What do you guys make of this?

[Guest deleted@134347]

22 hours ago, EAF331_Sunde said:

Wrong, that was me trying to push the nose down, look at where the aircraft is going in relation to the elevator's position. 
It was fully functional, i checked it multiple times while trying to regain controle. 

 

you're right, my bad. I did notice the elevator movement at the beginning of the video and when you were looking at the tail section.

 

In my experience with flying the RC models this kind of flight behavior is observed strictly during the improper balance of the center of gravity, i.e. the excessive pitching and a continuous stall. It feels like the Spit becomes disproportionately tail heavy, i.e. something slides backwards towards the tail section inside the fuselage. Wasn't there a fuel tank behind the pilot installed on these birds...

[-SF-Disarray]

Even if there is a tank there I find it unlikely that the loss of an elevator would coincide with that tank breaking loose every time. And that is exactly what would have to happen as every time the elevator is removed the plane pitches wildly and becomes unrecoverable, with no damage popups like fuel leaking or general engine damage. I would also be impressed if the damage model included such failures as that seems a bit much for purpose; not that I'd be disappointed, mind.

 

Reading all this, and not fully understanding the more technical aspects keep in mind, a question has occurred to me. If the Spit 9 is so close to being unstable that loss of half of the elevator and stabilizer causes this kind of behavior, shouldn't it stall easier? Because while whole the plane is relatively hard to stall out in a turn and when it does stall it recovers almost automatically, much the same way the Spit 5 will. The 190 A3, on the other hand can stall readily if poorly handled and must be fought with to regain control but will survive and still be fit to fight after the loss of half the elevator and stab; the same can be said for many planes. I get that these two planes are designed differently and so will behave differently given the same or similar inputs, but this seems counter intuitive in a way I can't wrap my head around. It makes me wonder if something in the FM is off for the Spit 9.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

The stableiser and wing will create the same ratio of lift at close to the stall as when at 400 mph, so the stability characteristics will be the same for both (only when aproaching the speed of sound will the ratio change due to compressibility).

 

Past the stall stability could change depending on what surface stalls first ....but planes are generally designed to recover from a stall lol.

 

In the spit, the stabaliser produces close to the exact amount of force needed to counteract the pitching moment produced by the wing. So losing half of the tail/force from tail creates a situation where the tail can not produce enough force to overcome the pitching moment of the wing in time before shit gets spiny. 

[Guest deleted@134347]

25 minutes ago, Disarray said:

 It makes me wonder if something in the FM is off for the Spit 9.

 

it is indeed a weird behavior, I agree. I have experienced similar loss of control in the spits before, just never had any curiosity to verify the surfaces in the tail section. As a matter of fact there's a similar behavior with P40 when it starts pitching up and up and away when there's damage to the tail section.

 

now, in the spit, does it happen with only when the rudder surface is affected?  Or it happens when the rudder+elevator, or simply elevator?  I wonder if it's due to a rather significant change in difference in the available wing surface between the main and elevator "wings". Just spitballing here...  The wing surface area for the spit is ~22m vs. 16m for the bf109 or 18m for fw190.  (p40 is also in ~22m area).

[-SF-Disarray]

Interesting, Ace. So it isn't so much a mater of the other planes I've seen lose an elevator being different in some fundamental way, just that they have a wider margin of forces allowing them to maintain stability without half the elevator?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

7 minutes ago, moosya said:

 

it is indeed a weird behavior, I agree. I have experienced similar loss of control in the spits before, just never had any curiosity to verify the surfaces in the tail section. As a matter of fact there's a similar behavior with P40 when it starts pitching up and up and away when there's damage to the tail section.

 

now, in the spit, does it happen with only when the rudder surface is affected?  Or it happens when the rudder+elevator, or simply elevator?  I wonder if it's due to a rather significant change in difference in the available wing surface between the main and elevator "wings". Just spitballing here...  The wing surface area for the spit is ~22m vs. 16m for the bf109 or 18m for fw190.  (p40 is also in ~22m area).

 

It is the horizontal stabaliser(not the same as elevator) and defo not the vertical stabaliser or rudder. If fact in game you can lose the vertical stab and it flies perfectly well but that is another kettle of fish.

