PDA

View Full Version : Why no elevator heaviness under G-load for YP-80?



Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 12:27 PM
Data about elevator response on P-80A were posted before. So why not a realistic elevator response for this plane?


NACA Report Abstract:

"This report contains the flight-test results of the longitudinal-stability and -control phase of a general flying-qualities investigation of the Lockheed P-80A airplane (Army No. 44-85099). The tests were conducted at indicated airspeeds up to 530 miles per hour (0.76 Mach number) at low altitude and up to 350 miles per hour (0.82 Mach number) at high altitude. These tests showed that the flying qualities of the airplane were in accordance with the requirements of the Army Air Forces Stability and Control Specification except for excessive elevator control forces in maneuvering flight and the inadequacy of the longitudinal trimming control at low airspeeds."


There are detailed data on stick force vs G-loads inside:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7g01/naca-rm-a7g01.pdf

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 12:27 PM
Data about elevator response on P-80A were posted before. So why not a realistic elevator response for this plane?


NACA Report Abstract:

"This report contains the flight-test results of the longitudinal-stability and -control phase of a general flying-qualities investigation of the Lockheed P-80A airplane (Army No. 44-85099). The tests were conducted at indicated airspeeds up to 530 miles per hour (0.76 Mach number) at low altitude and up to 350 miles per hour (0.82 Mach number) at high altitude. These tests showed that the flying qualities of the airplane were in accordance with the requirements of the Army Air Forces Stability and Control Specification except for excessive elevator control forces in maneuvering flight and the inadequacy of the longitudinal trimming control at low airspeeds."


There are detailed data on stick force vs G-loads inside:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7g01/naca-rm-a7g01.pdf

Oleg_Maddox
03-04-2004, 12:54 PM
Can you measure the load on a stick in a sim? I don't think so.
Compare with P-51 that met standard of USAAF... This you may a bit measure in comparison on the same speeds.

BerkshireHunt
03-04-2004, 01:08 PM
Yes, and while we're about it what about the 109's heavy elevator on dive recovery?... It's well documented, I believe.

SkyChimp
03-04-2004, 04:46 PM
Oleg,

Huck, I mean Magister, forgot to mention that elevator heaviness was ONLY when there was a "forward center of gravity." Elevator forces were exceptionally light was a center or rearward center of gravity.

From what I've seen, the YP-80A is modelled pretty well.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Oleg,

Huck, I mean Magister, forgot to mention that elevator heaviness was ONLY when there was a "forward center of gravity." Elevator forces were exceptionally light was a center or rearward center of gravity.

From what I've seen, the YP-80A is modelled pretty well.




A rearward center of gravity means a very longitudinally unstable aircraft, forward center of gravity is the normal configuration. At high altitude it could barely turn, 90 lb stick force for only 2G near max speed Skychimp, how many deg/sec turn is that? can you tell me ace?
It's hard to find something worse!

And 35lb stick force at landing?? No wonder there were so many landing accidents with P-80!

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Can you measure the load on a stick in a sim? I don't think so.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



You don't need to.
As the report above states P-80 had a 45 lb force per each G, near max speed at high altitude.

This can be tested easily in AEP. Just get the P-80 at 8000m, wait to reach max speed in level flight, then put it slightly nose down and try to turn it for best turn rate achievable (with max speed bleed). It should not get more than 5 deg per sec under any circumstance, because the stick forces limits the plane at only 2G.

SkyChimp
03-04-2004, 06:18 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Where does the report say the plane was "unstable" with a rearward center of gravity. Or did you just make that up?

Please, point it out.

You are very good at only presenting the parts of a report that suit you, but ignoring those that don't.

BTW, Huck, tell Oleg how much you like Aces. I'm sure he'd love to here how much experience you have with it.

Ace.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-04-2004, 06:19 PM
Oh, and BTW, when you do get aces, Huck, you are going to be very disappointed. The YP-80 has it all over the Me-262 - speed, climb, turn, roll, dive.

