A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[NZtyphoon]

No that is in the Operating Notes....
So, we can say in 1940, the RAE had no standards, they just knew they had a dangerous airplane so they warn the pilot often.

They warned the pilot often in one set of Pilot's Notes and nowhere do they say the Spitfire was dangerous. They talk about the onset of blackout during high G manoeuvers but that's it.


In 1946, the early mark Spitfires would have been labeled as "unacceptable" by the RAE but since they had to have bob-weights, there was no need.

Meaningless, purely hypothetical, therefore irrelevant - the early Spitfires did not need bob-weights in the elevator circuit they came later on the Mk Vs and were superseded by the larger, reshaped elevator mass balances.


You won't find a Spitfire flying today without bob-weights.

How about a little proof?

Just for interest this story of X4276 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/7908245/Forgotten-Spitfire-will-fly-again-after-major-restoration.html) describes what a young, trainee Sergeant thought about the dangerous Spitfire:

"The Spitfire was a beautiful aircraft, like a Tiger Moth but with real power. A doddle to fly. We used to throw them about all over the place, as unfortunately I demonstrated."

[WTE_Galway]

Be careful as that "doddle to fly" comment is assuming a fit flight trained RAF pilot moving to the type from something "horrible to fly" like a Gloster Gladiator.

Its very easy to assume doddle to fly means an unfit non-pilot could probably jump in and take it safely for a spin after a few hours training but that is simply not true. Otherwise we would train on Spitfires not Cessna's.

[IvanK]

Thread drift but the Gladiator was actually renown for being an absolute delight to fly too :)

[robtek]

Thread drift but the Gladiator was actually renown for being an absolute delight to fly too :)

For a beginner or for a experienced pilot??

I bet the later.

The same with the spitfire elevator lightness, it probably was a delight for a experienced pilot to fly with "two fingers", but very exciting for the still a bit "ham-handed" newbie who had to rely on the pilots notes and basic training instead of experience..

[Glider]

There seems to be a huge underestimation as to the training that takes place before a pilots is given a front line aircraft.

To say but very exciting for the still a bit "ham-handed" newbie who had to rely on the pilots notes and basic training instead of experience is way off the mark. Trainees of all airforces had some form of primary training, advanced training and conversion training.

Gladiators were used in the RAF as part of the conversion training and the best advanced trainers are 'twitchy', Germany used He 51's and no doubt other airforces used similar machines. Early versions of the Hurricane and Me109 were used in conversion training and one of the major problems the RAF had were that there were no earlier versions of the SPit so they were in short supply, hence you often hear that new pilots only had 8 hours on spits when going to the front line. To believe that they relied on basic training and pilots notes is far from the truth.

Also the idea that because pilots of an aircraft were banned from intentional spinning meant that the plane was a danger and could break up is also rubbish. The early Spit 1 pilots notes say that intentional spinning is banned also go on to say that its easy to recover from an accidental spin as long as you allow enough height and ensure your speed is 150 mph. I am sure Crumpp who has extensive spinning experience will agree that the two golden rules are a) make sure you have sufficient height, b) Get your speed up to a safe level

Why did they make this distinction for the first Spits I don't know and no one else does here. There are loads of theories based on various assumptions, wishfull tinking and misapplication of current theory based modern rules designed for civilian use so I will add another one to the pile.

The first Spit pilots in the front line often only had very low hours on type and front line units didn't have Trained Instructors o they wanted to limit the risk. Later on training on the SPits was more rigourous and they lighted up the rules.

[robtek]

There seems to be a huge underestimation as to the training that takes place before a pilots is given a front line aircraft.

To say but very exciting for the still a bit "ham-handed" newbie who had to rely on the pilots notes and basic training instead of experience is way off the mark..........


........The first Spit pilots in the front line often only had very low hours on type and front line units didn't have Trained Instructors o they wanted to limit the risk. Later on training on the SPits was more rigourous and they lighted up the rules.

I find it somehow confusing that you first try to contradict me and then say practically the same with different words as your opinion.

Puzzles over puzzles.

[Glider]

I was under the impression that your comment about but very exciting for the still a bit "ham-handed" newbie who had to rely on the pilots notes and basic training instead of experience was to do with the Gladiator as well as the Spitfire, my mistake.

[Crumpp]

Also the idea that because pilots of an aircraft were banned from intentional spinning meant that the plane was a danger and could break up is also rubbish.

Wow....

