ground. I don't feel in positive control of events, sometimes it works perfectly but it just as likely to be a balloon (mostly) or a hop which while it seems to work also just seems not only inelegant but courting disaster. Can anybody offer any advice ? Would a louder wheel trundling over concrete sound help ?

Ah! Missed that. I rather suspect that might have something to do with it. The points NightRush raises seem to be quite fair.

Thanks for your posts Krupi, but it's not specifically about my take offs or landings as such, it might be, but I don't think it's only me that finds the Spit laterally unstable on the ground It's fair to say that any aircraft with a narrow gauge landing gear is going to be less stable on the ground than aircraft such as the 190 or Tempest. Specifically though, when taking off or landing, a constant consideration in the Spit is grounding one wing tip or the other. The 109 on the other hand, despite any pilotage deficiencies on my part, I have no particular concern and yet I would have thought that, given he geometry of the 109 wheels, landing with slip or unbalanced would have meant that it was far more likely to drop a wing in the dirt than the Spit.

But why is it so much less stable than the 109. The 109 certainly has it's own idiosyncrasies for take off and landing but I never really worry too much about digging in a wing tip. The slightest I attention with the Spitfire though and over it goes. I'm beginning to understand why Spitfires had such a nice and easy wing tip change with a few extra tips thrown in with any set of new wings.

What is it about the Spitfire, geometry, weight distribution etc that makes it so much more prone to grounding a wing tip than the 109 ? I wouldn't have really thought it would be any worse and because, unlike the 109, it's main wheels don't toe in, it would maybe be even more stable.

Thanks for that description Friedrich-4/B, excellent. The second video, Spit in flight, at about the 1,05 minute mark shows the reflected light moving forward over the wings and continuing along the top of the bonnet/hood quite clearly. It's a small detail, of little significance and maybe only particularly noticeable in VR but, like the sheen from the wings it does help convince that the aircraft is flesh and blood rather than a painting. If comparison is needed look at the wonderfull external renders of aircraft as the light reflects of them and then try looking at the aircraft exterior from the cockpit view ( maybe only really possible in VR ?) where no extra work/layers have been applied. If you ignore the missing bits it makes a big difference to the presence of the object. Given that sheen on the bonnet would possibly have been an issue even in camouflaged aircraft, I wonder if any effort was made to counteract this , I'm thinking particularly in the sunny desert theatre. Maybe adding a bit of sand to the paint just along the top of the bonnet, if not officially then maybe by SQN ground crew ?

Seriously ? I'm not sure I've ever come across specific anti reflective nose paint on standard camouflage Spit's. Yes, certainly on bare metal or light could coloured aircraft but a quick internet search didn't pick up any difference from the standard paint used on the rest of the aircraft, that I could discern anyway. While I'm here, is the reflective sheen as seen on the wings, hard baked or is it something skinners can play around with and use in other areas of the aircraft ? Maybe I'm getting confused, but is it called the "Alpha" channel ? The sheen from the wings gives a very tangable sense of solidity as if they are made from something other than just coloured pixels. A lot of effort goes into the external models to make them reflect light realistically, the same can't be said when the outside of the aircraft is viewed from the cockpit, some parts are, like the wings and some aren't (even rendered). VR is changing the way we see the sim world around us and I think developers will need to start allowing for these new priorities. The wings on the Spitfire are excellent by the way, I think the best I've seen so far in DCS.

Are you pumping the rudder pedal back and forth right from the get go, even if there appears to no need for any rudder Input at all ? I think the problems that I encountered previously were all from waiting for something to start happening and then reacting to that by which time it was too late. Pumping the rudder back and forth from the get go and then adding extra to one side or the other as neccesarily has stopped me from regularly grounding a wing tip on landing. I land with far more confidence of success .

Oh well! Maybe it's just a quirk of my controller setup then although I thought it might be useful for anyone who constantly finds themselves ground looping or dragging a wing tip.

Maybe only really noticeable in VR but, given the excellent work on the shine of the wings ( really adds to the sense of realism and solidity ) it seems a shame that the same effect doesn't appear on the bonnet/hood.

Still needs work, but, and I'm not entirely sure if it's exactly what "Chief Instructor " meant by dancing on the pedals as if they're hot coals but, I've found waggling the rudder back and forth right from the get go, almost, if not quite imperceptibly, and then as obvious swing starts to develop, stabs on the opproriate pedal, still continuously waggling though, work wonders both for take offs and landing roll outs. My rigger is far happier now that I don't need all those extra wing tips that the manufacturers kindly supplied with each aircraft. Not only that but I can even be trusted to take the aircraft around for another circuit without having to constantly hit "Re-fly".:thumbup: :joystick: My only problem (relative) is remembering to stop waggling the rudder pedals back and forth once I'm in the air. Hope it helps.