1 minute ago, Disarray said:

Interesting, Ace. So it isn't so much a mater of the other planes I've seen lose an elevator being different in some fundamental way, just that they have a wider margin of forces allowing them to maintain stability without half the elevator?

 

This.

[Guest deleted@134347]

add 5/5.5 angle of wing incidence for the Spit (angle of attack) and the main wings really want to get up there, i.e. the loss of one side horizontal stabilizer really screws up the force distribution.  Fw190, bf109 and other birds all have ~1.5-2 degrees of incidence.

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, moosya said:

add 5/5.5 angle of wing incidence for the Spit (angle of attack) and the main wings really want to get up there, i.e. the loss of one side horizontal stabilizer really screws up the force distribution.  Fw190, bf109 and other birds all have ~1.5-2 degrees of incidence.

 

'Wing incidence' is nothing but an angle relative to an arbitrary datum. And it most definitely isn't the same thing as angle of attack, which will vary depending on the lift required and the airspeed.

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

'Wing incidence' is nothing but an angle relative to an arbitrary datum. And it most definitely isn't the same thing as angle of attack, which will vary depending on the lift required and the airspeed.

 

oh, boy..  the longitudinal axis isn't arbitrary datum. "Angle of attack" can mean different things based on the context, and I used it in the vernacular one, but mind you I did use the proper term to begin with. What's your point here, exactly?

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, moosya said:

 

oh, boy..  the longitudinal axis isn't arbitrary datum. "Angle of attack" can mean different things based on the context, and I used it in the vernacular one, but mind you I did use the proper term to begin with. What's your point here, exactly?

 

My point is that you are unequivocally wrong. 

[Guest deleted@134347]

5 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

My point is that you are unequivocally wrong. 

 

here's a Medal for your Monday argument win.

 

[Livai]

On 6/1/2018 at 7:35 PM, Space_Ghost said:

Devs clearly have a pro-German bias.

 

From where you choose your sudden inspiration? - from this video? 

 

 

On 6/3/2018 at 6:10 PM, EAF331_Sunde said:

Wrong, that was me trying to push the nose down, look at where the aircraft is going in relation to the elevator's position. 
It was fully functional, i checked it multiple times while trying to regain controle. 

 

How about "pitch trimmer rods jammed" message could be a reason? BTW why you stabilize your plane just to climb again for another stall over-and-over again???

In older builds you could even fly without both elevators so I don't think it was the elevator that caused your crash, maybe not enough speed or the damaged pitch trimmer rods

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Livai

[Sunde]

13 minutes ago, Livai said:

-Snip-

I am not sure if you even watched the video, judging by your last message?
Look closely, i did not bring the AC out of control, the plane was thrown completely off balance when i lost half the elevator. The pitch behaviour was 100% unpredictable. Again look at the remaining elevator's position, in relation to the direction of pitch by the AC. Whenever i thought i had control, it would suddenly depart again, even when elevator was neutral. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by EAF331_Sunde

[Livai]

56 minutes ago, EAF331_Sunde said:

I am not sure if you even watched the video, judging by your last message?
Look closely, i did not bring the AC out of control, the plane was thrown completely off balance when i lost half the elevator. The pitch behaviour was 100% unpredictable. Again look at the remaining elevator's position, in relation to the direction of pitch by the AC. Whenever i thought i had control, it would suddenly depart again, even when elevator was neutral. 

 

With the "pitch trimmer rods jammed" message you don't had the control over the pitch. So the pitch behaviour was 100% unpredictable even you thought you had control again. I never had "pitch trimmer rods jammed" damage so I can't tell how this behaviour looks like? - I wonder what happend if you had both elevators but only the "pitch trimmer rods jammed" damaged the same behaviour as with one elevator? - maybe or maybe not, who knows?????

[AndyJWest]

12 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

 

Go read some more.

