Spitfire XIV flight model

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Some people seem to have issues with the Mark XIV flight model? Personnally it behaves like I thought it would. A powerful beast that requires to be tamed...of course it doesnt turn like the Mark IX, its a well know fact, controls dont feel as responsive and sensible but I was expecting this. Its way faster and climbs like crazy which makes it very well suited to engage Kurfursts and Doras. 

 

Can anyone enlight me about what is supposed to be wrong with it? I will test it more thoroughly tonight.

[Talon_]

2 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

of course it doesnt turn like the Mark IX, its a well know fact,

 

Well known by whom? 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

 

Well known by whom? 

 

Weird, I remember reading about a pilot who said he prefered the mark IX because it had a better turn rate and felt less heavy.

[Denum]

Sustained turn is the same, but obviously the XIV will feel a bit different due to the half a ton difference in engine weight, so it won't feel as nimble as the merlin counterpart.

 

Its still able to turn fight on the deck but it needs some care while doing so.

 

 

 

 

[Panthera]

The instantaneous turn rate should ofcourse have decreased from the Mk.IX, as the Mk.XIV is heavier. However the sustained turn rate will likely be the same or better, thanks to a very substantial increase in power. Handling should be similar to the Mk.IX, although ofcourse the torque effects will be stronger on the XIV. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Panthera

[ZachariasX]

The problem I have with it so far is that the crate lags stick input considerably. You pull back the stick quickly to something that gives you for example a 4 g turn, you can see controls move and the aircraft takes about 1 second to follow that input until it catches up with it. Let me tell you, the real Spitfire follows the controls instantly and directly, as fast as you can grasp it. It is very easy and straightfoward to control and it gives you a lot of confidence (even to an unwarranted degree) in controlling her.

 

What I described, I see this as a typical sim artefact, where simulated weight makes the aircraft either oscillate („wobble“) or be sluggish to follow the controls as if you had elastic control cables. The latter I see currently present with the XIV. It’s probably something a sim engine likes to produce unless you do something against it. It gives you a vintage Camaro instead of a 911.

 

But as said, I have to rule out that the problem is on my part and I will do some more testing. If I end up with conclusive results, I‘ll post a bug report.

Edited April 24, 2021 by ZachariasX

[Bremspropeller]

The P-51 (and all the other trim-heavy airplanes) feel very similar when moving about out of trim.

Almost feels like there's a low-frequency filter in place.

[Holtzauge]

On 4/24/2021 at 8:44 AM, ZachariasX said:

The problem I have with it so far is that the crate lags stick input considerably. You pull back the stick quickly to something that gives you for example a 4 g turn, you can see controls move and the aircraft takes about 1 second to follow that input until it catches up with it. Let me tell you, the real Spitfire follows the controls instantly and directly, as fast as you can grasp it. It is very easy and straightfoward to control and it gives you a lot of confidence (even to an unwarranted degree) in controlling her.

 

What I described, I see this as a typical sim artefact, where simulated weight makes the aircraft either oscillate („wobble“) or be sluggish to follow the controls as if you had elastic control cables. The latter I see currently present with the XIV. It’s probably something a sim engine likes to produce unless you do something against it. It gives you a vintage Camaro instead of a 911.

 

But as said, I have to rule out that the problem is on my part and I will do some more testing. If I end up with conclusive results, I‘ll post a bug report.

 

Yes, it looks like the wobbliness is back in the BOX FM: It's always nice to hear about your experience since you actually flown one @ZachariasXand when you say "instantly and directly, as fast as you can grasp it" this is seconded in the two below videos as well: Both the Yak-3 and Me-109 G4 in the videos move crisply, solidly and with no wobbliness whatsoever.

 

As far as I can tell the original old "on rails" FM is more realistic even though gamers the world over lauded the wobbliness when that was first introduced in the second or third generation (whatever) simulators. However, unfortunately it seems that a certain segment of the sim market customers will always connect more difficult with more realistic and the more wobbly it gets the more realistic it consequently must be.....

