Spitfire Roll Rate

[ATAG_Knuckles]

Been flying this for years, not sure why I am just now observing these things ?? At present my roll rate in the Spitfire Mk IIa is 5 seconds, seems like an eternity when a 109 is blasting away, Is this correct ?? also in the Options/controls/axis, I understand the "sensitivity" but why 2 dead zones ?

I have the sensitivity slider all the way up ?? shouldn;t the roll rate be a bit more that 5 sec. ??

4040

[Dutch]

Depends what speed you're flying at Knucks old chum. At 250mph, you'll roll really quick. At 400mph, not so much....:D

[ATAG_Knuckles]

Hummmm: now I would figure the faster the airspeed the quicker the control response ????

Now Dutch not that I am doubting you there ole bean ole pal !!!

[1lokos]

Been flying this for years, not sure why I am just now observing these things ?? At present my roll rate in the Spitfire Mk IIa is 5 seconds, seems like an eternity when a 109 is blasting away, Is this correct ?? also in the Options/controls/axis, I understand the "sensitivity" but why 2 dead zones ?

I have the sensitivity slider all the way up ?? shouldn;t the roll rate be a bit more that 5 sec. ??

4040

This "sensitivity" 1.0 in you attached picture is good to "put piper over bogie" (preferably a bomber :D ), but slow you roll rate since induce a "damper" in response command (joystick input # output (signal) for game.

If you use 0 (equals a 100% in old il-2) joystick input = output for game.

100% deadzone is big too.

Sokol1

[Wulf]

This "sensitivity" 1.0 in you attached picture is good to "put piper over bogie" (preferably a bomber :D ), but slow you roll rate since induce a "damper" in response command (joystick input # output (signal) for game.

If you use 0 (equals a 100% in old il-2) joystick input = output for game.

100% deadzone is big too.

Sokol1


Really hate doing this but I've noticed that a number of people use the word "bogie" incorrectly, and, to my way of thinking, if nothing is said, the error is simply perpetuated. Anyway, I apologise in advance if I sound like a smart-arse.

A "bogie" in a WW2 BoB context is an unidentified aircraft. At the point where a "bogie" can be clearly identified as being German or Italian, it becomes a 'bandit' or sometimes a 'shite-hawk'. The term 'shite-hawk' being more typically used at squadron level.

[Roblex]

"put piper over bogie" (preferably a bomber


Really hate doing this but I've noticed that a number of people use the word "bogie" incorrectly, and, to my way of thinking, if nothing is said, the error is simply perpetuated. Anyway, I apologise in advance if I sound like a smart-arse.

A "bogie" in a WW2 BoB context is an unidentified aircraft. At the point where a "bogie" can be clearly identified as being German or Italian, it becomes a 'bandit' or sometimes a 'shite-hawk'. The term 'shite-hawk' being more typically used at squadron level.


And while we are at it, it is 'pipper' not 'piper' :-P

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Hummmm: now I would figure the faster the airspeed the quicker the control response ????

The effectiveness of ailerons are subject to many factors, the speed of the aircraft and the volume of air flowing over the control surfaces being one.

Aileron effectiveness is designed to be optimized at particular speeds, through the size of the aileron itself, the amount of leverage, the construction and the positional placement on the wing. Other factors which exercise a large influence are the overall square footage of the wings to be moved, the larger the wing, the more inertia to be overcome, as well as the wingspan, and whether or not there are engines in the wings or whether the aircraft is carrying bombs or ordanance. The design of the wingtips is also a factor, with squared off wingtips being optimal, compared to tapered wingtips. (one of the reasons the Clipped wing Spitfires rolled so much better than the standard)

At speeds lower than the optimal design range, rollrate will be less, at speeds exceeding the optimal range, rollrate will decrease.

At this stage in the war, the design of typical ailerons led to ineffective response at higher speeds. That affected the 109E's, early Spitfires with fabric covered ailerons and Hurricanes.

The exception were some American designs, the Curtiss P-36, also known as the Hawk-75, had extremely effective ailerons throughout the speed range. The Curtis H-75 was the most effective French fighter during the Battle of France, shooting down considerably more German aircraft than Squadrons with its type lost. In a dogfight comparison with an early two pitch prop Spitfire, the Curtiss easily outmaneuvered it. The Spitfire was considerably faster.