 

I don't need to 'read anything more' to know that when someone cites the angle between an aircraft datum and the wing chord line (which is what 'wing incidence' can only refer to in that context, since actual figures for the angle are quoted for specific aircraft types), and claims that it is the same thing as 'angle of attack', they are wrong. Aircraft, since they have to generate the same amount of lift in order to maintain level flight at a range of speeds without changing wing geometry, must of necessity change the angle of attack to do so.  A slow-flying aircraft in level flight must fly at a higher angle of attack than the same aircraft at higher speeds (and the wing  doesn't move relative to the datum to do so). This is elementary aerodynamics, of the sort that anyone remotely interested in the subject should be aware of. I would have thought, judging from your earlier posts in this thread - which seemed to indicate that you understood what you were talking about - that you would know this. If you really don't, then maybe it is you that needs to read more. Or perhaps you just need to read what I actually said, in the context it was written?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

 

 

Yeah you are right, i was being a bit flippant hence why i deleted that post, sorry. The point is that it has a higher incidence compared to its contemporaries meaning that it is more likely to produce a bigger pitching moment at simular angles making it more likely to go unstable .

10 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Snip.

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by AeroAce

[EAF19_Marsh]

Andy, quick question. Given what you posted above and the need to trim the elevator in order to hold level flight speed changes, we end up with the horizontal tail producing lift (up or down) as a correctional device, but I always thought that without any trim settings the horizontal tail should be non-lift generating on these type of aircraft.

 

Am I missing something or is that true of most aircraft? I never though that the tailplane contributed towards general lifting force.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

18 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Andy, quick question. Given what you posted above and the need to trim the elevator in order to hold level flight speed changes, we end up with the horizontal tail producing lift (up or down) as a correctional device, but I always thought that without any trim settings the horizontal tail should be non-lift generating on these type of aircraft.

 

Am I missing something or is that true of most aircraft? I never though that the tailplane contributed towards general lifting force.

 

Ideally the tail would create no force in level flight to reduce induced drag but...

 

Horizontal stabs are generally designed to have as little impact as possible during straight and level flight but this has to accommodate the change of cg due to fuel burn and also the moment created because of the difference in cg and cp. This basically means with a fixed stab that it will only truly be optimised for one speed and weight although designers make it work for the expected range of weights. This is one of the reasons why modern airliners have a movable stab.

 

Also for stability you generally want the tail to be at a higher aoa/incedence to the wing so it can provide a bigger resorting force if disturbed(It is a bigger or smaller angle anyway, finding it hard to visualise on a busy tram lol ).

Edited June 5, 2018 by AeroAce

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Andy, quick question. Given what you posted above and the need to trim the elevator in order to hold level flight speed changes, we end up with the horizontal tail producing lift (up or down) as a correctional device, but I always thought that without any trim settings the horizontal tail should be non-lift generating on these type of aircraft.

 

Am I missing something or is that true of most aircraft? I never though that the tailplane contributed towards general lifting force.

 

The Wikipedia article on longitudinal static stability in aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_static_stability) has a nice quote from Flight International on this "It is a misconception that tailed aeroplanes always carry tailplane downloads. They usually do, with flaps down and at forward c.g. positions, but with flaps up at the c.g. aft, tail loads at high lift are frequently positive (up), although the tail's maximum lifting capability is rarely approached." WW2 fighters in general were designed with low longitudinal static stability (i.e., with a CG as far aft as practical) so it may well be that the tail is contributing some lift in such circumstances, though I couldn't say for sure. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

...

Also for stability you generally want the tail to be at a higher aoa/incedence to the wing so it can provide a bigger resorting force if disturbed(It is a bigger or smaller angle anyway, finding it hard to visualise on a busy tram lol ).

 

A tailplane which operated at a higher angle of attack than the wing would be highly undesirable, since it would be liable to stall first. It might be possible though for the tail to be at a higher angle of incidence (i.e. relative to the aircraft datum) than the wing, without necessarily having a higher angle of attack, as long as the tail operates in the downwash from the wing. 

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Remember that because of the downwash from the main wing the tail has a lower effective aoa, I'm confident that that the tails are set at at a slightly higher angle in reference to the datum for stability reasons. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by AeroAce

[Blackhawk_FR]

I have 2 fun tracks with the Spitfire Mk9: 

 

- One where the Spitfire still fly with half of the right wing missing. 

 

- One with random movements on all axis (without touching controls of course) after just being hit by few rounds (few holes on the wing).