 

IMHO the developers would do better if they made the BOX planes behave more like the lighter Fw-190 series (e.g. low fuel, no wing guns A3) in-game. The current chewing gum, rubber band suspended Spitfire Mk XIV FM seems like a retrograde step back in time if you ask me.

 

 

 

 

[Caudron431]

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

As far as I can tell the original old "on rails" FM is more realistic even though gamers the world over lauded the wobbliness when that was first introduced in the second or third generation (whatever) simulators. However, unfortunately it seems that a certain segment of the sim market customers will always connect more difficult with more realistic and the more wobbly it gets the more realistic it consequently must be.....

It's a pity really... If one could provide proof that FM (in general) is too wobbly and that imputs are lagging, maybe the developpers would consider improving it?

In the end it's about realism, and most simmers would prefer what is closer to the real experience of flying if presented proofs.

And if some prefer less stable FM, then why not simply play with the turbulence and wind settings? They are really well made in this game.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Caudron431
wrong use of word sorry

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Have you Guys actually looked at the Ball in the Videos? They absolutely "Wobble" it's just that Wide Frame Camera Lenses don't show it. And they work the Rudder quite hard, especially the 109 Pilot.

Edited April 25, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Have you Guys actually looked at the Ball in the Videos? They absolutely "Wobble" it's just that Wide Frame Camera Lenses don't show it.

Can't make it wobble even when I tried. And knowing this topic, I really tried.

[Birdman]

I'm using curves and I don't find the spit to be wobbly or perceive input lag however I find if your trim is out of whack you'll end up behind the plane faster than with the other fighters. There's no punishment for not properly trimming the 109s or the Americans fighters but with the Spit it will fight you imho.

 

I'm noticing in the above videos that the pitch input on the sticks are minuscule, considering the travel range of our commercial sticks that's probably a few millimeters of travel (without curves)

[Bremspropeller]

32 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Have you Guys actually looked at the Ball in the Videos? They absolutely "Wobble" it's just that Wide Frame Camera Lenses don't show it.

 

Looks more like the odd turbulence and some inertia on the ball-fluid interaction to me. The ball is more of a steady-state instrument.

 

What's most interesting in the Yak-video is the airframe-vibration carried through the camera-mount at higher airspeeds.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[von_Tom]

 

No "wobble" here - Virpil CM3 base/7.5cm extension/Warthog grip/50% curve.

 

I can "feel" the heavier nose but that is all.

 

von Tom

[Holtzauge]

Those of you who don't see a difference: Go to about 2:45 into the Yak video I posted and check when he does the point roll and tell me that you get the same result in-game: Bang the stick like that and stop: In the video it's rock solid. If you get that result in-game moving the stick in the same way I will be mighty impressed!

[ZachariasX]

Ok I did some test flights. I find the differences among the planes incredible and and not really intuitive.

 

My test setup was Moscow autumn map, low level flight (500 m) and 200 L fuel for each plane. I speed up to 450 km/h, as it is a speed where a warbird can be expected to be very easy in handling, low sick pressures etc. Just a grand GA aircraft so to speak.

 

The Spitfires are such that upon pulling, both the V and the IX follow a sudden stick input that makes them pull up in a 4 g nose up in about one second and accelleration of 4 g on the HUD is reached in about 1 second and while the nose follows faster. We see the game takes some time translating AoA into actual lift accelleration.  But it is a reasonably short time. The XIV takes about 2 - 3 seconds to reach 4 g while the process of nose up is subjectively speaking about half the speed of the Merlin Spits.

 

Now you can say things like "weight" or "big engine". Well. The DB603 is the same size as the Griffon. The 109K4 lifts the nose as readily as the Merlin Spits and reaches 4 g at least as quick or even quicker.

 

Remarkably, the Fw190 A3 is one of the most ready aircraft to not only follow the stick with the nose but also reaching 4 g, all in well less than 1 second. That is a 4 ton airctaft with a higher wing loading than the Spit XIV. The Fw are all great, they really follow your aim wel and are popular gun platforms for good reason (in this game). Mind you, the BMW801 is 10% heavier than the Griffon.