Better stick with the He-162. It's a better bet.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-04-2004, 06:29 PM
I know you are trying to get to Huck, but comparing 262 to P-80 is a bit senseless. The 262 was not designed as a fighter vs. fighter aircraft and the 262 operated much sooner than the YP-80.

The He-162 is in fact a better comparison but it was a rushed design and thank goodness its inherent flaws are not modelled or I would be spending half of my time looking for sections of my wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'm really impressed with the Go-229, it handles great but it is slow to accelerate and makes a big target.

The He-162 will have to be the plane of choice vs. P-80. The P-80 handles better and has a better armament for fighter to fighter engagements. The 2x 20mm cannon of the He-162 will be difficult to hit with at such high speeds IMHO. The spread of the P-80 guns will likely be a big advantage.

The P-80 was an excellent aircraft, but there is nothing to really compare it with as the 262 came on the scene much earlier and its intention was different. The 162 was a result of desperation for a thankfully dying regime. I take nothing away from the P-80, a great aircraft and design that proved its worth over an extensive period of time when change was happening rapidly.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

SkyChimp
03-04-2004, 06:38 PM
And BTW, Huck, perhaps you would like to print the portion of the report that you conveniently left out:

"The dynamic longitudinal-stability characterisitics were satisfactory at IAS up to 500 mph at 5,000 feet (.71 mach) and up to 296 mph at 35,000 ft (.76 mach)."

Unstable? NACA says you are wrong.

And when you trumpet that the elevators were heavy with a forward center of gravity, maybe you ought to mention that is with an extremely forward center of gravity, at very high altitude, and at mach .822. Gosh. With the same forward center of gravity at lower altitudes, the stick force was 10.8lbs per G - at the highest test speed. Just terrible. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And nevermind that the stick forces lightened everywhere with a center of gravity that was slightly further back.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
03-04-2004, 06:43 PM
Good post, Hunde.

The He-162 is a very nimble fighter in ACES. It's not as fast as the P-80, but it's as manueverable and the P-80 driver can't afford to make any mistakes. The only thing that bothers me about the He-162 is the fact that the engine overheats just a minute or so after applying full power.

The Me-262 just doesn't seem to be able to do much against the P-80. It dives as well, and if you can hit the P-80 its dust. But the Me-262 just bursts into flames when hit by the P-80.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-04-2004, 07:02 PM
Me 262 always seemed much better at very high speed attack runs. In a couple of online co-ops I've managed to evade everything that was attempting to intercept me and bomb the target and then get out before they could touch me.

Mind you, with jets screaming in behind me it'll be harder. Still, some jet VS jet sounds great no matter which one of the examples we have.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Hunde_3.JG51
03-04-2004, 08:06 PM
Chimp, 162 is like 262, ignore the overheat during takeoff. The engines are cooled by speed so shortly after takeoff back down to about 80-85% throttle until "engine normal" messege. Then slowly increase throttle as long as speed is increasing and engine will stay cool.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Cragger
03-04-2004, 11:25 PM
From my experiences the 162 is quite faster than the YP-80 at low altitudes, haven't tried it much higher than 2000m

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

Copperhead310th
03-04-2004, 11:37 PM
some one explain this to me.

why dose the p-80 have the same damn engine flame out problems as the me-262? is this correct? i've done some reading & i cant find ANY THING that says rapid throttle movent will cause an engine fire on the P-80 the way it does on the me-262.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron)

Bremspropeller
03-05-2004, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Where does the report say the plane was "unstable" with a rearward center of gravity. Or did you just make that up?

Please, point it out.

You are very good at only presenting the parts of a report that suit you, but ignoring those that don't.

BTW, Huck, tell Oleg how much you like Aces. I'm sure he'd love to here how much experience you have with it.

Ace.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry Chimp, but this is a aerodynamical (rather aerostatical) fact. Next time do your homework.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

[This message was edited by Bremspropeller on Fri March 05 2004 at 05:24 AM.]

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
Yes, and while we're about it what about the 109's heavy elevator on dive recovery?... It's well documented, I believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it well documented in trials. True aircpeed is 980 km/h - no problem to recover. Force on the stick less than 40 kg (without use of trim)
From the trals in Rechlin. I have all the data for this..