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

They usually do, with flaps down and at forward c.g. positions, but with flaps up at the c.g. aft, tail loads at high lift are frequently positive (up), although the tail's maximum lifting capability is rarely approached." WW2 fighters in general were designed with low longitudinal static stability (i.e., with a CG as far aft as practical) so it may well be that the tail is contributing some lift in such circumstances, though I couldn't say for sure. 

 

OK, but my impression was that under cruise conditions at whatever speed / attitude is zero-trim required (theoretically), you are not getting any lift in any direction from the tailplane. IIRC, the Bulldog was not deriving any net force from the horizontal stabilizer, only from the stabilizer-plus-elevator with pitch input.

 

Thanks for the link, BTW

[Livai]

11 hours ago, EAF331_Sunde said:

- Snip -

 

Here I found the answer what happen if you have  "pitch trimmer rods jammed" 

 

-> The plane start to pitch violently upwards and the pilot can not counteract the pitching force even when pressing the control column fully down. This cause the plane to lose speed rapidly and nearly stall.

 

You could try to regain control by lowering the thrust if the plane had more engines to generate differential thrust

[Sunde]

57 minutes ago, Livai said:

 

Here I found the answer what happen if you have  "pitch trimmer rods jammed" 

 

-> The plane start to pitch violently upwards and the pilot can not counteract the pitching force even when pressing the control column fully down. This cause the plane to lose speed rapidly and nearly stall.

 

You could try to regain control by lowering the thrust if the plane had more engines to generate differential thrust

Jesus christ, we are not discussing this. LOOK at the VERY end of the video, you can see me stick my head out of the damn cockpit and verify that the elevator is following my input! 
Thank you 

Edited June 5, 2018 by EAF331_Sunde

[-SF-Disarray]

7 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

I have 2 fun tracks with the Spitfire Mk9: 

 

- One where the Spitfire still fly with half of the right wing missing. 

 

- One with random movements on all axis (without touching controls of course) after just being hit by few rounds (few holes on the wing).

 

I haven't lost half a wing in the plane so I can't speak to that but I have noticed an odd behavior connected with light damage to one or both wings. Not a violent or spectacular loss of control as with the elevator shown earlier, but definitely noticeable and different from the way other planes in the game react to similar damage.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Spit is the only one that I have noticed (ie caveated that this is personal observation) that also went mental as Sunde reported initially.

[AndyJWest]

I really don't understand why the behaviour of the aircraft shown in the link in the original video is an issue. The tailplane in an aircraft of conventional layout is necessary for longitudinal stability. If you reduce its area, stability will reduce. Or, if stability is small enough in the first place, the aircraft will become longitudinally  unstable, which seems to be the case shown. The loss of mass from the tail (which moves the CG forward) may counter some of this effect, but even if it did, the aircraft is going to become less controllable. If aircraft designers could make practical aircraft with half the tail area, they'd build them like that in the first place, since tailplanes add drag (and mass for that matter). Tailless aircraft are of course possible, but they are designed that way from the start, with reflex aerofoils and/or swept-back wings with washout. The video shows a Spitfire (which is known to have marginal longitudinal stability in real life) losing half its horizontal tail surface, falling into an inverted spin, and then going through a series of pitching movements as the pilot tries to regain control. It looks like luck as much as good piloting (and a rather optimistic damage model) that it finally comes to rest upright and mostly intact. Nothing in the flight modelling looks obviously off to me.

[unreasonable]

9 hours ago, AeroAce said:

Remember that because of the downwash from the main wing the tail has a lower effective aoa, I'm confident that that the tails are set at at a slightly higher angle in reference to the datum for stability reasons. 

 

But they are not, I believe.  I do not have the Spitfire drawings, but looking around I have found someone quoting from them as follows:

 

FWIW, in the Spitfire V documentation (AP1565E) the following data are given:

Relative to the fuselage datum the incidences are:
Main plane +2 deg
Tail plane 0 deg

 

I am not sure if the 2 degrees is the wing root or the average, I think the root - the incidence reduces towards the tips.