 

Then, again, The Spit XIV is sooo heavy and has suuuuch a heavy engine, sooo powerful. OK then, lets take a heavier plane with even more power, the Tempest. Lo and Behold, that plane follows the stick better than the Spit V and reaches 4 g even faster. For good reason it is fighter plane No.1 at low and mid altitudes, not just becuase of its performance, it is actually one of the easiest to make it shoot where you want it to shoot.

 

Whatever FM mechanics are at work here, might it be a dampening factor or whatever, this XIV is not a Spitfire. There is also not really an obvious logic behind the behaviour of the respective aircraft as this elasticity in controls in not hard liked to plane or engine mass.

 

Mark my words. In the real Spitfire, if you pull the horizon and your g meter move almost as a direct function of you pulling that stick. There is no mushing at reasonable airspeeds. None at all. None. Nada.

 

Good fighter aircraft are aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft have no reason to exist if they do anything other than follow stick inputs.

 

What I see here really appears to be a sim artifact that needs to be looked at. There is no reason for it besides being a tolerated result of other things. In the merling Spits, this lag is somewhat tolerable, as at least they don't wobble. And I don't really mind how they are made, it's at least good enough while they do other things very well. But the XIV is not right. Other planes prove that it is inprinciple possible to rectify the problem.

[JtD]

The difference between a Spitfire and a Bf109 or Fw190 is the neutral longitudinal stability of the Spitfire. Simply put and a bit exceggerated, in the German planes the elevator controls the pitch, whereas in the Spitfire it controls the pitch change rate. This means a very different handling, which may be what the devs were trying to depict. By the sound of your description, didn't work very well (I don't have the XIV). Even if the Spitfire doesn't 'settle' at a new pitch/g load quickly, it would still react instantly to elevator input.

[Birdman]

This is what I did on Kuban autumn, 200l fuel, 500m:

I pressed the gun trigger when starting the pull back motion on the physical stick to get a timestamp of sort in Tac View:

from the first shot event to reaching 4Gs in Tac View it took on average about 1s in the spit XIV for me.

 

[ZachariasX]

You can't use TacView in this setting, as it doesn't show exactly what in-game g meter shows during spike loads in maneuvers. I will try to make a more detailed analysis of what I think needs improvement.

 

But improvement is needed, as I see the effect mentioned to be the main culpit why people are blacking out so often in the Spit after the new g effects were introduced. You have no problems staying in the "healthy area" in the real aircraft. None at all. As this rubber banding effect is something that acts very much against reality and it is not fun, it has no place in the sim. And it appears to me that it is largely the new g effects that made this error obvious. Before, this behavior of "involuntary" over g especially in the Spit was not apparent. Now it is. The g effects are too good to tolerate a mess up in stick responses. Players are not just oafs that that hamfist the aircraft "and need to get gud" when they black out. The current Spit(s) acts against them in what I think is an unrealistic behaviour.

Edited April 26, 2021 by ZachariasX

[LColony_Kong]

Maybe this will be the catalyst that gets the issue resolved once and for all. The wobble and input lagg on il2 planes has been a thing since the game came out. The bodenplatte planes were much more stable but there are still hints of the problem.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

14 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Spitfires are such that upon pulling, both the V and the IX follow a sudden stick input that makes them pull up in a 4 g nose up in about one second and accelleration of 4 g on the HUD is reached in about 1 second and while the nose follows faster. We see the game takes some time translating AoA into actual lift accelleration.  But it is a reasonably short time. The XIV takes about 2 - 3 seconds to reach 4 g while the process of nose up is subjectively speaking about half the speed of the Merlin Spits.

Not sure if that is an issue with aerodynamics or inertia, but I know this ''dmpening effect'' from many other sims very well. No matter what the cause it acts as a natural dampener to your inputs and makes the plane more "drifty" (part of the reason why the 109 is performing brilliant in deflection shooting). From my limited flying expirience (light sport and gliders only) the reaction of a pushrod actuated elevator is immediate and the nose will settle to whatever point you aim at when centering the stick (different story for cable driven elevators which always include some fluctation and dampening as they basicly work against you).