:grin:

Everything is covered in the Operating Notes. The RAE and the NACA were in agreement about the longitudinal stability and control.

Granted, the RAE had no standards outside of opinion so they did not know they were in agreement with the NACA conclusions at the time. Interesting paradox regarding stability and control engineering history.

Everything the NACA concludes is listed right there in the Operating Notes published by the Air Ministry as a caution for Operating the aircraft.

[bongodriver]

But nothing about the aircraft 'breaking up'

[WTE_Galway]

Thread drift but the Gladiator was actually renown for being an absolute delight to fly too :)

Maybe, but flipping through the records of the RAF prewar Gladiator Squadrons there are an awful lot of "abandoned in spins" , "overshot/undershot runways" and numerous collisions with other aircraft (generally at night) along with one collision with a house in Sussex (admittedly in fog), one with powerlines, one hedge and several with trees.

The squadrons were losing several pilots a year in Gladiators and this was in peace time.

Also note that RAF investigations showed that pilots trained on Gladiators made better Spitfire pilots than those trained in more mundane training aircraft.

[Glider]

Wow....

:grin:

Everything is covered in the Operating Notes. The RAE and the NACA were in agreement about the longitudinal stability and control.

Granted, the RAE had no standards outside of opinion so they did not know they were in agreement with the NACA conclusions at the time. Interesting paradox regarding stability and control engineering history.

Everything the NACA concludes is listed right there in the Operating Notes published by the Air Ministry as a caution for Operating the aircraft.

You seem to have missed the rest of that posting:-

The early Spit 1 pilots notes say that intentional spinning is banned also go on to say that its easy to recover from an accidental spin as long as you allow enough height and ensure your speed is 150 mph. I am sure Crumpp who has extensive spinning experience will agree that the two golden rules are a) make sure you have sufficient height, b) Get your speed up to a safe level

With your experience do you agree that the two golden rules are as stated?

If so, then what is dangerous in the pilots notes about spinning?

[Glider]

This might be of interest

thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.

Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:

"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?-) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).

I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).

Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.

After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards. A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.

The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.

Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading.

As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.

In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."

To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire

Breaking up in a spin doesn't even get a mention,

I should add that this is copied but I cannot find who the original poster was, but the comments are of interest. If anyone should know please let me know as they deserve any credit

[Crumpp]

With your experience do you agree that the two golden rules are as stated?


Yes and just as the Operating Notes warn, it is the recovery that is dangerous to the airframe.

Understand?

46 pilot overstressed airframe


46 pilots died from it.

loss of control by the pilot (36 cases).

Loss of control is not very well defined, Glider. A spin accident though IS a loss of control accident.
Moreover, 41 percent of those
fatal accidents ended with a stall/spin.

Stalls and spins continue to be a significant
part of LOC-I.

http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2012/media/MarApr2012Pilot.pdf

Statistically, a very high percentage of those loss of control accidents is a spin.

[bongodriver]

46 pilots died from it.

not from spin recovery

[Crumpp]

Breaking up in a spin doesn't even get a mention,


It is the second highest catagory of accidents in your investigation. You really did not know that as a pilot?

[Crumpp]

not from spin recovery


Sure they did, not all of them of course but if you get the details a significant number of those Loss of Control accidents resulted in overstressing the airframe from recovery.

Just as the Operating Notes warn.......

[bongodriver]

Sure they did, not all of them of course but if you get the details a significant number of those Loss of Control accidents resulted in overstressing the airframe from recovery.

Just as the Operating Notes warn.......

all aircraft operating notes warn about overstressing, Spit notes 'do not' say spin recovery 'causes' overstressing.

[Crumpp]

all aircraft operating notes warn about overstressing

Not really bongodriver.

You would have a very hard time overstressing the Bf-109 for example. Especially if you followed the later instructions and did not trim the aircraft during the dive.

It was designed that way through good stability and control engineering.

[Igo kyu]

You would have a very hard time overstressing the Bf-109 for example.
An example chosen entirely at random perhaps?

[robtek]

The first that comes to mind is that the stick forces in the 109 were too high to pull out of a high speed dive without using trim.

Too high or even high stick forces make a involuntary overstressing really tough work.

[bongodriver]

the airframe will get stressed enough when it lawn darts.....

[Kurfürst]

To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe

Aileron instability as well. Interesting.

[Igo kyu]

The first that comes to mind is that the stick forces in the 109 were too high to pull out of a high speed dive without using trim.