And it is the very similar force on a stick like for the best easy flying planes of WWII....

Any other questions?

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I know you are trying to get to Huck, but comparing 262 to P-80 is a bit senseless. The 262 was not designed as a fighter vs. fighter aircraft and the 262 operated much sooner than the YP-80.

The He-162 is in fact a better comparison but it was a rushed design and thank goodness its inherent flaws are not modelled or I would be spending half of my time looking for sections of my wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'm really impressed with the Go-229, it handles great but it is slow to accelerate and makes a big target.

The He-162 will have to be the plane of choice vs. P-80. The P-80 handles better and has a better armament for fighter to fighter engagements. The 2x 20mm cannon of the He-162 will be difficult to hit with at such high speeds IMHO. The spread of the P-80 guns will likely be a big advantage.

The P-80 was an excellent aircraft, but there is nothing to really compare it with as the 262 came on the scene much earlier and its intention was different. The 162 was a result of desperation for a thankfully dying regime. I take nothing away from the P-80, a great aircraft and design that proved its worth over an extensive period of time when change was happening rapidly.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I would to say you that VVS test pilots that flew both Me-262 and He-162 find that he 162 is in many ways better than 262 and just problem may be found for novices to land on these gear.
Also pointed that that plane is more stable on cource than Me-262 has not bad maneuverability and climb.
Germans designed it in agony? Yes, but it was designed for the pilots that just went for the glider school.... Yes! From the Glider school!

So many things are still overlooked.

In VVS test found that control of Me-262 is heavy and hard for good level pilots and it was decided not to set in production this plane (it was easy in Czech for Soviets, isn't it?) and makes own.
The result was MiG-9 that was better in all ways than Me-262 and Better than P-80 in some ways. German engines were modified for more great resource working using Russian alloys for turbines, etc..(And don't tell me that Germans had goo alloys. Instead, the armor quality of tanks may show you that these who say it are wrong. ). Also using new alloys offered to boost the engines!

Blottogg
03-05-2004, 04:22 AM
Hey SkyChimp, do you have a link for the NACA P-80 report? I'd like to take a look at it. I'd ask Bremspropeller or Magister__Ludi (or Huck, or whatever he's calling himself these days) but I'm afraid I'd get selective abstracts, or a link to another Luftwhiner's ranting homepage.

In any case, I'm curious to see just where these "forward" and "aft" CG positions are. Without looking at how they're defined, they could be refering to randomly defined test points or points within a pre-established operational CG range for the aircraft (I suspect the latter, in which case Bremspropeller's case of pitch stability and "aerostatical fact" won't hold much weight.)

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

edited spelling

Magister__Ludi
03-05-2004, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Hey SkyChimp, do you have a link for the NACA P-80 report? I'd like to take a look at it. I'd ask Bremspropeller or Magister__Ludi (or Huck, or whatever he's calling himself these days) but I'm afraid I'd get selective abstracts, or a link to another Luftwhiner's ranting homepage.

In any case, I'm curious to see just where these "forward" and "aft" CG positions are. Without looking at how they're defined, they could be refering to randomly defined test points or points within a pre-established operational CG range for the aircraft (I suspect the latter, in which case Bremspropeller's case of pitch stability and "aerostatical fact" won't hold much weight.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



With dedication from Luftwhiners at NACA for Blotto, always ready to get Chimp out of trouble:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7g01/naca-rm-a7g01.pdf

MandMs
03-05-2004, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
Hey SkyChimp, do you have a link for the NACA P-80 report? I'd like to take a look at it. I'd ask Bremspropeller or Magister__Ludi (or Huck, or whatever he's calling himself these days) but I'm afraid I'd get selective abstracts, or a link to another Luftwhiner's ranting homepage.

In any case, I'm curious to see just where these "forward" and "aft" CG positions are. Without looking at how they're defined, they could be refering to randomly defined test points or points within a pre-established operational CG range for the aircraft (I suspect the latter, in which case Bremspropeller's case of pitch stability and "aerostatical fact" won't hold much weight.)

