Jump to content

DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion


Yo-Yo

Recommended Posts

Theoretically, the new engine can change the balance fore,
Practically, it did.

but in this case increased elevator deflection per 1g would require significantly heavier forces on the stick.
Why would that be? The stick forces of the Spitfire V come from three main sources - friction in the controls, the elevator mass imbalance and the aerodynamic forces from elevator deflection. Now friction and mass imbalance are completely independent from a higher elevator angle required with a more forward CoG, only aerodynamic forces are not. And these were low in the first place.

So, I think, that the evidencies of positive stable IX would be different (increased) force compensation on the elevator or pilot's lamentations about "much hevier control".
There are plenty of pilots comments on heavier elevator of the IX to be found, as well as test pilots comments on better longitudinal stability. However, I'm not aware of complaints about "much heavier controls", as they weren't "much" heavier. Some pilots would instead positively note the reduced nervousness of the plane and better control balance.

 

It can't be so difficult to move the CoG the document ~3" forward and let the DCS engine deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ED Team
I think what he meant was 3-out-of-4 from an inch. So 3/4 * 1 inch.

Do you mean 3 -to- 4 inches?

 

Once I mixed 3/4 litres with 3-4 litres making a "soup from a letter envelope". It was late evening after a long day of competitions including 10 km cross-country through a forest, lomg way to and from the start of these event... We were extremely tired and hungry... It was Dzerzhinsk-city of last Soviet era with almost empty food stores.

The soup smelt amazing but remained too thin... we boiled it another 5 minutes... then another 5 - the result was the same. Finally the soup went to drainage. We we saved from starvation death by our friends from the next room - pure macaroni seemed a speciality.

 

Never, never again :)!

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Practically, it did.

Why would that be? The stick forces of the Spitfire V come from three main sources - friction in the controls, the elevator mass imbalance and the aerodynamic forces from elevator deflection. Now friction and mass imbalance are completely independent from a higher elevator angle required with a more forward CoG, only aerodynamic forces are not. And these were low in the first place.

There are plenty of pilots comments on heavier elevator of the IX to be found, as well as test pilots comments on better longitudinal stability. However, I'm not aware of complaints about "much heavier controls", as they weren't "much" heavier. Some pilots would instead positively note the reduced nervousness of the plane and better control balance.

 

It can't be so difficult to move the CoG the document ~3" forward and let the DCS engine deal with it.

 

Yes, there is no problem to do it. :)

 

The source of force increasing is the increasing of required deflection of an elevator to reach the same g due to increased plane stability.

 

What document stated this 3" shift?

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitfire loading plans. I recall these figures from when TD reworked the Spitfire FM's in Il2:1946. I don't have the sources here. IvanK might.

 

NACA tested at 31.4% MAC, iIrc it corresponds to roughly 7" from datum point. Spitfire IX was at about 4", or 28.5%. I think MAC was about 88".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Spitfire loading plans. I recall these figures from when TD reworked the Spitfire FM's in Il2:1946. I don't have the sources here. IvanK might.

 

NACA tested at 31.4% MAC, iIrc it corresponds to roughly 7" from datum point. Spitfire IX was at about 4", or 28.5%. I think MAC was about 88".

 

Can you show the doc?

Anyway, I see that IX had increased elevator compensation (horn balance), so it's an evidence that the CG could be moved forward.

 

And please keep in mind that the work on obtaining documentation is not complete and weight and balance docs are not investigated yet.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, 3/4" travel must almost feel like force sensitive controls on an F-16:)

 

Of course in real flight one doesn`t think about the stick travel. You control your crate after the inputs you get from the airframe and controls, you don`t think about how many millimeters you are pulling to achieve this. It is funny because you could tell how much you are loading your aircraft with closed eyes, only by using your other senses it is so natural. But sitting in front of a screen all you can use is your eyes :)


Edited by VO101_MMaister

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



KG13 Control Grip Building

Control Stick and Rudder Design



 

i7 8700K, Asus Z370-E, 1080 Ti, 32Gb RAM, EVO960 500Gb, Oculus CV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, 3/4" travel must almost feel like force sensitive controls on an F-16:)

 

Of course in real flight one doesn`t think about the stick travel. You control your crate after the inputs you get from the airframe and controls, you don`t think about how many millimeters you are pulling to achieve this. It is funny because you could tell how much you are loading your aircraft with closed eyes, only by using your other senses it is so natural. But sitting in front of a screen all you can use is your eyes :)

 

That's very true, you quickly adapt...just for giggle's, I assigned the X and the Y to my CH pro throttle micro stick. It has maybe 3/8 of an inch movement one direction. I've been flying around a bit with the P-51, gonna try takeoff and landing with it too, could get ugly. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me. I'm tired of flying kid-glove Spits in the other sims.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me. I'm tired of flying kid-glove Spits in the other sims.

 

+1000

i7 4820k@4.6, msi big bang xpower ii, 840 pro ssd for os and games, 840 evo ssd for media, full custom water loop, dell u2713hm, warthog hotas and because thats how i roll. :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, Spit IXs were at least originally Mk Vc fuselages and wings from the firewall back, with an additional large radiator under the left wing replacing the old tube-shaped oil cooler. Forward of the firewall was the two stage Merlin and a four bladed Rotol prop, making the IX about a foot longer and somewhat heavier than the Mk V.