 

As for the Spitfire XIV I didn't find that effect to be too severe as it still retains good agility and behaves in the same ballpark as the other Spits, but I might conduct more testing on that particular matter.

[Dakpilot]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You can't use TacView in this setting, as it doesn't show exactly what in-game g meter shows during spike loads in maneuvers. I will try to make a more detailed analysis of what I think needs improvement.

 

But improvement is needed, as I see the effect mentioned to be the main culpit why people are blacking out so often in the Spit after the new g effects were introduced. You have no problems staying in the "healthy area" in the real aircraft. None at all. As this rubber banding effect is something that acts very much against reality and it is not fun, it has no place in the sim. And it appears to me that it is largely the new g effects that made this error obvious. Before, this behavior of "involuntary" over g especially in the Spit was not apparent. Now it is. The g effects are too good to tolerate a mess up in stick responses. Players are not just oafs that that hamfist the aircraft "and need to get gud" when they black out. The current Spit(s) acts against them in what I think is an unrealistic behaviour.

 

Just for interest what joystick do you use and any settings. Am on my phone so apologies if it is in your sig. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Aurora_Stealth]

16 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Now you can say things like "weight" or "big engine". Well. The DB603 is the same size as the Griffon. The 109K4 lifts the nose as readily as the Merlin Spits and reaches 4 g at least as quick or even quicker.

 

Remarkably, the Fw190 A3 is one of the most ready aircraft to not only follow the stick with the nose but also reaching 4 g, all in well less than 1 second. That is a 4 ton airctaft with a higher wing loading than the Spit XIV. The Fw are all great, they really follow your aim wel and are popular gun platforms for good reason (in this game). Mind you, the BMW801 is 10% heavier than the Griffon.

 

Then, again, The Spit XIV is sooo heavy and has suuuuch a heavy engine, sooo powerful. OK then, lets take a heavier plane with even more power, the Tempest. Lo and Behold, that plane follows the stick better than the Spit V and reaches 4 g even faster. For good reason it is fighter plane No.1 at low and mid altitudes, not just becuase of its performance, it is actually one of the easiest to make it shoot where you want it to shoot.

 

Whatever FM mechanics are at work here, might it be a dampening factor or whatever, this XIV is not a Spitfire. There is also not really an obvious logic behind the behaviour of the respective aircraft as this elasticity in controls in not hard liked to plane or engine mass.

 

Mark my words. In the real Spitfire, if you pull the horizon and your g meter move almost as a direct function of you pulling that stick. There is no mushing at reasonable airspeeds. None at all. None. Nada.

 

What I see here really appears to be a sim artifact that needs to be looked at. There is no reason for it besides being a tolerated result of other things. In the merling Spits, this lag is somewhat tolerable, as at least they don't wobble. And I don't really mind how they are made, it's at least good enough while they do other things very well. But the XIV is not right. Other planes prove that it is inprinciple possible to rectify the problem.

 

Just to add a couple of notes: you quite rightly mention the DB603 is comparable to the Griffon in terms of spec. However, the Bf 109 K-4 is fitted with the DB605 ... (the D series), although maybe was just a typo regarding the 603. To caveat it though - the DB605 is a bit shorter and generally more compact which is one of the reasons the K-4 suffers less in the weight/C-of-G department compared to the earlier G-model(s).

 

The Spitfire XIV has a long, large and heavy prop which combined with the longer engine and nose seems to all combine to produce a negative effect between the C-of-G and Centre-of-lift. In short, I don't see how you can move that (significant) weight... that kind of distance from the original design CTR, then expect the aircraft to respond much the same way.

 

The Tempest (in-game)... is an odd child, it has already been questioned a lot in terms of its turning ability and there's a suspicion (I'm being very polite) the CLmax is off. It really should not behave at all like a Spitfire; which was a complaint of the real pilots and why many did not rush for it... it has been discussed in its own thread for good reason but I wouldn't rush to make comparisons with the Tempest's handling in-game.

 

I obviously respect you have flown in some of these aircraft but I'm genuinely curious to know how you'd interpret the pilots comments that the Spitfire XIV no longer "felt like a Spitfire".