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

edited spelling<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is where he said he got his info from.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7g01/naca-rm-a7g01.pdf

It is at the bottom of his 1st post but does not show because the BB was not working then.



I eat the red ones last.

Bremspropeller
03-05-2004, 10:56 AM
Bluttog, you obviously don't have any clue about statical forces on a/c in flight.


So tell me, what happens when the center of gravity lies in the back of an a/c...


I'm waiting for your answer - I wonder if you know anything about that or not...
If you don't answer, I consider this as a sign of unclueness on your side, thanks.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

SkyChimp
03-05-2004, 05:19 PM
Brems, stop acting like a idiot. Read the report.

When I say "center of gravity further back," I don't mean "center of gravity in the rear."
CoG further back is still a forward CoG, just not as far forward as a far-forward CoG.

Get it?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-05-2004, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I know you are trying to get to Huck, but comparing 262 to P-80 is a bit senseless. The 262 was not designed as a fighter vs. fighter aircraft and the 262 operated much sooner than the YP-80.

The He-162 is in fact a better comparison but it was a rushed design and thank goodness its inherent flaws are not modelled or I would be spending half of my time looking for sections of my wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'm really impressed with the Go-229, it handles great but it is slow to accelerate and makes a big target.

The He-162 will have to be the plane of choice vs. P-80. The P-80 handles better and has a better armament for fighter to fighter engagements. The 2x 20mm cannon of the He-162 will be difficult to hit with at such high speeds IMHO. The spread of the P-80 guns will likely be a big advantage.

The P-80 was an excellent aircraft, but there is nothing to really compare it with as the 262 came on the scene much earlier and its intention was different. The 162 was a result of desperation for a thankfully dying regime. I take nothing away from the P-80, a great aircraft and design that proved its worth over an extensive period of time when change was happening rapidly.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I would to say you that VVS test pilots that flew both Me-262 and He-162 find that he 162 is in many ways better than 262 and just problem may be found for novices to land on these gear.
Also pointed that that plane is more stable on cource than Me-262 has not bad maneuverability and climb.
Germans designed it in agony? Yes, but it was designed for the pilots that just went for the glider school.... Yes! From the Glider school!

So many things are still overlooked.

In VVS test found that control of Me-262 is heavy and hard for good level pilots and it was decided not to set in production this plane (it was easy in Czech for Soviets, isn't it?) and makes own.
The result was MiG-9 that was better in all ways than Me-262 and Better than P-80 in some ways. German engines were modified for more great resource working using Russian alloys for turbines, etc..(And don't tell me that Germans had goo alloys. Instead, the armor quality of tanks may show you that these who say it are wrong. ). Also using new alloys offered to boost the engines!&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
------------------------------------------------

Oleg, I think basically we agree and I never said anything about 262 being better than 162. In fact I said 162 is better match-up for P-80. And you are saying that many things were still overlooked which is why I said I'm glad its inherent design flaws are not modelled like problems with wings. And yes it was designed for pilots out of glider school but as one book said they were less likely to be able to perform a single circuit much less fly it in combat because, as you said, certain things were overlooked. And I never mentiond anything about alloys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I'm not that knowledgable. We seem to be saying the same thing sort of but you started by saying "sorry." I think something may have been lost in translation.

Thank you for the post, very interesting about VVS opinion of 262 and 162, and future design by Soviets. Good stuff. I have a little more respect for the 162 now (which I love in FB, awesome job, thank you very much for including it, probably my favorite new addition in AEP after Ta-152 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Don't know much about Mig-9 but sounds interesting, I'll try to learn more about it. Thank you again.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri March 05 2004 at 10:57 PM.]