Too high or even high stick forces make a involuntary overstressing really tough work.
Not disputed by me (someone else may know different). My point was that the Bf 109 was one type of aircraft, which may have been unusual, would you care to name, say, five others that were also unable to be overcontrolled?

[fruitbat]

just out of curiosity, is there a NACA test on the 109E?

[robtek]

Not disputed by me (someone else may know different). My point was that the Bf 109 was one type of aircraft, which may have been unusual, would you care to name, say, five others that were also unable to be overcontrolled?

Sorry, there is only one other where i know it for shure, the Me323 "Gigant" where sometimes in rough conditions one pilot alone didn't have enough power to steer it at all. :D

But "unable " to be overcontrolled stretches the point a bit far, i think.

Every plane with "normal" stick forces and travel was less likely to be overcontrolled with the probability therefore reciprocal related to the stick forces.

[Glider]

Yes and just as the Operating Notes warn, it is the recovery that is dangerous to the airframe.
Nowhere does it say that recovery is dangerous to the airframe unless you exceed 10G. However if you exceed 10G in any aircraft then or now your chances of making it back in one piece is very limited. I have seen an F4 which pulled 12G and made it back, but it never flew again. We used it for training purposes.


Understand?
Yep, do you?




46 pilots died from it.
You need to read the postings before making comments. Just to remind you what it says:-
The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?-) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage
Where does it say in a spin?
With your experience in spinning can you tell me how you can pull 10g in a spin, in an aircraft the Pilots Notes say is easy to recover from as long as you have height and make a safe speed?


Loss of control is not very well defined, Glider. A spin accident though IS a loss of control accident.

A spin accident is a type of loss of control, all loss of control accidents are not Spin accidents.



Statistically, a very high percentage of those loss of control accidents is a spin.

I urge you to read these papers before you post comments, It summerises that of the fatal accidents 41% ended in a stall/spin but the split between these isn't given and I am sure you agree that there is a world of difference between the two. Its also worth remembering that the key word is ended in a spin, the reason for the accident could be something else.

Another factor is that these are mainly pilots who haven't been trained in spinning. Instruction in spinning isn't part of the requirements for a PPL in the UK and I believe its the same in the USA. Fighter pilots would have been trained in spinning

Spinning is a requirement in the UK for Glider Pilots and you have to pass a number of spinning scenarios before you are allowed to even solo. The final one is to enter a full spin at 1,000 ft and recover before you lose 300ft. As an ex instructor I promise you this isn't easy for some people to learn.

[NZtyphoon]

just out of curiosity, is there a NACA test on the 109E?

As far as I know a 109E was tested by NACA but the report doesn't seem to be available in their archives http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp - some further digging may be required.

[Glider]

Not really bongodriver.

You would have a very hard time overstressing the Bf-109 for example. Especially if you followed the later instructions and did not trim the aircraft during the dive.

It was designed that way through good stability and control engineering.

Ouch, we could have an interesting debate on that but lets keep it to one topic at a time

[Kurfürst]

Does anybody have further details of this Spitfire aileron instability problem the aircraft seem to have been suffering from?

[Crumpp]

With your experience in spinning can you tell me how you can pull 10g in a spin,

You can pull 10G on the z axis anytime you are over 218mph IAS in a Spitfire.

You need to be "well over" 150mph and at 150 mph you are only 68 mph away from the ability to destroy the airframe on a single axis load. That is not very far away.

Problem with spin recovery is you are not on a single axis load as it requires rudder input to recover.

I can see why so many airframes broke up on recovery.

[bongodriver]

I can see why so many airframes broke up on recovery.


How many? sources please.

[Crumpp]

Does anybody have further details of this Spitfire aileron instability problem the aircraft seem to have been suffering from?


I have a report on it somewhere, see if I can dig it up.

Ouch, we could have an interesting debate on that but lets keep it to one topic at a time

On what? Pilot stories and opinions?

Of course they are going to be cussing, scared, and pissed after yanking on that stick with both hands to get 80-90lbs of stick force required at Vne. They will be alive and complaining, LOL.

;)

[bongodriver]

Of course they are going to be cussing, scared, and pissed after yanking on that stick with both hands to get 80-90lbs of stick force required at Vne. They will be alive and complaining, LOL.



sounds to me if they didn't start with enough altitude then they won't be alive to complain, give me light elevators any day over ones that can't pull me out of a dive.

[Glider]

You can pull 10G on the z axis anytime you are over 218mph IAS in a Spitfire.