The H-75 was the forerunner to the P-40 which was much heavier but which retained the excellent aileron response.

Anyone who is interested in reading a report on the effectiveness of various of Aileron types check out this NACA study, which focuses mostly on late war aircraft:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf

[Wulf]

The effectiveness of ailerons are subject to many factors, the speed of the aircraft and the volume of air flowing over the control surfaces being one.

Aileron effectiveness is designed to be optimized at particular speeds, through the size of the aileron itself, the amount of leverage, the construction and the positional placement on the wing. Other factors which exercise a large influence are the overall square footage of the wings to be moved, the larger the wing, the more inertia to be overcome, as well as the wingspan, and whether or not there are engines in the wings or whether the aircraft is carrying bombs or ordanance. The design of the wingtips is also a factor, with squared off wingtips being optimal, compared to tapered wingtips. (one of the reasons the Clipped wing Spitfires rolled so much better than the standard)

At speeds lower than the optimal design range, rollrate will be less, at speeds exceeding the optimal range, rollrate will decrease.

At this stage in the war, the design of typical ailerons led to ineffective response at higher speeds. That affected the 109E's, early Spitfires with fabric covered ailerons and Hurricanes.

The exception were some American designs, the Curtiss P-36, also known as the Hawk-75, had extremely effective ailerons throughout the speed range. The Curtis H-75 was the most effective French fighter during the Battle of France, shooting down considerably more German aircraft than Squadrons with its type lost. In a dogfight comparison with an early two pitch prop Spitfire, the Curtiss easily outmaneuvered it. The Spitfire was considerably faster.

The H-75 was the forerunner to the P-40 which was much heavier but which retained the excellent aileron response.

Anyone who is interested in reading a report on the effectiveness of various of Aileron types check out this NACA study, which focuses mostly on late war aircraft:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf


The Spitfire was a remarkable aircraft for all sorts of reasons but roll rate was never one of its standout features. The introduction of a clipped-wing LF type, prior to the introduction of the Mk IX (done initially in conjunction with a cropped supercharger impeller) was a pretty desperate last ditch attempt to improve the Spit's roll rate (and low alt acceleration) vis-a-vis the Focke Wulf 190. The rate improved somewhat as a consequence but, it still wasn't a match for a 190.

[Gromit]

Bear in mind early Spits used fabric covered ailerons which reduced roll at higher speeds, during the BoB squadrons started switching to metal covered ailerons which improved the high speed roll considerably, Baders squadron actually ordered (without seeking approval) metal ailerons and billed the War office, which apparently caused a stink later on when the bill arrived!

Roll rate of the 109 and Spit was very similar but neither was as good as the 190A which was I believe the fastest rolling aircraft of the war, but then again with those little wings and a high wing loading your making compromises elsewhere to achieve that!

[Wulf]

Bear in mind early Spits used fabric covered ailerons which reduced roll at higher speeds, during the BoB squadrons started switching to metal covered ailerons which improved the high speed roll considerably, Baders squadron actually ordered (without seeking approval) metal ailerons and billed the War office, which apparently caused a stink later on when the bill arrived!

Roll rate of the 109 and Spit was very similar but neither was as good as the 190A which was I believe the fastest rolling aircraft of the war, but then again with those little wings and a high wing loading your making compromises elsewhere to achieve that!

Both the 109 and Spit suffered from very poor aileron deflection at high speed. According to one report the BoB era Spits and 109 Es could only manage about 1/5th deflection on the ailerons at 400 mph. At lower speeds the 109 did quite a bit better simply because of the reduced wing area. This was always going to be a problem for the Spit, even with clipped wings.

The 190 A was, as you say, about as good as it got in the roll department although that said, the Tempest would out-roll a 190 at the upper end of the speed curve.

[1lokos]

A "bogie" in a WW2 BoB context is an unidentified aircraft. At the point where a "bogie" can be clearly identified as being German or Italian, it becomes a 'bandit' or sometimes a 'shite-hawk'. The term 'shite-hawk' being more typically used at squadron level.