 

My personal interpretation is that the Spitfire's famed neutral stability and ideal / predictable stick response in the Spitfire I, V and IX takes a hit due to the above. It's cruise speed and fuel efficiency is also hit by the drag from those huge underwing radiators. Anyway, my point was the nose-heavy weight would have a pronounced effect when you try to apply rapid loads; creating an almost under-steer/over-steer effect which at times feels out of balance and needs time to settle - unlike the earlier Merlin powered models.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[Bremspropeller]

52 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

My personal interpretation is that the Spitfire's famed neutral stability and ideal / predictable stick response in the Spitfire I, V and IX takes a hit due to the above. It's cruise speed and fuel efficiency is also hit by the drag from those huge underwing radiators. Anyway, my point was the nose-heavy weight would have a pronounced effect when you try to apply rapid loads; creating an almost under-steer/over-steer effect which at times feels out of balance and needs time to settle - unlike the earlier Merlin powered models.

 

In that case, the XIV should feel more like a *conventional* aircraft and not like one with bungee cords attached to the stick.

[Aurora_Stealth]

On 4/26/2021 at 11:19 AM, Bremspropeller said:

In that case, the XIV should feel more like a *conventional* aircraft and not like one with bungee cords attached to the stick.

 

I'll have to spend some more time to study it (spent an afternoon with the XIV), but would expect some kind of instability; the manual uses the word "satisfactory" regarding its stability which is not ideal... and that "Changes of power and speed induce marked changes in directional trim" and basically that you will likely have to re-trim to maintain linear control force.

 

It also says in the manual extract above at 51. General flying (i) Stability (b) - that the use of a rear fuselage fuel tank impairs the longitudinal stability. If that's modelled in our XIV then potentially yes that could be contributing to your "wobble". No pun intended.

 

Haven't got much time right now to look further into it, but it certainly sounds plausible.

 

Edit: was just printing something out on my desktop and thought I'd check while I was there - the XIV must surely have the rear fuselage tank (late 1944) [it uses leading edge fuel tanks on XIV] as you can take up to 505 liters of fuel; you may want to try it with ~400 or less (think in the IX its 386 liters) and see if it makes a difference.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth
Correction regarding use of wing fuel tanks rather than rear fuselage fuel tank (made later) by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Diggun]

I've spent a fair whack of time in it (and more time in the IX than is healthy), and I, personally, have to say I'm pretty happy with it. I honestly haven't noticed this 'wobble' or 'bungee chords on the stick' feeling mentioned here at all.

 

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Bremspropeller]

29 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

the manual uses the word "satisfactory" regarding its stability which is not ideal.

 

I wouldn't interpret too much meaning into that. "Satisfactory" merely discribes that the criteria are met.

Contrary to "objectionable" or the likes.

 

If you pass a checkride, you'll get a "satisfacory", no matter how awesome the examiner thinks you were.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Just for interest what joystick do you use and any settings. Am on my phone so apologies if it is in your sig. 

Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog

[sevenless]

Not experiencing any "wubble" with the Spit XIV, but interesting discussion all. Here some real "wubble" to cheer you up!

 

 

Blackadder Goes Mad! | Blackadder Goes Forth | BBC Comedy Greats - YouTube

Edited April 26, 2021 by sevenless

[Birdman]

9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You can't use TacView in this setting, as it doesn't show exactly what in-game g meter shows during spike loads in maneuvers. 

Went back in game and the g-meter gets to 4g in about 1s with the XIV.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are testing.

 

Played in both the IX and XIV last night as well and the handling feels extremely similar in my opinion.

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

but I know this ''dmpening effect'' from many other sims very well.

Yes, it is a familiar thing to me as well, hence I categorize it as a sim artefact, something that is in some ways prone to happen in these kinds of sim unless you do something against it.