You need to be "well over" 150mph and at 150 mph you are only 68 mph away from the ability to destroy the airframe on a single axis load. That is not very far away.

Problem with spin recovery is you are not on a single axis load as it requires rudder input to recover.

I can see why so many airframes broke up on recovery.

If any aircraft exceeds its max stress load then the chances are that its going to break up, it isn't specific to a Spit. I think I am right is saying that an F16 is stressed to plus 8G, so 10G in a Spit doesn't sound too bad.

I also ask how many broke up on recovery or are you saying a stall is the same as a spin?

[CaptainDoggles]

an F16 is stressed to plus 8G, so 10G in a Spit doesn't sound too bad.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The absolute magnitude of the load is completely irrelevant when you're comparing a modern jet fighter with a spitfire. What a ridiculous comparison.

What matters is the magnitude of the load as a percentage of the maximum load. Pulling 8G means very little if your airframe is designed to withstand 14G. But if it's only designed for 9G then you better be cautious.

[Kurfürst]

I have a report on it somewhere, see if I can dig it up.

Thanks. I knew about the pitch characteristics, but the ailerons are somewhat new. I suppose it has something to do the Frise ailerons? Balancing seem to be an issue with these.

[Glider]

Let me rephrase it for you. I believed incorrectly that the airframe for an F16's was stressed to a max of 8G so it was my mistake. The normal max for an F16 is 9G due to pilot strain. However it doesn't alter the fact that 10G for a WW2 aircraft is pretty good

Are you any closer to saying how many broke up in a spin?

[WTE_Galway]

Some random light relief to break up the technical stuff ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u4Md_aXVJE

[VO101_Tom]

...I think I am right is saying that an F16 is stressed to plus 8G, so 10G in a Spit doesn't sound too bad...

False comparison, the weakest point of the Jet fighters is the human physiology and the Jet engine. These two causes the restrictions, not the aircraft's structure.

[Crumpp]

Frise ailerons are a pain to balance and rig. The FW-190 was plagued with adjustment issues too.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7571/highspeed1v.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/highspeed1v.jpg/)

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/7978/highspeed2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/highspeed2.jpg/)

[NZtyphoon]

Frise ailerons are a pain to balance and rig. The FW-190 was plagued with adjustment issues too.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7571/highspeed1v.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/highspeed1v.jpg/)

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/7978/highspeed2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/highspeed2.jpg/)

Yep, fabric covered ailerons which, as Quill explained, had to be individually trimmed, using lengths of cord then matched as pairs to each airframe. It would be interesting to see whether the same problems continued with the much stiffer metal covered ailerons.

[NZtyphoon]

False comparison, the weakest point of the Jet fighters is the human physiology and the Jet engine. These two causes the restrictions, not the aircraft's structure.

At the risk of being OT:

F-16 accident database/ (http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents)

F-16 crashes up; attributed to human error. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21427173/ns/us_news-military/t/air-force-f--crashes-due-human-error/)

Although the F-15 did have a structural weakness:

2007 F-15 breakup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U22_7jsQy7s&feature=related)

[TomcatViP]

I've has sim experience in ROF flying with the camel, you need a feather touch on the elevator and can over turn the camel with ease. It's also a trick to fly level, as to not overshoot your controls and nose up or down wildly.

I do kinda agree with the Me-109 turn. It should of course, not be able to hold with the spit in a sustained turn...but it seems right now to not nearly to be able to stay with the spit even with an energy advantage. I got bounced by an ME-109 today (he ran me down from my 6 so he was moving faster) who somehow missed with his cannons. I immediately broke left and held a tight turn with ease, Looped around and found him in a now lower energy state after attempting to follow me. I pumped some rounds into him and killed his pilot pretty quickly. It just makes me wonder how I held so much energy from that hard turn, where as the ME-109 seemed to bleed a crazy amount, and be a sitting duck for me to come around and fill him with lead. The Spit should turn better yes, But my question is...does it bleed energy as fast and is this historic? Maybe we could do a test and make a hard turn and see how long it takes to stall, or alternatively how high we can get in altitude after the turn. this would have a comparison of energy retained after a vigorous turn possibly. We wouldn't be comparing turn radius, just energy retained after a min turn radius turn.

We hve been writing this in evry sense since the sim is out: the Spit does not bleed E in turns.
It can loop ard anything without rest like a toy loop around the chest of a young girl dancing the Hula hoop.

