shreddersa Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Dont wish to spam mods so remove this if inappropriate, however I thought this might be of broader interest. The HFS cockpit design is just about complete and the prototype construction will be starting this month, with plans proven and available targeted by end of the year. https://heritageflightsim.com/2018/07/08/free-desktop-wallpaper/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 I had a look at the website to see what this is about. Looks amazing! So, you're rebuilding a Spitfire cockpit in order for it to be compatible with DCS in VR, in terms of touch? Have you thought about making a Warthog compatible Spitfire stick grip commercially available? PC Specs / Hardware: MSI z370 Gaming Plus Mainboard, Intel 8700k @ 5GHz, MSI Sea Hawk 2080 Ti @ 2100MHz, 32GB 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM Displays: Philips BDM4065UC 60Hz 4K UHD Screen, Pimax 8KX Controllers / Peripherals: VPC MongoosT-50, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, modded MS FFB2/CH Combatstick, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Gametrix JetSeat OS: Windows 10 Home Creator's Update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 5, 2018 Author Share Posted November 5, 2018 I had a look at the website to see what this is about. Looks amazing! So, you're rebuilding a Spitfire cockpit in order for it to be compatible with DCS in VR, in terms of touch? Have you thought about making a Warthog compatible Spitfire stick grip commercially available? Hi Boris, Apologies for this late response. My post notifications dont seem to be working correctly. Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we believe this will be providing an amazing experience. It will marry an accurate Spitfire MkIX cockpit to the DCS World Spit, giving an unparalleled VR immersion. Yes we have thought about (and designed) a spade grip with gooseneck compatible with the VKB base ( not sure if that is also compatible with the Warthog, TM technology is not as accessable as VKB). They have been somewhat busy though, getting their new factory going and orders shipped, so it hasn’t progressed much further at this time. For us the priority is to complete the cockpit but will pick up on it again in the new year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogonaut Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 looks very good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xvii-Dietrich Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 One day, these hyper-detailed 3D renderings will have a webpage. At the bottom of which, there is a "3D-print" button. You click it, select DCS in the drop-down menu, fill in an address and credit-card number, and the next day it is delivered to your home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Fenrir Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 A quick warning regarding the aileron force feedback - if it's the NACA Mk.VA aircraft that is the source of the aileron load graph, be careful; I cannot find any source that confirms whether or not this aircraft had fabric or metal covered ailerons. Ergo, if it had fabric covered ailerons then the stick force measurements you have referenced will be too high if your aim is to represent a Mk.IX, as all Mk.IX were fitted with metal covered ailerons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Dactil Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 Does aileron deflection match the roll rate? I think probably not. I imagine V squared would be in the equation somewhere. As a pilot I don't care about what aileron displacement I get. I think I would be more interested in stick force vs roll rate being linear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 Does aileron deflection match the roll rate? I think probably not. I imagine V squared would be in the equation somewhere. As a pilot I don't care about what aileron displacement I get. I think I would be more interested in stick force vs roll rate being linear. As the airspeed increases, less control movement is required to achieve the same roll rate. I need to test whether this is properly modelled in DCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 9, 2018 Author Share Posted November 9, 2018 A quick warning regarding the aileron force feedback - if it's the NACA Mk.VA aircraft that is the source of the aileron load graph, be careful; I cannot find any source that confirms whether or not this aircraft had fabric or metal covered ailerons. Ergo, if it had fabric covered ailerons then the stick force measurements you have referenced will be too high if your aim is to represent a Mk.IX, as all Mk.IX were fitted with metal covered ailerons. Thanks for the heads up! Those were the only figures I have been able to find. That said, I understand that metal ailerons were being fitted by June 41. They were fitted to MkV, so the NACA tests done in September 1942 would most likely have been with metal ailerons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 11, 2018 Author Share Posted November 11, 2018 As the airspeed increases, less control movement is required to achieve the same roll rate. I need to test whether this is properly modelled in DCS. So I checked and regrettably, this does not seem to be modeled properly in the DCS Spitfire. This in spite of the purported Professional Flight Model. My tests indicated a roll rate to port of 360deg in 5 seconds, whether at 180mph or 300mph. This in contrast to say the P47 modeled by FlyingIron