Is my sources: http://www.kensmen.com/slang.html :D

Sokol1

[Wulf]

Is my sources: http://www.kensmen.com/slang.html :D

Sokol1

Hmmm ...yes well, I think you'll find that's, err ... 'american' lingo, from a different theatre of operations. Easy mistake to make old boy....:angel:

[Dutch]

So anyway Knuckles old chum, set sensitivity to '0', and I prefer no deadzones at all, but this makes your stick very sensitive.

I edited my initial response because I was exaggerating the low speed. 150mph is hardly even manoeuvering speed, let alone a good speed for roll rate. 250mph is far more like it.

But I'll leave it there, as the thread appears to be turning into one of those dreaded comparison threads. :D

[Gromit]

So anyway Knuckles old chum, set sensitivity to '0', and I prefer no deadzones at all, but this makes your stick very sensitive.

I edited my initial response because I was exaggerating the low speed. 150mph is hardly even manoeuvering speed, let alone a good speed for roll rate. 250mph is far more like it.

But I'll leave it there, as the thread appears to be turning into one of those dreaded comparison threads. :D

I have no idea what you mean, compared to other threads this ones rubbish!
:-P

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Both the 109 and Spit suffered from very poor aileron deflection at high speed. According to one report the BoB era Spits and 109 Es could only manage about 1/5th deflection on the ailerons at 400 mph. At lower speeds the 109 did quite a bit better simply because of the reduced wing area. This was always going to be a problem for the Spit, even with clipped wings.

Both of these aircraft had re-designs after the BoB which considerably improved their high speed roll performance.

The Spitfire's was simply replacing the fabric covered ailerons with metal ones, the 109F involved a major re-design of the wing.

Both still suffered from wing twist and flex at high speeds, the 109's had problems with wing loss at high speeds in 1942-1943 as a result of the additional forces the new aileron design was able to place on the wing.

Neither aircraft approached the 190 in maximum roll at high speeds with wartime variants. Postwar versions of the Spitfire with clipped wings were close.

Surprising to some, the 190 was surpassed in roll performance by the P-51 and P-47 at very high speeds. The USAAF decided in the '30's that rollrate performance rather than turn capability was the more important combat maneuver characteristic. (high speed being more important still) The Germans evolved to this perspective. The British, Soviets and Japanese focused on turn capability, with the Japanese mistakenly being prepared to sacrifice everything for maximum turn rate. The British belatedly moved in the high speed/rollrate direction with the Tempest.

Historians agree with the German and American perspective. Turn capability is a defensive function, and since most pilots who were shot down never saw their opponent, it was of limited use. Speed and rollrate were used in the attack, and only in the attack can a fighter pilot shoot down his opponent.

[Catseye]

And while we are at it, it is 'pipper' not 'piper' :-P

Unless you're a Scot pilot with a couple of wee drams in you. :)

[Wulf]

Interesting 'roll-rate' diagram. (click on diagram to increase size)




4046

[ATAG_Knuckles]

So anyway Knuckles old chum, set sensitivity to '0', and I prefer no deadzones at all, but this makes your stick very sensitive.

I edited my initial response because I was exaggerating the low speed. 150mph is hardly even manoeuvering speed, let alone a good speed for roll rate. 250mph is far more like it.

But I'll leave it there, as the thread appears to be turning into one of those dreaded comparison threads. :D

Dutch: Thanks thats what I was looking for, just wanted to see what setting others are using. I'll try yours. Funny its just lately that I feel I am flying a Blennie instead of a Spit. Possible my Saitek 52 is getting old.


Thanks

[1lokos]

Dutch: Thanks thats what I was looking for, just wanted to see what setting others are using. I'll try yours. Funny its just lately that I feel I am flying a Blennie instead of a Spit. Possible my Saitek 52 is getting old.


Thanks

Knuckles,

Just to add "pepper" (not piper/pipper) in the soup: the X-52 is know for not having a linear response in (X,Y) axis, due bad placement of magnets/sensor HALL. :)

It was improved in PRO version but still, there is a MOD (magnet repositioning) in forums and Youtube.