Frankly if with such a good eye you are a newbie, I want to see tons like you flooding the server and sweep out all those rusty IL2 vets tht stand to their old Oleg world (I am also refering to the other FM thread like the G cut out, the ammo etc... etc..)

[VO101_Tom]

At the risk of being OT:
F-16 accident database/ (http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents)
F-16 crashes up; attributed to human error. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21427173/ns/us_news-military/t/air-force-f--crashes-due-human-error/)
Although the F-15 did have a structural weakness:...

Hi. I do not know what to look here :), but some of our squadmates flying in the HuAF. VO101_TB, who Gripen pilot tell a story 1-2 years ago. One of his RL squadmate was an idiot, and pull 12G in the Gripen (The stick have a security knob (10G limit), which stuck the stick. The guy continued to pull). The plane landed without problems, but the aircraft had been sent back to Sweden for inspection. He said, the great G force may bend the engine, but the structure has to withstand smoothly.
Maybe the older F-16 type structure is weaker, so I do not know. Of course, fuel load and weapons load affects the G tolerance. This is clear.

[6S.Manu]

We hve been writing this in evry sense since the sim is out: the Spit does not bleed E in turns.
It can loop ard anything without rest like a toy loop around the chest of a young girl dancing the Hula hoop.

Frankly if with such a good eye you are a newbie, I want to see tons like you flooding the server and sweep out all those rusty IL2 vets tht stand to their old Oleg world (I am also refering to the other FM thread like the G cut out, the ammo etc... etc..)
Amen my friend!

[41Sqn_Banks]

We hve been writing this in evry sense since the sim is out: the Spit does not bleed E in turns.
...
all those rusty IL2 vets tht stand to their old Oleg world

The irony is that the same claim about no energy loose of Spitfires were frequently stated in the good old Oleg world ;)

[fruitbat]

The irony is that the same claim about no energy loose of Spitfires were frequently stated in the good old Oleg world ;)

all the time, lol!

[gimpy117]

We hve been writing this in evry sense since the sim is out: the Spit does not bleed E in turns.
It can loop ard anything without rest like a toy loop around the chest of a young girl dancing the Hula hoop.

Frankly if with such a good eye you are a newbie, I want to see tons like you flooding the server and sweep out all those rusty IL2 vets tht stand to their old Oleg world (I am also refering to the other FM thread like the G cut out, the ammo etc... etc..)

Thank you for the compliment! I've Flown a lot of Rise Of Flight since it came out, but I'm still learning on this sim. I figured I was kinda expecting the 2 aircraft to perform like the Se5a (ME-109) and Sopwith Camel (Spitfire). The Se5a is faster and climbs better, but does not turn as well sustained but can, in exchange for much energy pull lead for a short time. The Camel on the other hand can make very sharp turns...but has poorly balanced controls in the case of a sensitive elevator like the spit. One can over turn the aircraft. Flying her with a light touch the Camel can dance around anybody...but ham hands McGuee will just stall and spin out of the sky. These flight characteristics are a bit exaggerated since the Se5a is much faster than the camel and the Camel in turn Turns way, way better where as the ME-109 and spit are a bit closer. However, I Found this to be nowhere near the case with the Spit. Sure, the ME-109 Acts like my classic BNZ fighters...the Spad and Se5a...but the Spit is nothing like the camel because it seems to un-historically have no extreme sensitivity to the controls.

It's interesting to hear that the Idea of the Spitfire not losing E has been around since the original IL2. Is it possible certain details of the FM have been kept over? It could be interesting for the devs to see how much code was held over from older games and if that is causing out problem now.

[Crumpp]

not losing E

I hate the expression, "bleeding energy"....

There is not such thing in aircraft performance. There is only sustainable performance and instantenous performance.

If it the performance is sustainable then the aircraft can achieve that performance until it runs out of fuel.

There is not an aircraft in existance that can sustain instantenous performance so it is just silly to talk about it as "bleeding energy". In fact, the generally speaking aircraft with the higher braking forces will win the instantenous turn competition. All aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make the same turn.

[IvanK]

"I hate the expression, "bleeding energy"....

There is not such thing in aircraft performance. There is only sustainable performance and instantaneous performance."

So when a manoeuver diagrams have values of negative Specific excess power (Ps) and these are used to compare sustained turn performance and energy bleed rates between 2 aircraft what do you call it ?

The worlds fighter pilots use the term "Energy Bleed' everyday. ...... but I guess they are all misguided dealing with the real world rather than theoretical commentary.