 

To be clear, I like the planes in this game and the XIV as well (especially with all the fancy features included), but by looking at it closely, I thing something is odd and that needs to be adressed. The XIV stays short of what it could be. It  is actually a problem that it is "good enough" on the whole that people are so happy wih it that what appears to me currently is a systemic problem, and one that hurts the game, but is familiar enough with the proficiant ones to be either tolerated or even liked. Some will always be content if their aircraft is made more difficult, the proficient ones usually are open to further challenges. But I want to understand what really happens here. The fact that we have so often complaints about people blacking out in the Spit with the new g model is quiet telling, and I don't think this is ultimately liked to less deflection needed for given turn radius. There is something at work here (and brought to light by the g effects) that acts against the player and should not be present.

 

I asked the question about the Yak-9T's initial elevator response, basically half of the other Yak-9. Most seemed to have accepted that ("it must be like that because it has a heavy gun") and I just let it be and ditched that plane. But maybe something happened in the Russian forum, as without much ado, they suddenly changed that and made even the 9T a Yak again. On the whole flight models are rally great, I mean kudos to the FM department here. Doing all this without the aircraft at hand, I mean, that's something. But this doesn't mean that everything is as it should be, especially when people encounter weird problems that you wouldn't have in the real aircraft.

 

In the real Spit, the controls of ailerons and elevator not being harmonic poses a problem if the pilot is supposed to fly precise patterns like figure 8 etc, while not deviating more than 50 ft. in altitude. That is the struggle. (And certainly the deeper reason why the Spit was never really used as a night fighter etc.) The struggle ist not about potentially blacking out. Not at all. If fact you want to throw that crate in the sky becuase it always goes where you want it to go. You don't feel like taking any care about anything whatever. You move wings and nose like your arms.

 

Given joystics have a specific center, it would make the Spit even easier to fly on the computer then in real world. The Spit being neutral in the elevator axis just means that it follows the stick faster and more readily than most other planes. Right now, the Spits does the opposite. It tends to buffer out fas stick movements, something that you instinctively counter by excessive input. They are either as most planes (and tolerable in such for our game I guess) or in case of the XIV, it is far worse.

 

You may like what you have now. But that is not a Spit.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Went back in game and the g-meter gets to 4g in about 1s with the XIV.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are testing.

The XIV can reach specific g's as fast as any other plane. But let me explain:

 

The idea is pulling the stick back as fast as you can to an exact deflection angle that makes her pull (arbitaily chosen) 4 g. When you know the exact stick travel required for that (which is little), do just that but instantly and see who long it takes her to stettle at 4 on the hUD without further moving the stick. She should stay now at 4 g. Important is that you start with an instant deflection and count from there what she does while the stick rests deflected. We are interested how fast she can follow a command that is basically too fast for her.

 

You can do this with several aircraft, and you will notice that the Spit XIV takes (relatively speaking) a very long time to settle at those 4 g than other planes.

 

You can shorten this time to reach 4 g by pulling more, but then once you reach 4 g, you need to ease up on the stick and shove it forward, not to pass 4 g, but end up pulling 6 or 7 or more.

 

You can learn this easing up on the stick instinctively to compensate for the sluggish nose and all be happy and dandy. But in the real aircraft, a quick strong pull followed by releasing the pull is something you NEVER would have to do. You always have the g's your pulling at the very moment. In this game, this easing up after a swift pull is the only thing that keeps you from passing out when chasing the 109. And I think this is why people get the impression the you can pull more g on the 109 then the Spit, because in the 109, you don't have to ease the stick in that manner after entering a quick turn. I think these over g spikes send you to sleep in a protracted flight.

 

Making aircraft sluggish in pitch there should really be a concious design decision, it impacts a lot.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

56 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

You can learn this easing up on the stick instinctively to compensate for the sluggish nose and all be happy and dandy. But in the real aircraft, a quick strong pull followed by releasing the pull is something you NEVER would have to do. You always have the g's your pulling at the very moment. In this game, this easing up after a swift pull is the only thing that keeps you from passing out when chasing the 109. And I think this is why people get the impression the you can pull more g on the 109 then the Spit, because in the 109, you don't have to ease the stick in that manner after entering a quick turn. I think these over g spikes send you to sleep in a protracted flight.