 

I recall a discussion about the P-40 which showed a similar pattern - AFAIK WW2 fighter tails are not usually set at a higher angle than the wing but at a lower angle or flat.  In level flight with  neutral (ie flat) elevator they would exert a downforce due to a negative AoA from the downwash. If the CoG is at all forwards of the CoL of the wing this would be essential for balance.   If you have some examples where the tail incidence is higher please share: I cannot find any: not that I have looked that hard.    

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I really don't understand why the behaviour of the aircraft shown in the link in the original video is an issue. The tailplane in an aircraft of conventional layout is necessary for longitudinal stability. If you reduce its area, stability will reduce. Or, if stability is small enough in the first place, the aircraft will become longitudinally  unstable, which seems to be the case shown. The loss of mass from the tail (which moves the CG forward) may counter some of this effect, but even if it did, the aircraft is going to become less controllable. If aircraft designers could make practical aircraft with half the tail area, they'd build them like that in the first place, since tailplanes add drag (and mass for that matter). Tailless aircraft are of course possible, but they are designed that way from the start, with reflex aerofoils and/or swept-back wings with washout. The video shows a Spitfire (which is known to have marginal longitudinal stability in real life) losing half its horizontal tail surface, falling into an inverted spin, and then going through a series of pitching movements as the pilot tries to regain control. It looks like luck as much as good piloting (and a rather optimistic damage model) that it finally comes to rest upright and mostly intact. Nothing in the flight modelling looks obviously off to me.

 

issue is no other plane exhibits this behavior with the similar damage (except may be for p40, but only in certain cases). You can acquaint yourself with the details in the first post.

 

I can speculate and attribute it to a much larger main wing surface area compared to other airplanes. Root cause is unknown.

[AndyJWest]

Some BoX aircraft modelling is such that they are still controllable with half the tail missing, certainly. Whether that is correct for each particular case is obviously open to debate, but as I've already pointed out, the Spitfire has marginal longitudinal stability to start with, so one might expect it to be more likely to lose control with the damage shown. Frankly though, I think it is asking too much to expect the FM for a commercial game to replicate aerodynamic behaviour for every possible damage case, and claiming that one example is 'wrong' because other aircraft model this extreme condition differently isn't going to get very far.

 

If you don't like the way the aircraft flies with half a tail, I'd recommend working harder to keep it intact. I'm sure that real pilots would have given similar advice.  

[Guest deleted@134347]

52 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Some BoX aircraft modelling is such that they are still controllable with half the tail missing, certainly. Whether that is correct for each particular case is obviously open to debate, but as I've already pointed out, the Spitfire has marginal longitudinal stability to start with, so one might expect it to be more likely to lose control with the damage shown. Frankly though, I think it is asking too much to expect the FM for a commercial game to replicate aerodynamic behaviour for every possible damage case, and claiming that one example is 'wrong' because other aircraft model this extreme condition differently isn't going to get very far.

 

If you don't like the way the aircraft flies with half a tail, I'd recommend working harder to keep it intact. I'm sure that real pilots would have given similar advice.  

 

As a computer gamer myself people with your attitude really baffle me. Being so certain about your righteousness and wisdom yet offering absolutely nothing to an open discussion except for a pure Himalayan pink salt. What is the driving force behind such an antisocial behavior on a social forum?

[AndyJWest]

23 minutes ago, moosya said:

 

As a computer gamer myself people with your attitude really baffle me. Being so certain about your righteousness and wisdom yet offering absolutely nothing to an open discussion except for a pure Himalayan pink salt. What is the driving force behind such an antisocial behavior on a social forum?

 

Knowing what I am talking about doesn't constitute 'antisocial behaviour', as far as I'm aware. If you really think it does, I suggest you take advantage of the forum 'ignore' option. I intend to in your case, given that you have nothing to offer to this discussion but random guesses based on pure guesswork, and entirely unjustified indignation that people don't immediately accept your factually-deficient speculations as gospel.

[Guest deleted@134347]

16 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Knowing what I am talking about doesn't constitute 'antisocial behaviour', as far as I'm aware. If you really think it does, I suggest you take advantage of the forum 'ignore' option. I intend to in your case, given that you have nothing to offer to this discussion but random guesses based on pure guesswork, and entirely unjustified indignation that people don't immediately accept your factually-deficient speculations as gospel.