[TomcatViP]

all the time, lol!

C'mon guys I am myself among the Vets ;)

[Crumpp]

So when a maneuver diagrams have values of negative Specific excess power (Ps) and these are used to compare sustained turn performance and energy bleed rates between 2 aircraft what do you call it ?


Total Energy Concepts for Aircraft Performance

It is a specific methodology for quantifying the potential to maneuver. It was initially conceived by Col. John Boyd. It is standard curriculum for the United States Fighter Pilots in the USAF, USN, and USMC.

I can send you a copy of both John Boyd's original paper and the modern methodology if you like.

Using the terms outside of that system has no meaning. It must sound cool, though.

[Crumpp]

I bought a copy of Cliffs of Dover.

[IvanK]

I have Boyds documents. I have used these concepts in aircraft dissimilar performances comparisons for real world tactics development and taught the concepts both in the classroom and in the jet. Its common to pretty much every Air Force in the world.

Fighter pilots use the term "Energy Bleed" everyday its an eloquent way of describing the situation. Fighter pilots are by definition "Cool" so its natural to use cool terminology .... irritates the pencil pushers to no end.

[Crumpp]

Fighter pilots are by definition "Cool"

Ahh not really. Most of them I have seen are pissing their pants on the ground when we get to em.

I did that for much of the first gulf war air campaign. They might be something in a plane but out of it, they were not impressive.

Even less impressive are the ones screaming like a little girl on the radio that ground fire is targeting them, shooting for heavens....especially when lives depend on their getting some bombs on target.

Of course, we where on the ground and the only tracer he saw was that going back and forth between us and the enemy.

AWACs finally ordered that guy off station on his third time coming down to ID targets and fleeing the scene and screaming each time.

One of our European allies, too.

[Crumpp]

I tried out your game. I dove a Spitfire from 17,000 feet at full power in the channel free flight setting on realistic. With the right rudder buried to the stop and jerking the stick back, it not only did not break but I did not even pass out.

[Crumpp]

They might be something in a plane but out of it, they were not impressive.

That is by no means a blanket statement. I have also seen some very good guys up the air.

A couple of A10 pilots, some USMC F-18's, USN F-14's, and a couple of BundesLuftwaffe Tornado pilots stand out in my mind. They earned a seat at the table.

[IvanK]

... Hook line and sinker :)

[Crumpp]

It must sound cool, though.

IvanK, you were already caught, I just let you go...

[bongodriver]

Just as I thought, Crumpp is a 'Walt', has a real issue with pilots......yeah everybody knows the hard work in air warfare is done by the pencil pushers.

[Glider]

That is by no means a blanket statement. I have also seen some very good guys up the air.

A couple of A10 pilots, some USMC F-18's, USN F-14's, and a couple of BundesLuftwaffe Tornado pilots stand out in my mind. They earned a seat at the table.

I didn't think that Germany lost any Tornado's and cannot find them in my records on the war, can you give any indication as to dates so I can update them? Indeed I didn't think that Germany took part in the war at all so can you supply any information as to how they arrived in the battle zone it would be of interest.

[Crumpp]

I didn't think that Germany lost any Tornado's

Who said anything about Germany losing Tornados???

They replaced the scared to death fighter pilot AWAC's moved off station, dropped all of their bombs, expended all their ammunition, and showed back up 45 minutes later ready to play some more.

The tornado pilots were brave men who were willing to fight.

Crumpp is a 'Walt', has a real issue with pilots

Umm, I am a pilot and make my living in aviation. ;)

I have an issue with people who use terms they don't understand because they think it makes them look smarter.

[Crumpp]

http://www.terma.com/media/90377/terma_update_may_2008.pdf

how they arrived in the battle zone it would be of interest.

They pushed the throttle forward and went where AWACS told them. I was not the TACP, or in this case, CCT but just the guy that says, "drop bombs right there". That is an air force guy whose job it is to control the aircraft. Since there were less than 30 of us, you could say I was co-located in the kill zone with the TACP.

[Glider]

Who said anything about Germany losing Tornados???

They replaced the scared to death fighter pilot AWAC's moved off station, dropped all of their bombs, expended all their ammunition, and showed back up 45 minutes later ready to play some more.

The tornado pilots were brave men who were willing to fight.


I admit I thought you were, looking at the previous postings which together read


Ahh not really. Most of them I have seen are pissing their pants on the ground when we get to em.

I did that for much of the first gulf war air campaign. They might be something in a plane but out of it, they were not impressive.