:thumbsup:

Sokol1

[ATAG_Knuckles]

Thanks: I have done the mod on the magnets, Still sorta sloppy

[Greywing]

Knuckles what magnets did you use for the mod? I've put in two 8 or 10mm (can't recall which exactly) neodymium ones stacked on top of each other and my 52 is now very nice. I did lose a tiny bit of response at the extents of travel (hall sensor gets too far from the magnetic field at full deflection, slightly bigger magnets again would fix this).

Cheers

GW

[Gromit]

Both of these aircraft had re-designs after the BoB which considerably improved their high speed roll performance.

The Spitfire's was simply replacing the fabric covered ailerons with metal ones, the 109F involved a major re-design of the wing.

Both still suffered from wing twist and flex at high speeds, the 109's had problems with wing loss at high speeds in 1942-1943 as a result of the additional forces the new aileron design was able to place on the wing.

Neither aircraft approached the 190 in maximum roll at high speeds with wartime variants. Postwar versions of the Spitfire with clipped wings were close.

Surprising to some, the 190 was surpassed in roll performance by the P-51 and P-47 at very high speeds. The USAAF decided in the '30's that rollrate performance rather than turn capability was the more important combat maneuver characteristic. (high speed being more important still) The Germans evolved to this perspective. The British, Soviets and Japanese focused on turn capability, with the Japanese mistakenly being prepared to sacrifice everything for maximum turn rate. The British belatedly moved in the high speed/rollrate direction with the Tempest.

Historians agree with the German and American perspective. Turn capability is a defensive function, and since most pilots who were shot down never saw their opponent, it was of limited use. Speed and rollrate were used in the attack, and only in the attack can a fighter pilot shoot down his opponent.

Every manoeuvre outside of a vertical one starts with a roll, so you can see where they were coming from there!

[ATAG_Knuckles]

Knuckles what magnets did you use for the mod? I've put in two 8 or 10mm (can't recall which exactly) neodymium ones stacked on top of each other and my 52 is now very nice. I did lose a tiny bit of response at the extents of travel (hall sensor gets too far from the magnetic field at full deflection, slightly bigger magnets again would fix this).

Cheers

GW

I didn't replace the magnets. It was about two years ago, so can't remember exactly what was done, I think some plastic pieces were removed and magnets were re positioned. I will have to follow up on the current mods.

However I am now getting the bug for the TM warthog. Errrrrrr

[Kling]

Heh, funny enough I think the spit rolls as good as the 109 at all speeds if not better... will have to double check that...

[ATAG_Knuckles]

somebody today give me a roll rate: at this point I have 5 seconds to do a complete roll, shoot I could do that in a Cessna 150. See what the 109 does as well.

[Greywing]

Knuckles,

The magnets I used are about twice the phsyical size of the ones that were in the stick originally. With the larger diameter the Hall sensor is only a few mm past the magnet when the stick is at full deflection. This is enough for it to loose the field though and results in a small loss of response. The loss is maybe 2% of Full scale before the mod. Magnets that are 2mm larger in diameter would get back the original FSD response.

With the original magnets I'd say the gap between the sensor and the magnet edge would be double (or more) what I see in mine and have a much larger impact on performance and would definitely prevent you getting full aileron deflection. The magnets I got were $5-$10 for a pack of 20. Maybe shoot for the warthog but in the meantime get some bigger magnets.

Cheers

GW

[Kling]

somebody today give me a roll rate: at this point I have 5 seconds to do a complete roll, shoot I could do that in a Cessna 150. See what the 109 does as well.

well, at what speed?? just 5 secs doesnt say much

[ATAG_Colander]

Guys,

All roll rates are being revised for the next patch.

[ATAG_Knuckles]

well, at what speed?? just 5 secs doesnt say much

See there's my issue: I have 5 sec at 160 or 300 all the same so lets just say cursing speed which is probably around 240 !!!

[Dutch]

See there's my issue: I have 5 sec at 160 or 300 all the same so lets just say cursing speed which is probably around 240 !!!

Kick a bit of rudder in too mate, she'll roll like a....well, a bloody rolling thing. :D