 

scale it down a bit and get off your high horse, buddy. It's a computer game. A simulated world using simulated physics and simulated parts. You know about it as much as I do, regardless your first hand real life word experience in aviation. In other words you don't know jack when it comes to simulation and all of your 'facts' are a pure guess when it comes to modeling pretty much anything in here. Opposite to you I don't preach any gospel of my "facts" to anyone, nor I accuse anyone of being wrong who simply states his opinion when it comes to basic analysis of a ...drumroll.. computer game. Your demeanor maybe suitable (yet unbareable) for a flight school of green cadets, but this is a mature forum for adults who know how to talk to each other. Obviously there's a lack of it in your department. Cheers, [Edited].

Edited June 6, 2018 by Bearcat

[DD_Perfesser]

Where can you get good Himalayan pink salt ?

[AndyJWest]

26 minutes ago, DD_Perfesser said:

Where can you get good Himalayan pink salt ?

 

From a yak?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

But they are not, I believe.  I do not have the Spitfire drawings, but looking around I have found someone quoting from them as follows:

 

FWIW, in the Spitfire V documentation (AP1565E) the following data are given:

Relative to the fuselage datum the incidences are:
Main plane +2 deg
Tail plane 0 deg

 

I am not sure if the 2 degrees is the wing root or the average, I think the root - the incidence reduces towards the tips.

 

I recall a discussion about the P-40 which showed a similar pattern - AFAIK WW2 fighter tails are not usually set at a higher angle than the wing but at a lower angle or flat.  In level flight with  neutral (ie flat) elevator they would exert a downforce due to a negative AoA from the downwash. If the CoG is at all forwards of the CoL of the wing this would be essential for balance.   If you have some examples where the tail incidence is higher please share: I cannot find any: not that I have looked that hard.    

 

 

 

 

It is a long time since I studied the stability of aircraft, I did put in a prior post that is was higher or lower angle for the tail. Actually, it all really depends on the main wing how you set the tail but for sure one is used more than the other. Im a little bit cba to break out with he force diagrams lol.

 

RE if it is the wing root or the average... In basic stability calculations, one uses the Mean Aerodynamic Cord (MAC) of the wing. 

 

Basically (well not too basically) what you want for a stable aircraft is the derivative of the pitching moment vs angle of attack to be a negative number i.e a restoring force. For a neutral stable aircraft it will be zero and for an unstable aircaft it will be positive. 

 

And the derivative is designed by basically tweaking the angles of the wings and the position of the CG. One thing to note though is the strength of these derivatives. If they are weak, the restoring moment will not overcome a perturbation before the loss of control, what I think is happening with the spit is that it is so close to neutral stability that the loss of half the elevator stops the aircrafts the ability to recover in time or just plain makes it unstable with the common result of loss of control i.e possibly statically stable but dynamically unstable in this case (what two stabilities? he he).

 

Side note: I love when people say a plane is unstable because that is technically wrong as they simply would not be able to fly it. What they mean is that it is stable but not as much as others.

Edited June 6, 2018 by AeroAce

[unreasonable]

I agree with you about the Spitfire and what seems to have happened to the OP.  I claim no expertise, but seeing some comments in the thread I wish people would do some basic reading. Not yours - I was specifically asking you about the wing/tail AoAs as a matter of fact.  No need to be arsed to break out the force diagrams, however, there are relevant ones in here:

 

http://avstop.com/ac/flighttrainghandbook/

 

This is the best single site I have seen for grasping the fundamentals of flight, btw.  I recommend it to all non-experts who want to improve their knowledge about how aeroplanes work. Clear explanations and diagrams,  plus it has the tactical advantage that if people are arguing with you you can say "Take it up with the US Bureau of Transportation".  

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by unreasonable

[AndyJWest]

Anyone wanting a more in-depth discussion of aircraft stability (and much else besides) should probably take a look at 'Aerodynamics for naval aviators', a 1965 publication which is available for (free) download from the U.S. FAA. The chapter on stability and control covers pretty well everything that has been discussed here, without going into a lot of complex mathematics.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80T-80.pdf