That is by no means a blanket statement. I have also seen some very good guys up the air.

A couple of A10 pilots, some USMC F-18's, USN F-14's, and a couple of BundesLuftwaffe Tornado pilots stand out in my mind. They earned a seat at the table.

Clearly I read it wrong but the second part of my question is still something I am confused about. Its my understanding that Germany didn't take part in the air war over Iraq, so where did they come from? German pilots attached to the RAF were withdrawn before deployment at the request of the German authorities so it wasn't the RAF.

[Crumpp]

Its my understanding that Germany didn't take part in the air war over Iraq


That was not in Iraq, it was Afghanistan with the tornados.

The first gulf war we did CSAR out of turkey until the ground war started.

[Glider]

That was not in Iraq, it was Afghanistan.

But they only sent recce Tornados to Afghanistan.

It was one of the big gripes that Germany wouldn't put its pilots at risk, the pilots themselves were up for it, but the powers that be wouldn't let them attack anything.

[bongodriver]

Umm, I am a pilot and make my living in aviation. :wink:

I have an issue with people who use terms they don't understand because they think it makes them look smarter.

So do I and I know exactly what 'walt' means.

[Al Schlageter]

Well at least they weren't so gung-ho that they dropped bombs on friendlies.

[Crumpp]

But they only sent recce Tornados to Afghanistan.


They are allowed to defend themselves and other forces. They cannot engage in offensive operations.

[Glider]

They are allowed to defend themselves and other forces. They cannot engage in offensive operations.

They didn't carry bombs or other GA weapons, it was banned so you must admit its an interesting question.

[SNAFU]

AFIK AG51 Tornados, replacing also the role of the MFG 2 (German Navy Airwing) are only designed to carry AIM-9L (I) "Sidewinder", IRIS-T, 2 Mauser Mk-27 cannons, HARM and KORMORAN 2 or the recce pod. You shouldn´t let the german public know that they were refitted in Astan, while the german ISAF soldier doesn´t even have enough ammunition to return fire on their standard patrols. ;)

[Crumpp]

I know exactly what 'walt' means.


How long have you played this game? :-P

[Glider]

So do I and I know exactly what 'walt' means.

Interestingly I don't but I think I can make an inspired guess

[bongodriver]

How long have you played this game? :-P

Spotting Walts?......a long time.

[Crumpp]

They didn't carry bombs or other GA weapons

Yeah, OK. The Germans don't fight in afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyO-SCiqfx0&feature=related

Any tornado can conduct reconnaisance when outfitted with a pod.

[Crumpp]

Spotting Walts?......a long time.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4863/ddsigbongodriver2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/ddsigbongodriver2.jpg/)

I don't doubt it a bit. I am sure you know plenty of them.

[bongodriver]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4863/ddsigbongodriver2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/ddsigbongodriver2.jpg/)

I don't doubt it a bit. I am sure you know plenty of them.

Yup...and now one more.

[Crumpp]

while the german ISAF soldier doesn´t even have enough ammunition to return fire on their standard patrols.

Who told you this baloney?

[pstyle]

Yeah, OK. The Germans don't fight in afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyO-SCiqfx0&feature=related

Any tornado can conduct reconnaisance when outfitted with a pod.

thanks for posting that video Crumpp. Interesting watch.

Always odd to an English speaking ear to hear Deutsch spoken by combat soldiers in an engagement. We only ever get exposed to this by "Hollywood".. in a different historical context,....

[bongodriver]

Afghan is an ISAF party, most european contries have a contingent, seen some footage of Danish and Dutch troops in firefights.

[Crumpp]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k-9788-cg-diagram.jpg

Yeah right, it says "C.G Diagram" in nice big letters at the bottom so people who can read understand it has nothing to do with the centre of gravity of Spitfire Mk Is.

NACA report Measurements of the Flying Characteristics of the Spitfire Va (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092582_1993092582.pdf): As per usual Crumpp has fudged what the report actually says:



Crumpp has chosen to completely ignore that NACA's own report states that their calculations might have been in error, nor did NACA know what the cg was with full military load. " The NACA was well aware of the CG limits and capable of performing a proper weight and balance." completely wrong.

;) :rolleyes:

You want to quote the rest of this paragraph after "CG with full Military Load is not known"? You want it explained as to what they did?