 

During its service life, the Mk IX underwent several improvements, becoming a more formidable and versatile combat aircraft. The wing went from the 'c' type with 2x200m cannon and 4x.303" lmgs to the 'e' type with the .303" Brownings being replaced by a pair of American .50" hmgs mounted inboard of the cannon, the elevators got larger balance horns, and the rudder got a bit bigger and had a point on top, along with the various wingtip mods (clipped, standard, and high altitude pointy tips) and several different late series Merlin engines and a couple of different carburetor filters. There were other changes, but those were the main ones generally identified with the Mk IX.

 

Which of these improvements will be on the Mk IX we'll be getting from RRG?

 

-engine series

-wings

-armament options

-elevator type

-rudder type

 

cheers

 

horseback

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

As we have tons of materals for V flght dynamics it would be right to have IX of early version regarding balance and non-induced drag changing. It would be interesting to investigate if the plane existed with .50 guns wing and the rudder of old type, for example.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have tons of materals for V flght dynamics it would be right to have IX of early version regarding balance and non-induced drag changing. It would be interesting to investigate if the plane existed with .50 guns wing and the rudder of old type, for example.

 

The 'E' wing ( 2 Hispano 20mm and 2 .50 Brownings) was introduced early '44 by my book (The Spitfire, Mustang & Kittyhawk in Australian service - Stewart Wilson). It states " As it's airframe was based on the Spitfire V, the Mk.IX featured a fixed tail wheel and all but the very latest models had the standard Spitfire canopy and fin/rudder design.

 

Here is a picture of RK889 that was an IXe built in October '44. It has the E wing (stub with .50cal on the inside) and early fin shape.

 

http://www.spitfire.dk/Grafik/RK889Edmonton2.jpg

 

RK889Edmonton2.jpg

 

It does have the larger carburetor air intake for the 70 series Merlin.


Edited by Skoshi Tiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how come that combination never became more mainstream? did it create performance problems for the spit because that to me seems a more potent firepower set up

i7 4820k@4.6, msi big bang xpower ii, 840 pro ssd for os and games, 840 evo ssd for media, full custom water loop, dell u2713hm, warthog hotas and because thats how i roll. :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how come that combination never became more mainstream? did it create performance problems for the spit because that to me seems a more potent firepower set up

 

well, for one the war ended and, secondly far more potent combinations (4 20 mm cannons type wings) were also put into production with the later marks Spitfires

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how come that combination never became more mainstream? did it create performance problems for the spit because that to me seems a more potent firepower set up
Let's keep in mind that the US military had a great many uses for the .50" M2 heavy machine gun--in a way, they had a compulsion to stuff it into every conceivable ground unit, vehicle, boat, ship and aircraft they could find, not unlike the Brits and their need to stuff a Merlin (or some derivative thereof) into practically everything that flew, sailed or drove from 1936 to 1950.

 

There weren't enough M2s to go around for almost two years after the US entry and installation of the .50" in the 'e' wing came about only after the US manufacturers had reached saturation of US military needs for the .50" machine gun; once there was a surplus of the weapons, the RAF was given as many as were available. According to some sources, early versions of the 'e' wing had the four .303" light MGs.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's keep in mind that the US military had a great many uses for the .50" M2 heavy machine gun--in a way, they had a compulsion to stuff it into every conceivable ground unit, vehicle, boat, ship and aircraft they could find, not unlike the Brits and their need to stuff a Merlin (or some derivative thereof) into practically everything that flew, sailed or drove from 1936 to 1950.

 

There weren't enough M2s to go around for almost two years after the US entry and installation of the .50" in the 'e' wing came about only after the US manufacturers had reached saturation of US military needs for the .50" machine gun; once there was a surplus of the weapons, the RAF was given as many as were available. According to some sources, early versions of the 'e' wing had the four .303" light MGs.

 

cheers

 

horseback

 

ahh i see

i7 4820k@4.6, msi big bang xpower ii, 840 pro ssd for os and games, 840 evo ssd for media, full custom water loop, dell u2713hm, warthog hotas and because thats how i roll. :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but there are a couple of things that contradict what other sources tell us.

 

First, the Spitfire Mk II used a Merlin X engine; the 45 was associated with later Mk V versions.

 

Second, metal ailerons became standard (at least on the Channel Front) by late 1941; Both Tuck's and Bader's popular biographies (Reach For the Sky and Fly For Your Life, although I can't remember which was which) mention the improvement conferred by the metal ailerons, and pushing for and making the switch while both were flying either Mk IIs or very early Mk Vs before both of those stalwarts became guests of the LW by the first half of 1942. I also seem to recall from several bios or memoirs that mention taking operational aircraft from the front line to the depot to have the ailerons replaced while the pilot waited in 1941.

 

Some emphasis is placed on the discomfort of the Spitfire's cockpit, but the aircraft was not designed for missions over 90 minutes; something that would be intolerable for 4 to 6 hours (short of arterial bleeding or a severe anal itch) can usually be endured for 90 minutes. Pilots in the various Bf 109 models had it much worse, and if the comparative loss rates over friendly territory is any indication, the Spit was much safer to bail out of. The Spit was also considered easier to take off, land and taxi than the 109 (and the P-40) by a fairly wide margin.

 

My reading of the passages is that the writer is playing up, or emphasizing the difficulties a bit to add a little drama.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Spitfire pilots were more scared of crashing their aircraft than being killed by the enemy?

 

A bit late in the topic, but personally i've never heard from any of the 322 Squadron veterans i've interviewed or just spoken in general that they were more scared of HER than be shot down and killed.

 

On occasion i asked the late van Arkel how she flew, his answer was: "She flies as how she looks, i own my life to her"

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second time I've been quoted on that one, I wasn't being serious, there is more than a hint of irony to the question as someone suggested that Spitfire pilots only flew them well because someone was holding a gun to their heads and telling them not to crash........utter nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...