Simulations for X-Plane, where the roll rate is 5 seconds at 200mph and 2.5 seconds at 300mph. I look forward to their Spitfire Mk.IX for X-Plane 11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Fenrir Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 (edited) And yet another source, comparing Mustang roll rate and stick forces with an unspecified Spitfire, shows a stick force of 24lb at 300mph to obtain a 45 degree/sec roll rate for the Spitfire... You're assuming a great deal shredder and piling assumption on assumption to conclude ED have miscalculated their Spitfire FM. The NACA Spitfire used is a Mk.Va with 8x .303s - a lot of these were simply re-engined Spitfire Mk.I, or at the very least very early production Mk.V. In either case they would still have had fabric ailerons when initially converted/built. You assume because of chronology that the airframe would have had metal ailerons; a reasonable assumption but it does not take into account whether or not the airframe had any operational RAF time (in which case it could well have had the metals fitted as an operational expediency as many units chased down metal ailerons for retro-fit at squadron level as pace of production of metal ailerons struggled to meet demand). Alternatively, many airframes did not go straight to a unit from production/refit but were instead supplied to Maintenance or Storage units so as to provide a ready reserve for loss replacement. Right having typed all that out I discovered the following: Serial number: W3119 Built as Mk.Va, at Supermarines Eastleigh Works first flew on 22nd April 1941. Sent straight to 39 Maintenance Unit on 25th April 1941, it was sent to Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio during July of 1941, then to NACA at Langley Field in December the same year. Given the above, I would suggest it is far more likely that W3119 was not equipped with metal covered ailerons. Furthermore, I have found this quote on an old Ubiforum post, referencing a paper by Joe Smith (the designer at Supermarine who succeeded Mitchell and the man responsible for the design changes from the Mk.I forwards); I do not yet have the paper itself, though I am trying to source to corroborate whether the information presented has been accurately reproduced. These Spitfire roll rate data were taken from THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPITFIRE AND SEAFIRE - 706th lecture delivered before the Royal Aeronautical Society (19 Dec 1946) by J. Smith (chief designer for Supermarine during the war). Herewith follows the roll rate graph values, as closely as I can approximate them: All data are give for "full aileron or 50 lb stick force" - I suppose whichever limit was achieved first. All air speeds are given as "equivalent air speed". Not sure what is meant by this term; I'm guessing that it means indicated airspeed. Spitfire V / fabric covered frise ailerons: 90 deg/sec @ 170 mph (lowest speed graphed) 75 deg/sec @ 200 mph 55 deg/sec @ 250 mph 40 deg/sec @ 300 mph 27 deg/sec @ 350 mph 20 deg/sec @ 380 mph (end of graphed values) Spitfire Mk V / metal covered frise ailerons 85 deg/sec @ 150 mph 105 deg/sec @ 200 mph 90 deg/sec @ 250 mph 75 deg/sec @ 300 mph 60 deg/sec @ 350 mph 40 deg/sec @ 400 mph Spitfire Mk V / plain ailerons with tabs 65 deg/sec @ 180 mph 75 deg/sec @ 200 mph 95 deg/sec @ 250 mph 118 deg/sec @ 300 mph 90 deg/sec @ 350 mph 70 deg/sec @ 400 mph The explanatory text which accompanied the graphs follows: "Careful analysis over a long period of time on various marks of Spitfire had revealed fairly wide variations in aileron section and in the position of the ailerons relative to the wings. These differences resulted in inconsistent aileron characteristics, and it was felt that ailerons of a type which would be simple to manufacture and which would be less sensitive to manufacturing tolerances were necessary. Quantitative data obtained from flight trials on a Spitfire Mark V with plain ailerons fitted with a balance tab had previously indicated that aileron properties comparable with those of a metal-covered Frise type could be achieved, with a reduction in drag due to the elimination of the gap. Ailerons of this type with area increased to 6 per cent of the total wing area, as against 5 per cent on earlier marks, were fitted to the stiffer Mark 21 wing and gave a high rate of roll with reasonable stick forces at high speeds." Smith then goes on to show a graph of stick efforts required to "apply 1/4 aileron at various speeds. Spitfire V / fabric covered frise ailerons 8 lbs @ 200 mph 16 lbs @ 250 mph 27 lbs @ 300 mph 43 lbs @ 350 mph 57 lbs @ 375 mph (end of graphed values) Spitfire V / plain ailerons with tabs 7 lbs @ 200 mph 9 lbs @ 250 mph 13 lbs @ 300 mph 18 lbs @ 350 mph 24 lbs @ 400 mph Spitfire V / metal covered frise ailerons 4 lbs @ 200 mph 5 lbs @ 250 mph 7 lbs @ 300 mph 9 lbs @ 350 mph 12 lbs @ 400 mph Smith elsewhere mentions in passing some roll rate values for other Spitfire Marks, to wit - Spitfire I - 14 deg/sec @ 400 mph Seafire 47 - 68 deg/sec @ 400 mph Hope this helps. As can be seen there is some correlation between the figures presented for the Mk.Va NACA airframe and those figures as noted above for Mk.V airframe with fabric covered ailerons. Edited November 12, 2018 by DD_Fenrir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 14, 2018 Author Share Posted November 14, 2018 And yet another source, comparing Mustang roll rate and stick forces with an unspecified Spitfire, shows a stick force of 24lb at 300mph to obtain