The same longitudinal instability characteristics noted by the NACA are found as warnings in the Operating Notes written by the Air Ministry. The accident statistics confirm the validity of the warnings and the NACA findings.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Yeah, OK. The Germans don't fight in afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyO-SCiqfx0&feature=related

Any tornado can conduct reconnaisance when outfitted with a pod.

OT but I am always a bit impressed how calm these guys are in combat.

[VO101_Tom]

I have an issue with people who use terms they don't understand because they think it makes them look smarter.

:grin:

http://d3uwin5q170wpc.cloudfront.net/photo/162304_700b.jpg

[Crumpp]

OT but I am always a bit impressed how calm these guys are in combat.


Yep, those tornado pilots showed up on their own accord 45 minutes after they expended all their ordinance, re-armed, and wanting to play some more. They were warriors.

VO101_Tom

:grin:

[bongodriver]

Don't tell me....the fighter pilot that was screaming like a girl was RAF right?

[fruitbat]

Don't tell me....the fighter pilot that was screaming like a girl was RAF right?

Of course, he wouldn't of mentioned it otherwise.

[Glider]

Yep, those tornado pilots showed up on their own accord 45 minutes after they expended all their ordinance, re-armed, and wanting to play some more. They were warriors.



:grin:

These are the same pilots who didn't carry any ordinance because their recce aircraft ddn't have the equipment to do so. Or have I missed something

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I was talking about the soldiers in the video.

I think the plane briefly seen in the vid is not a tornado. Looks more like a F16 Falcon.

[Crumpp]

I was talking about the soldiers in the video.

I think the plane briefly seen in the vid is not a tornado. Looks more like a F16 Falcon.

I know you were talking about the soldiers in the video. The ones who are not supposed to fight.

I was talking about the tornado pilots who helped us out that day. Two different things!

[Crumpp]

These are the same pilots who didn't carry any ordinance because their recce aircraft ddn't have the equipment to do so. Or have I missed something


Yeah, you missed something.

[bongodriver]

Yeah, you missed something.

So what were the 6 unarmed recce Tornados dropping?

[Crumpp]

Who said 6? A flight of two dropped 4 bombs and made gun runs on the ridgeline until their ammo was expended.

[Crumpp]

Are you like really surprised that the public gets fed baloney?

Other than "something happenend" almost none of this is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lejay,_Afghanistan

[bongodriver]

Who said 6? A flight of two dropped 4 bombs and made gun runs on the ridgeline until their ammo was expended.

Germany contributed 6 recce tornadoes from 2007...there you have it 6, the choice to send recce tornados was a concious decision in order to calm the German public against the idea of reprisal terrorist acts in Germany if they were dropping bombs.

[bongodriver]

Are you like really surprised that the public gets fed baloney?

If people like you are in charge of what they get fed then no.

[CaptainDoggles]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/Renigeid/AwwJeeznotthiscrapagain.jpg

[bongodriver]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/Renigeid/AwwJeeznotthiscrapagain.jpg

Yeah......I thought Crumpp's wikipedia link was a facepalmer too.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Germany contributed 6 recce tornadoes from 2007...there you have it 6, the choice to send recce tornados was a concious decision in order to calm the German public against the idea of reprisal terrorist acts in Germany if they were dropping bombs.

You misjudge German public opinion. A majority of Germans are against the Afghanistan engagement of Germany because they believe German soldiers should not operate outside of Germany and should only be deployed in pure self defence in the strictest sense.

I just reflect what I read in the polls not my personal opinion.

[Crumpp]

You know, I was there and saw the whole thing. I know what our CCT guy told us.

Are you saying I could be wrong and the details are not correct?

[bongodriver]

You misjudge German public opinion. A majority of Germans are against the Afghanistan engagement of Germany because they believe German soldiers should not operate outside of Germany and should only be deployed in pure self defence in the strictest sense.

I just reflect what I read in the polls not my personal opinion.

Whatever way to look at it, German popular oppinion is against involvement in the conflict, the German goverment was under pressure from both sides.....after all just about everyone else in europe got stuck in.

[Kurfürst]

So what were the 6 unarmed recce Tornados dropping?

Flowers and Good Karma Dust.

[bongodriver]

You know, I was there and saw the whole thing. I know what our CCT guy told us.

Are you saying I could be wrong and the details are not correct?

I don't know if you were there or saw the whole thing or what some guy told you, I don't know of the incident and I don't know if youre wrong, I do know wikipedia is notorious for being garbage at times, I do know it has nothing to do with German tornadoes as the event is 2003 and germany contributed tornado ops in 2007.