 

 

 

 

But is this not exactly the required behaviour noticed in the NACA report a801503 on the Spitfire Va? They note that this seems to be Spitfire specific.  Extract from page 9:

 

 

 

[Talisman]

15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

But is this not exactly the required behaviour noticed in the NACA report a801503 on the Spitfire Va? They note that this seems to be Spitfire specific.  Extract from page 9:

 

 

 

 

I think that the NACA report needs to be taken in context and that the context, in this instance, is rather complicated; or at least that is how it appears from the discussion linked below (well worth a read I think):

The Air Tactical Assault Group - Team Fusion - Cliffs of Dover

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited April 26, 2021 by ACG_Talisman

[ZachariasX]

31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

But is this not exactly the required behaviour noticed in the NACA report a801503 on the Spitfire Va? They note that this seems to be Spitfire specific.  Extract from page 9:

A good point, but I also see it more in context mentioned by @ACG_Talisman.

 

For my setting, I tried to be much withing very benign parameters to reuduce as many other factors that may play into such. In the end, my musing is directed at how easy it is to make the nose point exactly where you want. This are rather small inputs then compared to what you can do.

[unreasonable]

Reading that thread (thanks!), if I understand it right, it seems that from the pilots POV (or feel) the stick had to be held at a specific pressure (lbs) to make a given constant g turn, but at that given pressure the actual stick position would follow the back then slightly forwards path as the turn commenced.

 

Not something that we can really do with our joysticks I suppose.  

 

I appreciate it is complicated....personally I have never had much problem making the Spitfire V or IX point where I want them to, although I have yet to take the XIV for a spin.

Edited April 26, 2021 by unreasonable

[JtD]

I don't think you really need a lot more context for this. This is what the neutral stability is about, your elevator mainly controls the pitch change rate. In a perfectly neutral longitudinal stability, you'd fly the aircraft with the same stick position in a 1g and in a 4g condition. You move the stick back until you pull 4 g and then you put it back to where it was to maintain 4 g. In the devs update on the Spitfire IX, I think, they have described that is something they acutally programmed the Spitfire to be like.

 

This is not contraticting the feeling of instant response in the real aircraft, because there you have control forces that give you a much more immediate feedback (plus the Spitfires stability is marginally stable).

[Algy-Lacey]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

But is this not exactly the required behaviour noticed in the NACA report a801503 on the Spitfire Va? They note that this seems to be Spitfire specific.  Extract from page 9:

 

 

 

 

This seems to show that the Spitfire should be more sensitive to small movements of the stick than other fighters. From what I understand, people are saying that the Spit XIV is not sensitive enough and that you have to move the stick more to get a quick response. In which case this is a bug, perhaps I may have misunderstood?

 

[ZachariasX]

19 minutes ago, JtD said:

You move the stick back until you pull 4 g and then you put it back to where it was to maintain 4 g.

That is not my "issue", of course the wandering lift vector will make itself shown on the Spit and it should. It should even on the 190 ultimately.

 

The point is that the nose of the Spit follows the stick noticeably slower than, say, the 190A3 or above all, the Tempest. The whole easing forward is only due to the pilot having to pull more than 4 g to make the nose come up as fast to reach 4 g, as with other planes that "just" pull a 4 g input abd they reach that fast

with no "over pulling". And this is what is in opposition to the behavior of an aircraft with neutral controls.

 

 

1 minute ago, Algy-Lacey said:

This seems to show that the Spitfire should be more sensitive to small movements of the stick than other fighters. From what I understand, people are saying that the Spit XIV is not sensitive enough and that you have to move the stick more to get a quick response. In which case this is a bug, perhaps I may have misunderstood?

Yes! Absolutely right.

[unreasonable]

OK, I understand that point: will give it a go.  Though I do not think comparing anything with the Tempest in particular is a good place to start, for reasons we have covered elsewhere. The Tempest is the most obviously suspect FM, (apart from the N.28 )  it still has an implausible  CLmax.  Perhaps the Hurricane? 

 

[ZachariasX]

15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The Tempest is the most obviously suspect FM,

I use it as an example that heavy powerful planes can well have very senstivive in controls in this sim.