FW190fan
03-05-2004, 07:15 PM
Hunde:

Have you had a chance to read Eric Brown's report on flying the He-162? He said it was very maneuverable and it's roll-rate was "phenominal". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-05-2004, 11:55 PM
FW-190fan, no I haven't to be honest, sounds like a great read. I really need to get his book. The Salamander has really caught my imagination and I am anxious to learn more about it. I was discussing with my squad leader the other night the potential of the design. I wondered if it was a sound design with poor materials/construction or just a mediocre design rushed off the drawing boards. Sounds like it was actually a pretty sound design which makes me want to fly it even more. Very limited ammo in He-162 though it seems, only like 10 seconds firing time which is ok but for the nature of the type of combat it engages it really makes you stingy on the trigger.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

widgeon
03-06-2004, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
German engines were modified for more great resource working using Russian alloys for turbines, etc..(And don't tell me that Germans had goo alloys. Instead, the armor quality of tanks may show you that these who say it are wrong. ). Also using new alloys offered to boost the engines!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The turbine blades were weak due to the extreme heat they are exposed to.This limited the lifespan of the engine to a very low # of hours, or resulted on broken turbine blades. The proper heat resistant alloys could not be used because of the shortage, or lack of certain elements during the war, as I understand. Therefore didn't the 262 engine requre a rebuild avery 10 hours or so?



Widgeon

Blottogg
03-06-2004, 06:28 AM
MandMs and Magister__Ludi, thanks for the link, but it's dead for the moment. I'll try again later.

Bremspropeller, I'd go easy with the clueless ness accusations, especially since you seem to be under equipped in the clue department yourself. SkyChimp has the plot. The reason I asked to see the report is that I don't know how they were defining "aft" and "forward" CG. Normally they're defined as the forward and aft limits of the aircraft's permissible CG range, which is determined with aircraft stability and controllability in mind. The forward limit is usually defined by the aircraft's pitch authority during landing, and the aft limit is a pitch stability limit, as you so arrogantly pointed out. The aft limit is usually set as far back as possible while still maintaining positive stability (i.e. the aft CG limit is still ahead of the center of lift.) If it was defined this way, the CG at the aft limit would be more pitch sensitive, but still dynamically as well as statically stable in pitch. The CG at the forward limit would be heavier in pitch, and at high speeds would probably be heavy enough to limit the aircraft's pitch rate well below the aerodynamic maximum possible.

Now if you've got something constructive to add, by all means do so. If you just want to flame-bait and talk smack, go find an UT2003 forum somewhere and play with the kiddies. The grown-ups are trying to have a discussion.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Bremspropeller
03-06-2004, 07:08 AM
An aftward center of gravity makes an a/c tend to stall faster and spin flater.

The aftward limit lets the a/c not fall into a flatspin (which might be unrecoverable with first jets since their engines were pretty weak and would flameout with those airsteams)when spinning, but increases the tendency to stall and spin, even if the limit is not passed.


That is the point I'm talking about.

I apologize if my post seemed offensive which wasn't my intention, but I don't like beeing called Luftwhiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Blottogg
03-06-2004, 08:06 AM
Bremspropeller, sorry for the initial name-calling, and thanks for the constructive reply.

Some early turbojets were very sensitive to disturbed airflow, but the P-80's engine wasn't one of those. It had a centrifugal compressor (unlike the axial compressor in the Jumo), and didn't really care how dirty the air was that it was fed. A buddy of mine used to fly T-33's (the USAF used them for radar targets 'till the late 80's) and told us how they'd carry skis for cross-country weekends in the intakes (the compressor had a mesh screen to keep them from being ingested.) Its fuel control system was pretty primitive though, so I'm not surprised at how sensitive the throttle is in the game.

You're right that a CG towards the aft limit will make the aircraft easier to stall (that increased pitch sensitivity has a downside) and spin flatter. As far as CG, pitch sensitivity and stalls/spins go in the game, unless they've changed the model from FB, most aircraft are pretty hard to spin unless you rate back sharply on the stick, and/or throw in some rudder. Slowly coming back to full aft stick will rarely induce a stall, unlike most real aircraft. This may be due to the joystick routine I've got programmed (I use Oleg's pitch settings) but it's a little more forgiving than real life. I haven't stalled the P-80 yet, but I'll give it a try.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"