a 45 degree/sec roll rate for the Spitfire... You're assuming a great deal shredder and piling assumption on assumption to conclude ED have miscalculated their Spitfire FM. The NACA Spitfire used is a Mk.Va with 8x .303s - a lot of these were simply re-engined Spitfire Mk.I, or at the very least very early production Mk.V. In either case they would still have had fabric ailerons when initially converted/built. You assume because of chronology that the airframe would have had metal ailerons; a reasonable assumption but it does not take into account whether or not the airframe had any operational RAF time (in which case it could well have had the metals fitted as an operational expediency as many units chased down metal ailerons for retro-fit at squadron level as pace of production of metal ailerons struggled to meet demand). Alternatively, many airframes did not go straight to a unit from production/refit but were instead supplied to Maintenance or Storage units so as to provide a ready reserve for loss replacement. Right having typed all that out I discovered the following: Serial number: W3119 Built as Mk.Va, at Supermarines Eastleigh Works first flew on 22nd April 1941. Sent straight to 39 Maintenance Unit on 25th April 1941, it was sent to Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio during July of 1941, then to NACA at Langley Field in December the same year. Given the above, I would suggest it is far more likely that W3119 was not equipped with metal covered ailerons. Furthermore, I have found this quote on an old Ubiforum post, referencing a paper by Joe Smith (the designer at Supermarine who succeeded Mitchell and the man responsible for the design changes from the Mk.I forwards); I do not yet have the paper itself, though I am trying to source to corroborate whether the information presented has been accurately reproduced. As can be seen there is some correlation between the figures presented for the Mk.Va NACA airframe and those figures as noted above for Mk.V airframe with fabric covered ailerons. Very interesting info and very valuable, thank you DD! I will have a good look at the figures and see how they might be incorporated. It would indeed mean that for the IX the forces are overstated. That's a bit of a relief really as it means I can go for weaker springs and less forces are induced in the system overall. Currently the FF provides the following results: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 15, 2018 Author Share Posted November 15, 2018 You're assuming a great deal shredder and piling assumption on assumption to conclude ED have miscalculated their Spitfire FM. ........... You assume because of chronology that the airframe would have had metal ailerons; a reasonable assumption but it does not take into account whether or not the airframe had any operational RAF time (in which case it could well have had the metals fitted as an operational expediency as many units chased down metal ailerons for retro-fit at squadron level as pace of production of metal ailerons struggled to meet demand). ........... Right having typed all that out I discovered the following: Serial number: W3119 Built as Mk.Va, at Supermarines Eastleigh Works first flew on 22nd April 1941. Sent straight to 39 Maintenance Unit on 25th April 1941, it was sent to Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio during July of 1941, then to NACA at Langley Field in December the same year. Given the above, I would suggest it is far more likely that W3119 was not equipped with metal covered ailerons. .......... Hi DD, I regret that you too are working on assumptions. I went through the NACA L-334 report again which formed the basis of my force calculations. It states explicitly on page 2 and again on page 12 that the ailerons were metal covered. All that said, I would dearly love to get hold of the lecture notes by Smith to better understand the context of the figures you present. It's all a very interesting journey! :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Fenrir Posted November 15, 2018 Share Posted November 15, 2018 Looks like I need to go back to the opticians! Good find. Well, I stand corrected. I will put a caveat though, in that the NACA figures do seem on the high side in comparison to those quoted from the Smith paper, and in general given the anecdotal evidence of the lighter control afforded by metal ailerons. All that said, I would dearly love to get hold of the lecture notes by Smith... Me too! Without it we are having to rely on someone else's interpretation of graphs and assume they are correct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shreddersa Posted November 15, 2018 Author Share Posted November 15, 2018 Looks like I need to go back to the opticians! Good find. Well, I stand corrected. I will put a caveat though, in that the NACA figures do seem on the high side in comparison to those quoted from the Smith paper, and in general given the anecdotal evidence of the lighter control afforded by metal ailerons. Me too! Without it we are having to rely on someone else's interpretation of graphs and assume they are correct... I saw the Smith paper on Cambridge University Press. However, to fork out GBP25 for a paper published in 1947 (should be free and in public domain after 70 years) is a bit rough. So I will work on the figures I can get. These all seem to corroborate the NACA tests as far as I can see. I will compile a set of what I have and publish it here. Cheers, Roel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts