Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[CaptainDoggles]

A child would be able to read to paragraph 5, unlike yourself it appears.

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

[Al Schlageter]

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

Sure it has to able to maneuver. It is not a V1 and flies one direction only.

[fruitbat]

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

no, not at all, but i agree with the US Navy when they say in paragraph 5,


In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa.


are you denying them?

[CaptainDoggles]

no, not at allCool, glad we agree that a maneuverable aircraft does not require negative stability.

[fruitbat]

I'll ask again Doggles,


In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa.


are you denying them?

[CaptainDoggles]

I'll ask again Doggles

You're in bongodriver's squad, right? Nope, I won't be debating with you.

If someone else wants to ask me that question I'll maybe discuss things with that person.

Have a nice day!

[fruitbat]

ahhh, didn't answer the question, huge surprise, silence speaks volumes.

for the record, because we're in the same squad, doesn't mean we agree on everything.:rolleyes:

[CaptainDoggles]

ahhh, didn't answer the question, huge surprise, silence speaks volumes.
If someone else wants to ask me that question I'll maybe discuss things with that person.

--

for the record, because we're in the same squad, doesn't mean we agree on everything.:rolleyes:Yeah I agree, I don't like him either. He reflects very poorly on your squad's reputation.

Have a nice day!

[fruitbat]

wow, you're mature.

kindergarten stuff.

not saying much for JG13 yourself mate.

[NZtyphoon]

--

Yeah I agree, I don't like him either. He reflects very poorly on your squad's reputation.

Have a nice day!

Okay, if you ain't interested in answering fruitbat's question 'cos you don't like bongodriver I'll ask;

Do you agree with the statement

"In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa." ?

[winny]

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

This is a bit of a loaded statement. It ignores half of the argument.

The question is: Is a stable aircraft more or less maneuverable than an unstable one. Of course you can have a maneuverable stable aircraft but, are unstable aircraft more maneuverable than that?

The other big question is how detrimental to the Spitfires performance was the instability?

[fruitbat]

This is a bit of a loaded statement. It ignores half of the argument.

The question is: Is a stable aircraft more or less maneuverable than an unstable one. Of course you can have a maneuverable stable aircraft but, are unstable aircraft more maneuverable than that?



exactly.

[CaptainDoggles]

"In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa." ?

First of all, I'm going to disregard things like Active Stability, where you have the computer making lightning-quick corrections to the unstable aircraft to keep it in controlled flight, because I think that this is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. If we want to get into a discussion on the characteristics of FBW systems and supermaneuverability then we should open a new thread.

--

I think it depends greatly on

a) which stability mode we're considering; if it's the short period or the phugoid mode

and

b) what you consider to be "maneuverable".

I think that if you were to reword that statement to read "the relationship of longitudinal stability to agility is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa" then I would absolutely agree.

If an aircraft is unstable, then it will by definition be difficult or impossible for the pilot to precisely control the aircraft during a maneuver. By this I mean the pilot won't be able to hold a constant G-level through a turn, or to keep his guns on target.

I would consider such an aircraft to be highly agile, because it can re-orient its lift and nose vectors quickly and easily. This makes intuitive sense, because an unstable aircraft always wants to depart from equilibrium.

But I don't think that the aforementioned aircraft is particularly maneuverable, because I would define maneuverability as being easy to maneuver precisely and accurately through a wide range of maneuvers. In my opinion, if you have to fight the aircraft making corrections the whole time, then it's harder to get it to do what you want it to do, and so it's not very maneuverable, and so I would not consider an aircraft with negative stability to be very maneuverable.

[CaptainDoggles]

Coming back to the Navy textbook quote and FBW systems for a moment:

I think that they ascribe an inverse relationship to stability vs maneuverability because their aircraft have FBW capabilities. If the airframe is actually unstable, but you have a computer making corrections thousands of times per second, then all of a sudden your aircraft appears very stable to the pilot. In this context, the quote is accurate.

Obviously this lets them combine agility and maneuverability into one, and I think this is why the quote says what it does.

[winny]

Here's a quote written about the F-16

The CG is located aft of the aerodynamic center to reduce longitudinal stability
in favor of maneuverability, and help the horizontal tail
add to the lift while maintaining longitudinal trim...

From : JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGIES VOL. 58, No. 2

[NZtyphoon]

First of all, I'm going to disregard things like Active Stability, where you have the computer making lightning-quick corrections to the unstable aircraft to keep it in controlled flight, because I think that this is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. If we want to get into a discussion on the characteristics of FBW systems and supermaneuverability then we should open a new thread.

Fair enough, we are discussing an aircraft without FBW and supermanœvreability

If an aircraft is unstable, then it will by definition be difficult or impossible for the pilot to precisely control the aircraft during a maneuver. By this I mean the pilot won't be able to hold a constant G-level through a turn, or to keep his guns on target.

I would consider such an aircraft to be highly agile, because it can re-orient its lift and nose vectors quickly and easily. This makes intuitive sense, because an unstable aircraft always wants to depart from equilibrium.

But I don't think that the aforementioned aircraft is particularly maneuverable, because I would define maneuverability as being easy to maneuver precisely and accurately through a wide range of maneuvers. In my opinion, if you have to fight the aircraft the whole time, then it's not very maneuverable, and so I would not consider an aircraft with negative stability to be very maneuverable.

I don't see any indications of pilots having to "fight" the Spitfire all the time, so it wouldn't come into your definition of agile but not manœuvreble -

Here are some comments from Alex Henshaw on flying the Spitfire:
http://www.theaviationindex.com/publication/volume-23-issue-09-1995/article/spitfire-test-pilots-defence

"With a brief pause for the undercarriage to retract and at 135 m.p.h IAS, the machine would be pulled up into a vertical climb for the first half of a loop. On reaching almost the extremity of the climb it could then be gently coaxed over at something like 10-15 m.p.h below its normal stalling speed. During this sensitive manœuvre the ailerons would be hard up against the stops but still effective....
The Spitfire would then continue with a series of loops and half-rolls to gain height over the airfield to between 4,000 and 5,000ft. Depending on the precise position of the aircraft in relation to the airfield, the usual procedure was to dive to 450-470 mph in front of the flight shed and then pull out and complete an upward roll to the left, one to the right and a half-roll left. This manœuvre might be repeated or continued with a vertical dive with aileron turns."

"It is generally accepted that the Hurricane made a better gun platform than the Spitfire. I have never fired the guns of a Hurricane, but those top-scoring pilots with whom I have discussed the subject all say that the marvellous feature of the Spitfire was the speed at which the guns could be brought to bear on the target. Their reply to the accusation of "hosing' was that the pilot concerned was a poor shot."

[robtek]

I'd like to repeat that being unstable or negative stability is NOT desirable for any airplane, as the pilot, or today electronics and hydraulics, have to work all the time for a controlled flight.
For commercial planes, were safety is the highest priority, positive stability is desirable.
For fighters, or aerobatic planes, neutral stability is the non plus ultra.

[Crumpp]

During WW2, however, the demands of production testing thousands of aircraft meant that each factory adopted its own techniques, designed to test aircraft to an acceptable standard, as quickly as possible, before delivery: this did not mean that there wasn't a standard set by the RAE, simply a divergence of ways in which it was done at a production level. The same thing happened in the 'States, each factory adopted a testing regime broadly following the NACA guidelines.


:rolleyes:

Once again, a standard is a standard. The Air Ministry and the RAE did not have one.

The United States had a standard during the war. That does not mean every airplane met that standard. Most aircraft were designed before the standard was adopted. It does mean, they designed to meet, tested to meet it, and implemented design corrections to meet the adopted standard. Part of that report and standard is included in the very first post in this thread.

The design firms in the United States were obligated to meet a standard. Supermarine was under NO Obligation to correct the Spitfire. It as already in production and service. It took the NACA, Gates, and mounds of evidence of the instability before a simple correction was adopted.

With the right information, figuring out how much weight to add to your elevator bellcrank is no different than a weight and balance. Once more, a designer can add springs, bungees, weights, and other devices to increase or decrease the control force as he wants.

Facts are the RAE relied upon the individual talent of the engineers and the opinion of the pilots.

Not all engineers are equal. For example, Sir Sydney Camm was very talented with stability and control design. His designs reflect that. RJ Mitchell certainly missed the mark on the Spitfire.

Is a stable aircraft more or less maneuverable than an unstable one.


It does not matter how maneuverable an aircraft is if the pilot cannot control it.


That is the Spitfire's issue. Nobody is claiming it should be less maneuverable. The longitudinal axis should be so maneuverable as to be very difficult to precisely control.

Generally speaking, all aircraft above Va can exceed their airframe limitations. You can do it more easily in the Spitfire.

It is also harder to precisely control in a turn. The strength of the buffet determines the scope of the effects of the stick shaker zone. Hitting stick shaker in a Spitfire is easier due to the longitudinal instability.

Properly modeled, the Spitfire has world beating performance. While not the most agile fighter, it is fast, climbs well, and excellent rate of steady state turn.

The majority of fighter pilots in World War II never got into a single dogfight. Most kills occurred without the "victim" even knowing the opponent was there behind them.

So all those anecdotes about "easy to fly" are worthless without the context and a comparison of pilot skill. I would love to fly a Spitfire and throw it around the sky on a sunny afternoon.

That is not the same as dog fighting. Dogfighting is what you do in this game and it has very little if anything at all to do with the actual events or history. An actual simulation of WWII would be zero fun. For the vast majority of pilots, it was lots of tedious flying to be killed without ever seeing who did it. For a few, it was a few seconds of terrified maneuvering before death and for a rare few that we still talk about today, the thrill of the hunt.

The NACA and the RAE agree that the aircraft was difficult to precisely control in a turn. It was twitchy airplane. The airplanes characteristics are measureable, definable, and everyone who was involved with the airplane agreed upon them.

The Spitfire should take time and skill to master. Once mastered, reward its aficionados with the performance they expect.


I think this thread has about run its course. Time to submitt the bugtracker.

[Crumpp]

Please start into my use of "stick shaker"....

:grin:

[Crumpp]

Alex Henshaw on flying the Spitfire

How many actual dogfights did Henshaw get into in an early mark Spitfire??

None.

How many in any Spitfire??

What Mark of Spitfire is that on the magazine cover?? What Mark was the topic of this thread??

[Crumpp]

First of all, I'm going to disregard things like Active Stability, where you have the computer making lightning-quick corrections to the unstable aircraft to keep it in controlled flight, because I think that this is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. If we want to get into a discussion on the characteristics of FBW systems and supermaneuverability then we should open a new thread.

--

I think it depends greatly on

a) which stability mode we're considering; if it's the short period or the phugoid mode

and

b) what you consider to be "maneuverable".

I think that if you were to reword that statement to read "the relationship of longitudinal stability to agility is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa" then I would absolutely agree.

If an aircraft is unstable, then it will by definition be difficult or impossible for the pilot to precisely control the aircraft during a maneuver. By this I mean the pilot won't be able to hold a constant G-level through a turn, or to keep his guns on target.

I would consider such an aircraft to be highly agile, because it can re-orient its lift and nose vectors quickly and easily. This makes intuitive sense, because an unstable aircraft always wants to depart from equilibrium.

But I don't think that the aforementioned aircraft is particularly maneuverable, because I would define maneuverability as being easy to maneuver precisely and accurately through a wide range of maneuvers. In my opinion, if you have to fight the aircraft making corrections the whole time, then it's harder to get it to do what you want it to do, and so it's not very maneuverable, and so I would not consider an aircraft with negative stability to be very maneuverable.

Exactly

[NZtyphoon]

:rolleyes:

Once again, a standard is a standard. The Air Ministry and the RAE did not have one.

The United States had a standard during the war. That does not mean every airplane met that standard. Most aircraft were designed before the standard was adopted. It does mean, they designed to meet, tested to meet it, and implemented design corrections to meet the adopted standard. Part of that report and standard is included in the very first post in this thread.

The design firms in the United States were obligated to meet a standard. Supermarine was under NO Obligation to correct the Spitfire. It as already in production and service. It took the NACA, Gates, and mounds of evidence of the instability before a simple correction was adopted.



Absolute nonsense, once again Crumpp - you clearly have no clues as to how the British aviation industry operated in wartime. Where is your evidence that Supermarine was under no obligation to correct the Spitfire?

How did NA comply with the "standard" when they fitted the P-51B/C/D with rear fuel tanks, thus turning the machine into one that was highly unstable when the tank was full? Was the "standard" adopted before or after the P-51 was designed; before or after the modifications to the P-51?

How did Grumman correct the undesirable elevator characteristics of the F8F-1 to meet NACA standards? Was the "standard" adopted before or after the F8F was designed?

[NZtyphoon]

How many actual dogfights did Henshaw get into in an early mark Spitfire??

None.

How many in any Spitfire??

What Mark of Spitfire is that on the magazine cover?? What Mark was the topic of this thread??

What does it matter how many dogfights Henshaw got into - how many have you got into? How many Spitfires have you flown? And since when has this thread been a discussion on dogfighting in the Spitfire anyway?

Nor does the mark of Spitfire on the cover have anything to do with the article.

[Crumpp]

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8906/britishlackofastandard.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/britishlackofastandard.jpg/)

Where is your evidence that Supermarine was under no obligation to correct the Spitfire?

They knew about it in 1936!! Do you really think Supermarine is that stupid it took them four years to fix it???

It cost's money to add things to an airplane. Even more money to fix an issue that is the designers fault.

[NZtyphoon]

They knew about it in 1936!! Do you really think Supermarine is that stupid it took them four years to fix it???

It cost's money to add things to an airplane. Even more money to fix an issue that is the designers fault.

Who knew about what in 1936? and no Supermarine were not stupid. And what relevance does the last statement have to with anything?

[Crumpp]

How did NA comply with the "standard" when they fitted the P-51B/C/D with rear fuel tanks

They restricted its use when full to non-combat flying. It was prohibited to dogfight with a specified amount of fuel in the tank.

That was so the CG would be within specs......

[NZtyphoon]

They restricted its use when full to non-combat flying. It was prohibited to dogfight with a specified amount of fuel in the tank.

That was so the CG would be within specs......

So, NA issued instructions to the pilot - isn't that exactly what Supermarine did in their Pilot's Notes?

And again I ask where is your evidence that Supermarine was not obligated to "correct" the Spitfire - what were they doing when they added bob-weights and later modified the elevator?

[Crumpp]

So, NA issued instructions to the pilot - isn't that exactly what Supermarine did in their Pilot's Notes?

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."

Don't you think in a simulation, players should have to deal with it by careful flying??

[NZtyphoon]

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."


So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard? :rolleyes:

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CaptainDoggles]

So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard? :rolleyes:

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

First of all, it's been said already that not all the aircraft met the standard.

Secondly, why is it important? What difference does it make if Britain had a standard or not? Who cares? You keep bringing this Did-they/Didn't-they topic up over and over, but it's completely secondary to the purpose of this thread.

This thread is supposed to be about coming up with a good body of evidence so that the developers can add proper handling to the game. Are you saying you don't think players should have to deal with it by careful flying?

[Robo.]

This thread is supposed to be about coming up with a good body of evidence so that the developers can add proper handling to the game. Are you saying you don't think players should have to deal with it by careful flying?

Yes, I agree, there is lots of room for improvement regarding the handling characteristics to make this game more realistic. I find flying in this sim a bit too easy in many aspects.

I'd like to see similar control lockup we have on the Hurricane on all planes, especially at 109s elevator and Spitfires ailerons. All in all, I very much like the increasing forces in the joystick as the airspeed rises, they are just somehow not balanced properly at this stage. I'd like the devs to fix the trim response (esp. elevator) so we're not able to perform this ufo-like manoeveurs anymore. I'd like them to fix the Spitfire flaps issue where you can exploit it and turn tighter if it needs be. Of course they should make the Spitfire elevator control a bit twitchier, but that o me is just another small detail. I could go for much longer with listing this small FM flaws (that is still my opinion only, ymmw).

For this particluar issue you'd need to have a proper atmosphere modelled so we can feel this bumpy air (we don't because we're flying through vacuum apparently). We would also need to have the structural G-Limits modelled so we can not do crazy stuff like we normally do. We don't have that either at this moment. Also HW issues can never be considered properly. Everybody has got different joystick and would be able to tweak the elevator curve (or sensitivity) accordingly anyway. With my game-time in the Spitfire I'd note that the plane is very unstable already compared to the 109 or G.50 or Hurricane. It requieres certain skill to control it at certain situations, e.g. keeping nose straight at the speeds close to the stall. Spitfire, she is a twitchy beast already, you'll see that when you try her a bit more ;)

You're saying this thread is about 'coming with good body of evidence' so the devs can benefit from it and perhaps fix this issue. To me as unbiased observer it rather looks like this thread is about certain people showing off with their preferences and about trying to get certain things porked. This thread is also about avoiding questions and providing selective evidence or ignoring the counterarguments. It reminds me very much of John Cleese library sketch as they provide any information by cutting the unwanted bits and bobs so the result is ''England never lost a cricket match in last 70 years.'' I am not sure if you're familiar with it but you should watch it, it's hilarious. Not as hilarious as your kindergarden post but close enough. Funniest thing is that one of this guys dosn't actualy fly this sim at all and the other (that is you Doggles) only flies Messerschmitt. None of you 2 has got a clue about Spitfire stability in game to start with. But do carry on. :grin:

[CaptainDoggles]

Of course YOU are the unbiased observer, but there's no way that I can be unbiased, right? Because I have a 109 in my signature?

You know, it's a really sad statement when a person can't apply their relevant knowledge without being labeled as a show-off or a "luftwhiner". You think I'm showing off? I can be insulting too if I want.

This thread is also about avoiding questions and providing selective evidence or ignoring the counterarguments.Point it out, then. The only questions I've ignored are the silly ones that have no bearing on the matter, like did 1930's Britain have a stability standard.

Funniest thing is that one of this guys dosn't actualy fly this sim at all and the other (that is you Doggles) only flies Messerschmitt. None of you 2 has got a clue about Spitfire stability in game to start with. But do carry on. :grin:How do you claim to know how often I fly the Spitfire? Because when I go on ATAG I prefer to fly the 109?

It's possible to change one's handle, and also possible to fly offline or on private servers.

[6S.Manu]

Robo, you know I don't fly CloD so I really don't care about ingame performance (until a more realistic combar environment wuold be implemented by the devs).

Anyway I've found the info in this thread really interesting: we already know many of the historical issues of the german/japanese aircrafts (btw I would like the devs to implement the 109's takeoff/landing issues) and usually they are already in the game (at least in IL2, even if sometimes in a bad way).

Now what about the Spitfire? The only defects known by me were the negative G engine cut and the "worser weapon platform compared to Hurricane and Tempest" characteristic (but this does not tell us anything). When all we listen is "it's easy to fly", "it's like a ballerina", "the elliptical wings" ect it's nice to know that they got some more issues: for example I did'nt know of the oversensible elevator control that, imo, is a serious issue when the plane has to be flown at her limits... something that in IL2 we do a lot, but in RL usually it was not really required (so "it was easy to fly").

[Robo.]

Of course YOU are the unbiased observer, but there's no way that I can be unbiased, right? Because I have a 109 in my signature?

I didn't say that you were not unbiased. :o

I only commented on myself and I ment it like ''I don't really care about this arguments of yours, I only read this stuff to learn something new and interesting.''

You know, it's a really sad statement when a person can't apply their relevant knowledge without being labeled as a show-off or a "luftwhiner". You think I'm showing off? I can be insulting too if I want.

That part about showing off was actually not aimed at you really but other 'certain people' :grin: I don't think you're a luftwhiner (whatever that is) and I don't care about what you have got in your signature. I read your posts and I reply sometimes. You apply your relevant knowledge and I respond, that's how forums work. It's not personal and I actually agreed with you and corrected on few things you were wrong about (according to my relevant knowledge of that matter) ;)

Point it out, then. The only questions I've ignored are the silly ones that have no bearing on the matter, like did 1930's Britain have a stability standard.

There was one particluar question, we both know which one that was, where you chose to avoid it in a spectacular way. But as you say that was not important.

How do you claim to know how often I fly the Spitfire? Because when I go on ATAG I prefer to fly the 109?

It's possible to change one's handle, and also possible to fly offline or on private servers.

I don't know but it's easy to assume so from your posts - like the one where you say Spitfire is just a faster Hurricane and similar. I am very sure that you have only very little experience with the Spitfire (or the RAF fighter aircraft per se) in the sim and I wondered how you feel confident to comment about it so much in this thread. And I told you so, that's all. :o

Have a good day!

[Robo.]

Robo, you know I don't fly CloD so I really don't care about ingame performance (until a more realistic combar environment wuold be implemented by the devs).

Anyway I've found the info in this thread really interesting: we already know many of the historical issues of the german/japanese aircrafts (btw I would like the devs to implement the 109's takeoff/landing issues) and usually they are already in the game (at least in IL2, even if sometimes in a bad way).

Now what about the Spitfire? The only defects known by me were the negative G engine cut and the "worser weapon platform compared to Hurricane and Tempest" characteristic (but this does not tell us anything). When all we listen is "it's easy to fly", "it's like a ballerina", "the elliptical wings" ect it's nice to know that they got some more issues: for example I did'nt know of the oversensible elevator control that, imo, is a serious issue when the plane has to be flown at her limits... something that in IL2 we do a lot, but in RL usually it was not really required (so "it was easy to fly").

Hi Manu, no worries, I know you don't fly too often and I understand why is that. I value your opinion because from 1946 I know you're experienced pilot.

I am all for it - I mentioned several major FM flaws in this sim and I stated all planes are too easy to fly at this moment, I agreed with Doggles when he said we need less generic behaviour and handling characteristics. I also said that with this particular issue (I am all for it, I will adapt easily) it's more complex than that - structural G limits and atmosphere are not modelled sufficiently for it to have desired effect.

I also find this thread very interesting and I am glad to read throught the posted documents.

[NZtyphoon]

Point it out, then. The only questions I've ignored are the silly ones that have no bearing on the matter, like did 1930's Britain have a stability standard.


As I have pointed out before Crumpp made this an integral part of his claims about the Spitfire control characteristics - that Britain's aircraft manufacturers did not have a design standard for stability and control, therefore they designed bad characteristics into aircraft such as the Spitfire and got away with it because, unlike the mighty Yanks and Germans, they were not "obligated" to correct such things; this type of claim deserves to be challenged because it shows an incomprehensible lack of knowledge from someone who claims to be an expert in aeronautical engineering! Blame Crumpp for introducing the subject in his first posting.

[CaptainDoggles]

There was one particluar question, we both know which one that was, where you chose to avoid it in a spectacular way. But as you say that was not important.You'll recall that I answered that question. That answer is here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=447067&postcount=263). If you aren't satisfied with my answer I'm happy to discuss it with rational people. But I'm not obligated to reply to posts on this forum, and I elected not to discuss things with people who are irrational, or in the same squad as known forum trolls.

I don't know but it's easy to assume so from your posts - like the one where you say Spitfire is just a faster Hurricane and similar. I am very sure that you have only very little experience with the Spitfire (or the RAF fighter aircraft per se) in the sim and I wondered how you feel confident to comment about it so much in this thread. And I told you so, that's all. :o Well, just for you I went up on ATAG and shot down a 109 for you. Easy as pie.

As I was climbing up to altitude I repeated an earlier test that I'd done and, in level flight at ~10000 feet, pulled the stick back and then let go. The aircraft nosed back down gently like a stable aircraft would. It should have held that AOA until it ran out of speed (I was using the rudder to keep wings level), or possibly nosed up further, depending on if you choose to believe it had neutral or negative stability.

But I have no experience in these things, so what do I know? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CaptainDoggles]

As I have pointed out before Crumpp made this an integral part of his claims about the Spitfire control characteristics - that Britain's aircraft manufacturers did not have a design standard for stability and control, therefore they designed bad characteristics into aircraft such as the Spitfire and got away with it because, unlike the mighty Yanks and Germans, they were not "obligated" to correct such things; this type of claim deserves to be challenged because it shows an incomprehensible lack of knowledge from someone who claims to be an expert in aeronautical engineering! Blame Crumpp for introducing the subject in his first posting.

Why does it matter, though? Historical trivia does not an engineer make. You can't prove someone isn't an engineer because they haven't heard of Somebody Lanchester.

I'm an engineer and I've never heard of him before this thread.

And lastly, not that I really care, but if Britain had a unified standard in the 30s, then why is there a document from 1947 talking about developing one for the first time? I'm sure that the individual manufacturers did indeed have their own standards, but that's not being disputed.

[Robo.]

You'll recall that I answered that question. That answer is here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=447067&postcount=263). If you aren't satisfied with my answer I'm happy to discuss it with rational people. But I'm not obligated to reply to posts on this forum, and I elected not to discuss things with people who are irrational, or in the same squad as known forum trolls.

Sorry I only recall you don't play with Jimmy because Jimmy plays with George and you don't play with George in the first place. :o

Well, just for you I went up on ATAG and shot down a 109 for you. Easy as pie.

I don't mind what you're doing on atag, why exactly are you telling us this?

As I was climbing up to altitude I repeated an earlier test that I'd done and, in level flight at ~10000 feet, pulled the stick back and then let go. The aircraft nosed back down gently like a stable aircraft would. It should have held that AOA until it ran out of speed (I was using the rudder to keep wings level), or possibly nosed up further, depending on if you choose to believe it had neutral or negative stability.

This is an issue indeed but as I was trying to point ou in my previous post, rather small one compared the other issues with general FM and actual aircraft FMs. I hope all of them will be addressed at some point.

But I have no experience in these things, so what do I know? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes indeed, you have obviously very little experience with RAF aicraft in the sim, judging from what you say about them, e.g. Spitfire and Hurricane feeling the same except for the speed.

[CaptainDoggles]

I don't mind what you're doing on atag, why exactly are you telling us this? Because if I never flew the Spitfire then I'd be bad at it. I'm not.

This is an issue indeed but as I was trying to point ou in my previous post, rather small one compared the other issues with general FM and actual aircraft FMs. I hope all of them will be addressed at some point.Me too.

Yes indeed, you have obviously very little experience with RAF aicraft in the sim, judging from what you say about them, e.g. Spitfire and Hurricane feeling the same except for the speed.I was exaggerating a little bit, trying to make a point.

I still think the aircraft in this sim (109 included) feel a little generic to me.

[ATAG_Dutch]

As I was climbing up to altitude I repeated an earlier test that I'd done and, in level flight at ~10000 feet, pulled the stick back and then let go. The aircraft nosed back down gently like a stable aircraft would. It should have held that AOA until it ran out of speed (I was using the rudder to keep wings level), or possibly nosed up further, depending on if you choose to believe it had neutral or negative stability.

How much fuel did you have? The evidence produced states that the spit was longitudinally stable with the CofG forward, i.e. a full tank, with decreasing longitudinal stability as the CofG moves aft with decreasing fuel load.

Personally, I'm very interested as to what the wording of the entry in the Bugtracker will be.

[NZtyphoon]

Why does it matter, though? Historical trivia does not an engineer make. You can't prove someone isn't an engineer because they haven't heard of Somebody Lanchester.

If Crumpp wishes to make definitive statements and claims, based on a very small amount of evidence there's no reason they cannot be challenged.

And lastly, not that I really care, but if Britain had a unified standard in the 30s, then why is there a document from 1947 talking about developing one for the first time? I'm sure that the individual manufacturers did indeed have their own standards, but that's not being disputed.

If not for you convenience then I'll answer for others - if you bothered reading the 1938 doco you'll see that aeronautical development had outstripped the standards of the time, from biplane to monoplane, such that the RAE and Air Min were working with the aircraft industry to promulgate better standards. Now, what happened during WW2? Jet aircraft, high speed prop driven aircraft approaching the speed of sound etc etc so now a new set of standards had to be developed and introduced; basically aeronautics and aeronautical engineering were changing extremely quickly from the early to mid 1930s on, so I don't believe that it was possible for even NACA to devise and stick to a definitive set of "standards" in the way Crumpp claims. Think about it - how was it possible to use the same stability and control standards for a 150 mph biplane fighter as for a 450 mph monoplane?

[Crumpp]

same stability and control standards for a 150 mph biplane fighter as for a 450 mph monoplane

NzTtyphoon,

The basis for all modern stability and control was developed during World War II. Outside of Germany, the NACA was the worlds leading organization for Stability and Control.

Fredrick Lanchester did some pioneering work and is considered the foundation for stability and control. He correctly theorized on vortex theory of lift with gliders secured by wire, conceptulized aircraft oscillatory motion which he called "fleeing motion" instead of phugoid. He published several works and even spoke with the Wright Brothers in 1908.

None of this was put into any mathmatical definition. Fredrick Lanchester was not able to put his ideas into any useful mathmatical form.

I have been waiting for you to realize this since you brought it up. I have ignored most of what you write because it is obvious you argue based off emotional attachment and do not understand much of what you claim. It is another red herring like arguing for pages about a non-dimensional proportion.

:rolleyes:

[taildraggernut]

Despite these apparent 'adopted' standards, both the US and Germany produced aircraft that actually 'did' have dangerous flying qualities.

So the question is, what point are you trying to make with the assertions the British had no adopted standards? that every British aircraft was just a hit or miss lucky guess? all the British aircraft that had stable qualities were just 'flukes'?

[Sandstone]

:That is the Spitfire's issue. Nobody is claiming it should be less maneuverable. The longitudinal axis should be so maneuverable as to be very difficult to precisely control.

This is where you don't convince me.

The Spitfire certainly did have undesireable pitch stability, but was it enough to make it "very difficult" to control precisely? I don't think it was. I think this because pilot accounts seldom mention longitudinal stability and because low-hours pilots flew it without problem. You obviously think it was, but this interpretation doesn't seem to be backed up by much in the way of evidence and, to me at least, comes over as no more than an assertion. Certainly, nothing convincing has been presented.

You say we shouldn't consider Spitfire pilot acounts. But if we are to determine how much of a problem was actually caused to real Spitfire pilots by the stability issue then that is exactly what we have to do. I can't see any way round this.

[taildraggernut]

I think the little blue sarcastic emoticon shoud be re-named Crumpp.....

[Crumpp]

but was it enough to make it "very difficult" to control precisely?

According to all measured standards, it was....

The Operating Notes also reflect it as well as test pilots from England, United States, and Germany.

[taildraggernut]

intersting article from NASA....

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch4.htm

[Glider]

Nice one, I like this bit on the SPitfire

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

Crumpp this is a must read for you

[taildraggernut]

Nice one, I like this bit on the SPitfire

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

I thought it was worth making the 'desirably' bold too ;)

Interesting to note the 'near neutral longitudinal stability' persumably this is because it was slightly longitudinaly unstable, but not unstable enough as to be regarded a problem.

[Crumpp]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9788-stability.jpg

[Crumpp]

slightly longitudinaly unstable

The records are posted above....

You guys understand this is quantifiable and not opinion?

I guess I will run some calcs for you all so you can get a better idea of the effect.

[taildraggernut]

And?........

The graphs show a slight instability, if you cant cope with that level of divergence in 3 minutes then my guess is you'd either be paralysed or in a coma.

[robtek]

There are speed changes of about 70mph in less than 15 second documented, if that doesn't take the pilots attention away from other things i don't know what would.
Of course a pilot can manage to control this instability, but he has to work just to keep his ride in a controlled flight, add other factors as gusts, attacking 109's or else and the workload might become too large.

[taildraggernut]

a cessna 152 will go from 70 to 0 in less than 15 seconds......the point is you have to wait a few minutes before those fluctuations get to that level, within the 1st minute nothing on those graphs looks wildly out of control.

[TomcatViP]

Crummp I think you shld stop answering to them. It goes nowhere. Either this thread shld be locked now if you have finished exposing your point or you might switch to the next step in your argumentation.

Don't take me wrong, I found your point really interesting as many other does.

[Glider]

Part of the problem is that Crumpp doesn't awnser the questions, he quotes the papers which is fair enough but doesn't support it with pilots comments. He said the test pilot reports support his. So let him show any test pilot who said it was difficult or dangerous or uncomfortable to fly, or any test establishment. No one is denying that it didn't have perfect stability but then again whats perfect.

The paper that was posted should be read from beginning to end, after all the man who wrote it had 58 years practical hands on experience. Another important section is as follows:-

I published reports on the Hawker Hurricane (April 1942) (ref. 4.5) followed shortly by one on the Spitfire. The data obtained in these tests served to confirm most of the requirements previously proposed by Gilruth. Other reports followed comparing these results with published data on the German fighter Me109 and with U.S. fighter airplanes. During the war, pilots' lives depended on small differences in performance between the first-line fighters, and continual detailed improvements were made in these fighters. Several research studies were made on improvements, usually on control systems, and close contact was kept with the manufacturers through conferences and preliminary reports.

The tests on the high-speed fighters confirmed the findings of Gilruth that though all the airplanes exhibited instability in the spiral and phugoid modes of motion, these [26] modes did not concern the pilot because his normal control actions prevented the modes from developing to a point that they were noticeable. That is, the airplanes were spirally unstable, but the rate of divergence was small enough that it was not discernible to the pilots. Also, the long-period longitudinal mode might have been a slow divergence or a poorly damped or unstable phugoid oscillation, but the divergence was so slow or the oscillation had such a long period that it was not noticeable in normal flight. The short-period lateral oscillatory mode, the Dutch roll, was noticeable but adequately damped and the short-period longitudinal mode was so well damped that it could not be detected by the pilots. In general, these results applied to most airplanes of this period and explain why successful airplanes could be built without the need to consider theoretical predictions of dynamic stability. On the other hand, Gilruth had found that many of the quantities that could be determined without the need for complex theories, such as control deflections and control forces required in straight flight and maneuvers, trim changes due to power and flap setting, limits of rolling moment due to sideslip, and adequacy of the control effectiveness in maneuvers, were extremely important to the pilot. The tests on the fighter airplanes showed that the longitudinal control force gradient in maneuvers, known as the force per g, was a very important quantity, whereas the control force and position variation with speed in straight flight was of less importance and mainly influenced pilot fatigue on long flights. These airplanes were found to be quite satisfactory in most respects, though the aileron effectiveness at high speeds was low because of the large control force required to deflect the ailerons, which was an adverse characteristic in air combat. The detailed improvements mentioned previously were mainly directed at this aileron effectiveness problem.

Or to put it another way. The imperfections were small enough to be either not noticed or easily dealt with.

[taildraggernut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMT6YNDg6UE&feature=related

[Crumpp]

Crummp I think you shld stop answering to them. It goes nowhere. Either this thread shld be locked now if you have finished exposing your point or you might switch to the next step in your argumentation.

Don't take me wrong, I found your point really interesting as many other does.


I agree. There are no more measureable or definable characteristics to discuss. The only counterpoints are now based on emotion and feelings.

[Crumpp]

The tests on the high-speed fighters confirmed the findings of Gilruth that though all the airplanes exhibited instability in the spiral and phugoid modes of motion, these [26] modes did not concern the pilot because his normal control actions prevented the modes from developing to a point that they were noticeable. That is, the airplanes were spirally unstable, but the rate of divergence was small enough that it was not discernible to the pilots. Also, the long-period longitudinal mode might have been a slow divergence or a poorly damped or unstable phugoid oscillation, but the divergence was so slow or the oscillation had such a long period that it was not noticeable in normal flight. The short-period lateral oscillatory mode, the Dutch roll, was noticeable but adequately damped and the short-period longitudinal mode was so well damped that it could not be detected by the pilots. In general, these results applied to most airplanes of this period and explain why successful airplanes could be built without the need to consider theoretical predictions of dynamic stability. On the other hand, Gilruth had found that many of the quantities that could be determined without the need for complex theories, such as control deflections and control forces required in straight flight and maneuvers, trim changes due to power and flap setting, limits of rolling moment due to sideslip, and adequacy of the control effectiveness in maneuvers, were extremely important to the pilot. The tests on the fighter airplanes showed that the longitudinal control force gradient in maneuvers, known as the force per g, was a very important quantity, whereas the control force and position variation with speed in straight flight was of less importance and mainly influenced pilot fatigue on long flights. These airplanes were found to be quite satisfactory in most respects, though the aileron effectiveness at high speeds was low because of the large control force required to deflect the ailerons, which was an adverse characteristic in air combat. The detailed improvements mentioned previously were mainly directed at this aileron effectiveness problem.


All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.

I think the thread has run its course.

[taildraggernut]

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.

I think the thread has run its course.

Yes, it ran it's course a while ago....anyway looking forward to the 109 debate, is is coming soon?

[winny]

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.
.

For a MK V

[Sandstone]

There are speed changes of about 70mph in less than 15 second documented, if that doesn't take the pilots attention away from other things i don't know what would.
Of course a pilot can manage to control this instability, but he has to work just to keep his ride in a controlled flight, add other factors as gusts, attacking 109's or else and the workload might become too large.

The question is whether the increase in workload caused by the Spitfire's longitudinal stability actually amounted to very much at all. Crumpp has been unable to show that it did and the lack of pilot accounts that even mention longitudinal stability suggests that there was no great problem, even for low-hours pilots. I suspect this is partly because the frequency of the pitch oscillations resulting from the instability was quite low. It's hard to see where this discussion can go given these facts.

Further, I really can't see how pitch sensitivity or instability could in any case be modelled in a flight sim where players use short, spring-centred joysticks with response curves. The situation is made worse in CoD because there is no turbulence or weather in the game (or at least I can't recall any from when I had it installed, but that was many months ago).

[Glider]

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.

I think the thread has run its course.

I think you forgot this part

I published reports on the Hawker Hurricane (April 1942) (ref. 4.5) followed shortly by one on the Spitfire. The data obtained in these tests served to confirm most of the requirements previously proposed by Gilruth. Other reports followed comparing these results with published data on the German fighter Me109 and with U.S. fighter airplanes. During the war, pilots' lives depended on small differences in performance between the first-line fighters, and continual detailed improvements were made in these fighters. Several research studies were made on improvements, usually on control systems, and close contact was kept with the manufacturers through conferences and preliminary reports.

I think you also forgot this part posted earlier

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

[Glider]

Crumpp
Dyou remember saying this

NzTtyphoon,

The basis for all modern stability and control was developed during World War II. Outside of Germany, the NACA was the worlds leading organization for Stability and Control.



well the person who wrote the paper starts it with

My career to the present has covered 58 years, all at Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At the start of my work, the center was called the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory of the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics).

So we can take it that you will read and accept the paper, as it is written by someone who has vast experience in this field, in a place you acknowledge as being (in your words) the NACA was the worlds leading organization.

You also said this


According to all measured standards, it was....

The Operating Notes also reflect it as well as test pilots from England, United States, and Germany.

So why can you cannot find any examples of Test Pilots who say that it was difficult to fly? Its a fair question

[Crumpp]

So we can take it that you will read and accept the paper

Yes you can read the NACA report and the results are measured.

[taildraggernut]

Yes.


You seemed to include a bit too much text so I edited your quote to what it should have been.

[winny]

Yes you can read the NACA report and the results are measured.

For a Mk V..

[NZtyphoon]

NzTtyphoon, The basis for all modern stability and control was developed during World War II. Outside of Germany, the NACA was the worlds leading organization for Stability and Control.


What, no "standards", just a basis? Developed DURING World War 2 because the pace of aeronautical development was such that it was impossible to develop a fixed set of standards -

I have ignored most of what you write because it is obvious you argue based off emotional attachment and do not understand much of what you claim. It is another red herring like my emotional attachment to a 1938 planning document discussing 16 fighter squadrons using 100 octane fuel...:rolleyes:

[Glider]

I agree. The only counterpoints are now based on emotion and feelings.

I am sorry to disgree with you but the counterpoints, are requests for the Test Pilot reports that you said you had, to support statements, that you made.

Your inability to do so speaks volumes

[Crumpp]

The control is satisfactory as regards "feel" and response, but would be improved if the movement of the control column for a given movement of the elevators was slightly greater

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k5054.html

Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'. Longitudinal stability records are attached.


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

[Glider]

I hate saying this Crumpp but when are you going to read the evidence you put forward?

K5054 is the prototype and the report did say what you said it did for the movement of the elevators.

K9787 is the very first aircraft delivered for the RAF and in this report to do wth the elevators it says:-
The gearing of the elevator control and elevator trimmers which were considered too high in the prototype are satisfactory in this aeroplane.

ie Elevators fixed for production aircraft

While you are at it can I have your test pilot reports that support your statement or is this it?

[robtek]

There is also still no evidence in form of provable data that the data presented by crumpp is not correct.

[NZtyphoon]

What is funny is the next aircraft I was going to discuss is the Hawker Hurricane. Sir Sydney Camm may not have understood swept wing theoy during the war but he was a master of stability and control design. The Hurricane was a wonderful gun platform and had near perfect longitudinal stability. His other major designs, the Typhoon and Tempest also exhibited the same characteristics.


Interesting that the Pilot's Notes for the Typhoon I note:
39. General Flying
(i) Stability. - The aircraft is stable directionally and laterally, but is slightly unstable longitudinally...

Tempest V Pilot's Notes:

44. General Flying
(i) Stability. - The aircraft is stable directionally and laterally, but is slightly unstable longitudinally.

[Al Schlageter]

Yes, it ran it's course a while ago....anyway looking forward to the 109 debate, is is coming soon?

There won't be one as the 109 was perfection personified as it is German.

[Crumpp]

Typhoon I

Yep and notice the Typhoon Operating Notes lack the warnings of the Early Mark Spitfire notes.

1. No bracing in turns required

2. Lack of warnings about overloading the airframe

IIRC, the Typhoon's issues did not stem from stability and control design but low velocity flutter in the tail.

It was reported in a couple of flights as longitudinal stability issues but not measured.

It turned out to be a q-limit issue. I think early Typhoon's even had a few structural failures because of it.

[NZtyphoon]

IIRC, the Typhoon's issues did not stem from stability and control design but low velocity flutter in the tail.

Wrong, once again - the tests observe that the Typhoon had fore and aft instability (page 2 para 5), no mention of your "low velocity tail flutter" - as it was the Typhoon's operational history showed that it did make a good GA aircraft. The Tempest, which had no sign of "low velocity tail flutter" also exhibited the same characteristics, contradicting your statement:

Sir Sydney Camm may not have understood swept wing theoy during the war but he was a master of stability and control design. The Hurricane was a wonderful gun platform and had near perfect longitudinal stability. His other major designs, the Typhoon and Tempest also exhibited the same characteristics.

[Crumpp]

The "instability" was low velocity flutter and was not caught until the end of the war.

The tail problems turned out to be due to elevator flutter and were cured by modifying elevator balance, but that didn't happen until very near to the end of the war.

http://www.airvectors.net/avcfury.html

The RAE did not have a standard for stability and control.

ONCE again, there is nothing else in the Operating Notes in either the Typhoon or the Tempest that pertain to any kind of longitudinal stability issue. Had their been an issue, it would reflect in the cautions.

This is in sharp contrast to the early Mark Spitfires whose Operating Notes are filled with warnings of symptoms that are the result of longitudinal stability.

[camber]

Crumpp,

I keep hoping you will try and answer Glider's question. If the Spit had such objectional handling characteristics, why is there such a huge body of pilot's reports stating otherwise?

Your position seems to be to me that all such reports don't warrant any thought or comment as they do not represent hard data. I disagree, and don't seem to be alone on this. I don't see how you can convince many others including myself unless you try to come up with some explanation and try to address the discrepancy. Don't you have an opinion?

If you were a young pioneering stability control engineer in 1940, what would YOUR approach be? Judging from this thread, you would collect hard data with precision and evolve intuitively appropriate standards. Then you would ignore all test pilot's feedback of whether or not your proposed changes were desirable. After all, they are not control and stability engineers and cannot understand how their combat aircraft should operate. I don't think you would be playing much of a role in the future of aviation after that.

camber

[Glider]

There is also still no evidence in form of provable data that the data presented by crumpp is not correct.

On one side we have the views of the German, American and British test facilities, as well as the pilots who flew them that the SPitfire is easy to fly. Nowhere in any of these does it say that is was difficult or uncomfortable to fly.

Everyone agrees that there was a slight instability but either it wasn't noticable or it was easily dealt with.

On the other side we have Crumpp's view that because there is a slight instability that it was difficult/uncomfortable to fly. He also said that he had the reports from the test establishments and test pilots to support that view.

He has been asked many times to supply these reports from the establishments/pilots which he has failed to do. When he does supply something it turns out that the first is on the prototype and the second confirms that the issue on the prototype has been solved in the first production aircraft. So far there is nothing else submitted.

Its worth remembering that no one forced him to say that he had this supporting evidence, it was Crumpps statement.

I am afraid that I am starting to believe one of three options:-

a) He never had the supporting evidence and tried to bluff his way out of a problem
b) He does have the reports and they don't say what he wants them to say, so he isn't posting them
c) He has the reports, they say what he want but for some reason he will not submit them

Of the three options C is looking more and more unlikely. I truly hope that I am wrong and that he does have support as A and B are not good options

[NZtyphoon]

The RAE did not have a standard for stability and control.

ONCE again, there is nothing else in the Operating Notes in either the Typhoon or the Tempest that pertain to any kind of longitudinal stability issue. Had their been an issue, it would reflect in the cautions.

This is in sharp contrast to the early Mark Spitfires whose Operating Notes are filled with warnings of symptoms that are the result of longitudinal stability.

The tail problems turned out to be due to elevator flutter and were cured by modifying elevator balance, but that didn't happen until very near to the end of the war.

The Typhoon's tail problems had nothing to do with the longitudinal instability described in the Pilot's Notes. The Tempest did not suffer from "low velocity tail flutter" yet also displayed slight longitudinal instability.

And, BTW the website is completely wrong - the rudder balances, which were at the root of the tail problems, were modified in 1943 - there was no problem with the elevator balances. From early 1944 new production Typhoons, and some earlier ones, adopted Hawker Tempest horizontal tailplanes and elevators which had a larger area - with the small tailplanes and a full weapons load of either 8 RP-3s or 1,000 lb bombs the longitudinal stability deteriorated.

Your comment was the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest had near perfect longitudinal stability - no comment about a "longitudinal stability issue." Fact is you were wrong, once again - both aircraft were slightly unstable longitudinally.

If the RAE had no standards for stability and control it meant they were unable to comment on the stability and control of aircraft they tested - read the 1938 report carefully, it is most illuminating.

The Spitfire PNs describe control and g-limits in rough air and caution pilots against making high-speed manœuvres in such conditions, something also covered in Pilot's Notes General.

[robtek]

The thing that made the Spitfire instability special was the very light elevator plus the very short stick travel for large reactions, the Hawker designs were so normal in this aspect, that it isn't even mentioned.

I think for a unbiased reader it shows very clear, that in this thread everything possible is used to indirectly attack the OP.

I shure hope for the same unbiased support for the other planes that hopefully will be discussed.

[taildraggernut]

I know...this is just another one of those pesky reports by that class of people who know nothing of the subjet i.e. a pilot, but at least this one doesn't have 60 years of faded memory and biassed oppinion (he also flies a 109)

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/259/language/en-CA/Flying-the-Hurricane-with-Rob-Erdos.aspx

My first airborne impressions of the Hurricane were a bit of surprise. It’s…well, wobbly. During maneuvers the Hurricane is heavy, but pleasant. Rudder coordination isn’t optional, but not uncharacteristic of its vintage. Attempts at trimming the aeroplane are never fully satisfactory, and you can’t really take your hands off the stick for very long. The control forces are quite high; a situation not aided by horrendous amounts of control system friction. In this regard, comparisons are inevitable. Wartime lore has it that while the Spitfire was more agile, the Hurricane was a more “stable gun platform”. Sorry. In terms of classical stability the Spitfire wins by a small margin on all counts. Nevertheless, the Hurricane’s firm control feel gives it a sense of solidity that would complement an adrenalin-charged young fighter pilot.

[taildraggernut]

The thing that made the Spitfire instability special was the very light elevator plus the very short stick travel for large reactions, the Hawker designs were so normal in this aspect, that it isn't even mentioned.

I think for a unbiased reader it shows very clear, that in this thread everything possible is used to indirectly attack the OP.

I shure hope for the same unbiased support for the other planes that hopefully will be discussed.

Nothing to do with attacking the OP, everything to do with backing up the opposed oppinions, what this proves is that nobody who disagrees with the OP is doing it for simple emotional reasons, there are plenty of sources of information to back it up, it's up to the OP to prove without doubt his claims, every claim he has made has had a very valid counter argument, one could argue that someone dedicating so much attention to claims such as the OP's is probably the one doing it for emotional reasons.

[Robo.]

one could argue that someone dedicating so much attention to claims such as the OP's is probably the one doing it for emotional reasons.

Very much so.

I really enjoyed reading the attached documents and opinions in this thread, thank you very much for that.

Taildraggernut cheers for the Rob Erdos article, great reading.

[robtek]

The problem is, that crumpp doesn't present claims, he presents documented facts!

The claims are coming from those, who are unwilling to accept those facts.

To recapitulate those facts, as i understood them, in concentrated form:

1. The early Spitfire marks had a inherent longitudal instability which led to the manufacturer-fix with bob-weights.

2. The stick forces for the elevator were extraordinarily small in the Spitfire.

3. The stick travel was extrordinarily small for large reactions.

It really doesn't matter how good the pilots then were able to cope with those circumstances, it should be reflected in game that the plane doesn't fly itself, but has to be flown, and that with precise, small inputs for the elevator.

Also the tests shown by crumpp say that if one doesn't ride the buffet in a turn, but gets into the buffet, the turn performance is reduced drastically.

It is up to the fm programmer to make it possible to feel the difference in game.

Every aircraft has its quirks, and i think we want them all represented in this game.

[taildraggernut]

The problem is, that crumpp doesn't present claims, he presents documented facts!

No, he presents documents and interprets them to an extreme, with Crumpp this apparent instability is 'total' and should render the Spitfire dangerous to fly, simply not true.

The claims are coming from those, who are unwilling to accept those facts.

Funny how despite a similar weight of documented evidence is labeled aas 'claims' when on the other side.

1. The early Spitfire marks had a inherent longitudal instability which led to the manufacturer-fix with bob-weights.

in the MkV which had a different engine, all up weight etc.....oh and was about to go into service with the US air force....who apparently heard it was a bit 'unstable'

2. The stick forces for the elevator were extraordinarily small in the Spitfire.

Yes, as my link to the NACA report showed 'desirably light'

3. The stick travel was extrordinarily small for large reactions.

as a real life pilot I can say that sounds like a perfect situation, who wouldn't like a responsive ride?

It really doesn't matter how good the pilots then were able to cope with those circumstances, it should be reflected in game that the plane doesn't fly itself, but has to be flown, and that with precise, small inputs for the elevator.

I must be using a different game, it certainly isn't a hands off aircraft in game, but I sure would like some more of that responsiveness.

Also the tests shown by crumpp say that if one doesn't ride the buffet in a turn, but gets into the buffet, the turn performance is reduced drastically.

Which is quite true of any aircraft, luckyly the Spitfire was so responsive that a pilot barely needed any effort to take the aircraft out of the buffet.

It is up to the fm programmer to make it possible to feel the difference in game.

Every aircraft has its quirks, and i think we want them all represented in this game.

Yes, I agree, I am really looking forward to the promised 109 topic.

[robtek]

No, he presents documents and interprets them to an extreme, with Crumpp this apparent instability is 'total' and should render the Spitfire dangerous to fly, simply not true.

I still have to find crumpps claim that the Spitfire is dangerous to fly, failed so far.

Funny how despite a similar weight of documented evidence is labeled aas 'claims' when on the other side.

Well, none of this evidence said different from crumpps documents

in the MkV which had a different engine, all up weight etc.....oh and was about to go into service with the US air force....who apparently heard it was a bit 'unstable'

Yes, the MK Va with the same flying characteristics as the Mk I / II as the airframe is identical apart from small changes.

Yes, as my link to the NACA report showed 'desirably light'

I haven't found your link, but i found that in the NACA report:

In turns with speeds high enough to prevent reaching
maximum lift coefficient because of the excessive accelerations
involved, the small static longitudinal stability
of the Spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal
acceleration to small movements of the stick. As shown
by the time histories of high-speed turns (figs. 15 to 18),
it was necessary for the pilot to pull back the stick and
then ease it forward almost to its original position in
order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired
normal acceleration. Although this procedure appears
to come naturally to a skillful pilot, flight records
from other airplanes show, that a turn may be entered rapidly
and the desired normal acceleration may be held constant
by a single rearward motion of the stick, provided
the static stability of an airplane is sufficiently large.
By careful flying, the pilot was able to make smooth turns
at high speed, as shown by figures 17 and 18. Ordinarily,
however, small movements of the stick caused appreciable
variations in the normal acceleration, as shown in figures
15 and 20.

as a real life pilot I can say that sounds like a perfect situation, who wouldn't like a responsive ride?

Now, that is pure blandishing.


I must be using a different game, it certainly isn't a hands off aircraft in game, but I sure would like some more of that responsiveness.

Yes, more in the elevators, much less in the ailerons.


Which is quite true of any aircraft, luckyly the Spitfire was so responsive that a pilot barely needed any effort to take the aircraft out of the buffet.

As it barely didn't need any effort to get into the buffet if not careful flown.

Yes, I agree, I am really looking forward to the promised 109 topic.

Me also.

[taildraggernut]

I still have to find crumpps claim that the Spitfire is dangerous to fly, failed so far.

One only has to look at the bigger picture the chap is painting to realise it, by carefull examination you will see he is suggesting 'extreme care' must be taken to fly it, the penalties for not doing so range from complete loss of control to airframe failure, so even though the specific words were not used the ultimate impression Crumpp is giving is of a 'dangerous' aircraft.

Well, none of this evidence said different from crumpps documents

and thats the craziest part, it's only Crumpps own interpretation of those documents that paint such a dire picture, the most noteable instance has been the graphs showing the various stability tests, all of which show an aircraft with a very gentle divergent amplitude which is in technical terms 'unstable' but not to any degree as to be of concern, so Crumpp's own evidence works against him.

Yes, the MK Va with the same flying characteristics as the Mk I / II as the airframe is identical apart from small changes.

the same airframe with a different engine and all up weight, given that there were apparent differences between the MkI and MkII how can it be so?

I haven't found your link, but i found that in the NACA report:

Seek and ye shall find....

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch4.htm

Now, that is pure blandishing.

I fail to see where I am flattering you?

Yes, more in the elevators, much less in the ailerons.

Yes, I can go with that

As it barely didn't need any effort to get into the buffet if not careful flown.

Lucky all those chaps with 10 hours on type and 0 combat experience were very careful :rolleyes:

Me also.

I have a feeling we are in for a long wait

[Al Schlageter]

I think it is worth re-posting the words of an aeronautical engineer who spent a lifetime practicing his profession over one who hasn't:

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch4.htm

[robtek]

@ taildraggernut

ok, you've wrote at first NACA document, but you meant a Nasa-document about the Naca-document.
And you didn't flatter me, i meant sugarcoating, english is not my first language.
All those chaps with 10 h were those who did fly so carefully that they were outturned by 109's, maybe.

@ Al Schlageter
Of course light elevators ARE desirable, it's the combination with short stick travel which may cause problems for the less experienced.

[taildraggernut]

@ taildraggernut

ok, you've wrote at first NACA document, but you meant a Nasa-document about the Naca-document.
And you didn't flatter me, i meant sugarcoating, english is not my first language.
All those chaps with 10 h were those who did fly so carefully that they were outturned by 109's, maybe.

@ Al Schlageter
Of course light elevators ARE desirable, it's the combination with short stick travel which may cause problems for the less experienced.

Does it matter much? does the fact it is a NASA document about a NACA document invalidate it? is it impossible to ascertain what I was refering to? I don't quite follow the need for that correction.

Sorry but english is my first and only language, I simply assumed you used such an uncommon word because you knew what it meant, I had no warning that you may not have understood the words you are using.

so none of the chaps survived an engagement with a 109? despite the fact....sorry anecdotal fact.....that new guys were told to turn as hard as they could in order to evade the 109?

with regards to short stick travel this is apparently another desireable quality, from another part of the same article, interstingly you will se that research was put into trying to make control forces 'light', now apparently this is what makes the Spitfire 'tricky', but what it actually did was compensate for the slight instability and made it more controlable.

The Quest for Reduced Control Forces

One of the most serious problems encountered by designers of military airplanes during WW II was keeping control forces desirably light while airplanes were being made with greatly increased weight, size, and speed. Flying qualities research had shown that maximum control forces should be kept below what a pilot could conveniently exert with one hand on the control stick or wheel. For ailerons, this force was about 30 pounds on a control stick or 80 pounds on a control wheel. Increasing the mechanical advantage of the pilot's controls was impossible because of the limited size of the cockpit and the lag in deflecting a control wheel more than plus or minus 90 degrees. Studies of aerodynamic balancing devices to reduce the aerodynamic moments on control surfaces became one of the main research objectives of wind tunnels involved in stability research.

Aerodynamic balance on most airplanes designed prior to WW II was usually accomplished by locating some control surface area ahead of the hinge line. Various arrangements of these balances are shown in figure 6.1. These balances had advantages and disadvantages from both mechanical and aerodynamic standpoints. In general, balances that were permanently located in the air stream were subject to icing that might jam the controls. Balances that broke the contour of the airfoil added drag. In addition to such practical considerations, balances had to be selected on the basis of the hinge moment parameters such as the variations of control surface hinge moment with angle of attack and with control deflection. These parameters had fundamental effects on the flying qualities. The effect on snaking oscillations of the variation of hinge moment with angle of attack has already been mentioned. To obtain light control forces, both of these parameters had to be reduced.

Theoretically, the control forces could be reduced to zero by reducing these hinge moment parameters to zero, but in practice this goal could not be attained. One problem was the nonlinearity of the hinge-moment variations. For example, a control surface that was properly balanced at low deflections might be overbalanced at large deflections. A second problem that limited the degree of aerodynamic balance on large and high-speed airplanes was the effect of small changes in contour due to manufacturing differences. These differences might be almost too small to detect, yet could cause quite large changes in the control forces. The Germans, in an effort to obtain very light aileron forces on the Me109 airplane, would test fly the airplane and try different sets of ailerons until one was found that would give forces in the desired range. The British, on testing the Spitfire, mentioned encountering "rogue" airplanes that had different characteristics from the standard airplanes, the reasons for which could not be detected.

As a result of these problems, a practical limit had to be set on the degree of aerodynamic balance, which was usually 25 to 30 percent of the forces produced by an unbalanced control surface. This degree of balance, however, was nowhere near what was required to provide desirable handling qualities on the largest or fastest airplanes. In some cases, forces would have to be reduced to about 2 to 4 percent of those of an unbalanced surface.

[Glider]

To get a feel for how fragile the SPitfire was the following is a posting I found which breaks the losses bytype.

remembering that 20,000+ Spts were built during WW2 the numbers are pretty low

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?- Berkshire) 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 (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)

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

[TomcatViP]

The doc is quite interesting and sum-up pretty well what we know abt the plane but it ends in horrendous and hair rising conclusion.

It shld say that out of 133 accidents investigated 126 were from plane malfunction. And what does it says : out of 20000+ units only 126 crashed from plane malfunction !!!

This guy shld hve worked for insurance companies.

[robtek]

@ taildraggernut

do you earnestly propose that having only a three quarter inch useable stick travel out of about 20 inches possible stick travel is desireable?????

Just to remember that three quarters of a inch stick travel is needed to pull the spit in a stall at cruise speed and above.

Eventally add bumpy air and you'll find a lot of unwanted pilot induced oscillations!

[taildraggernut]

@ taildraggernut

do you earnestly propose that having only a three quarter inch useable stick travel out of about 20 inches possible stick travel is desireable?????

Just to remember that three quarters of a inch stick travel is needed to pull the spit in a stall at cruise speed and above.

Eventally add bumpy air and you'll find a lot of unwanted pilot induced oscillations!

how did they ever manage to fly in formation if the aircraft needed to be wrestled with so much? don't tell me...all the footage we ever see of spitfires flying was done on smooth days?.......they were flying reeeealy sloooowly?

Seriously the desparation is really showing now, I can't believe this isn't getting embarrassing for you chaps.

[JtD]

The P-39 has less stick travel and a lighter elevator and was still accepted into service.

Did the Spitfire I also show static longitudinal instability when it was equipped with a different propeller?

[Crumpp]

121 Spitfire crash investigations

That does not even scratch the surface on the number of pilots who damaged the aircraft but managed to make it home.

There were stories of Spit wings in huge piles at maintenance units as fractured wings were replaced after sharp pullouts at low levels - something that the more solid Hawker products were not affected by.


http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/hawker-Vspit.htm

[taildraggernut]

That does not even scratch the surface on the number of pilots who damaged the aircraft but managed to make it home.

and thats a bad thing?

There were stories of Spit wings in huge piles at maintenance units as fractured wings were replaced after sharp pullouts at low levels - something that the more solid Hawker products were not affected by.

Can we get at least one thing sorted here, is annecdotal evidence valid or not?

[41Sqn_Banks]

and thats a bad thing?

No, because the damage to the engine by using more than 400 hp was much more troublesome ;)

[taildraggernut]

No, because the damage to the engine by using more than 400 hp was much more troublesome ;)

incredible isn't it? and apparently its us that wear the pointy tin foil hats.....

[Crumpp]

The P-39 has less stick travel and a lighter elevator and was still accepted into service.


Because it did have acceptable characteristics overall.

The P39 exhibited neutral stability at its most rearward CG. The stick travel was 1 inch from cruise to CL max at 1.8 pounds per G.

However, the P39 required 12.5 degrees of elevator travel to reach the stall point AND its acceleration changed in proportion to elevator angle appropriately. There were no wild fluctuations in acceleration and the pilot is able to precisely meet and hold a given acceleration.

If you look at the abrupt pull out curves, the P39 met all the requirements of the NACA standard.

It was not divergent, unlike the Spitfire.

[taildraggernut]

Because it did have unacceptable characteristics.

The P39 exhibited neutral stability at its most rearward CG. The stick travel was 1 inch from cruise to CL max at 1.8 pounds per G.

However, the P39 required 12.5 degrees of elevator travel to reach the stall point AND its acceleration changed in proportion to elevator angle appropriately. There were no wild fluctuations in acceleration and the pilot is able to precisely meet and hold a given acceleration.

If you look at the abrupt pull out curves, the P39 met all the requirements of the NACA standard.

It was not divergent, unlike the Spitfire.

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities, and the spitfire didn't.

[TomcatViP]

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities, and the spitfire didn't.

There is no relation.

[Crumpp]

I edited my post:

"Because it did have unacceptable characteristics overall."

Huge typo, LOL.

The P39 met all the requirements and was acceptable. It is completely off topic and we can cover the P39 when it becomes available.

[Crumpp]

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities

Both aircraft are placarded against intentional spinning due to dangerous spin characteristics.

Again off topic

[taildraggernut]

Both aircraft are placarded against intentional spinning due to dangerous spin characteristics.

Again off topic

Wrong, intentional spinning was discouraged regardless of aircraft type, in the pilots manuals it explains clearly that the Spitfire was benign in the spin, it's just the RAF saw no need for it intentionally, there are 'NO' documented negative spinning qualities of the Spitfire, the P-39 however it was game over in a spin.

it is obvious by now that any qualities associated with the Spitfire are unaceptable to Crumpp.

[Crumpp]

intentional spinning was discouraged

:rolleyes:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9480/spinning2p.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/spinning2p.jpg/)

OFF TOPIC

[taildraggernut]

[QUOTE=Crumpp;447464]:rolleyes:
QUOTE]

Now read the rest of the notes and tell me where it says prohibited because it's a dangerous quality........it doesn't, it just tells you to use standard recovery techniques, not bail out because it's game over.

now go and read almost any other RAF pilots notes on any aircraft and you will see intentional spinning is 'prohibited' again not because the aircraft themselves are dangerous, it is simply because the maneuver is not regarded as necessary and the risks in spinning are universal.

:rolleyes:

p.s. how are the handling qualities of the Spitfire off topic?

[TomcatViP]

No. Again.

For example Basic pilot syllabus include spins. The plane used for this where not prohibited for spinning.

You hve also excellent pilot's note video on Youtube regarding P47, 38 etc.. You'll see that spin was not prohibited on those type. I am sure someone will point a similar (real :evil:) vid for an RAF plane

[taildraggernut]

No. Again.

For example Basic pilot syllabus include spins. The plane used for this where not prohibited for spinning.

You hve also excellent pilot's note video on Youtube regarding P47, 38 etc.. You'll see that spin was not prohibited on those type. I am sure someone will point a similar (real :evil:) vid for an RAF plane

well, why spin the spitfire if they already got trained to do it in a tiger moth that doesn't loose 2,000 feet minimum? hence why they didn't like to spin their expensive new and oh so desparately needed Spitfires, what the Americans had as regulations is the Americans business......nothing to do with the Spitfire....back on topic please.:rolleyes:

[robtek]

I think i know who is running out of straws now.

[taildraggernut]

I think i know who is running out of straws now.

At least one of you is beginning to realise it.

[Crumpp]

AP129 encourages spin training and has a whole chapter devoted to it. Aircraft are placarded against spinning because the specific design had dangerous characteristics.

End of story.

[ATAG_Dutch]

well, why spin the spitfire if they already got trained to do it in a tiger moth that doesn't loose 2,000 feet minimum?

They also learned to spin in the Harvard. An aircraft known for its vicious stall characteristics, and which needed about 2-3000ft to recover, if memory serves.

[taildraggernut]

AP129 encourages spin training and has a whole chapter devoted to it. Aircraft are placarded against spinning because the specific design had dangerous characteristics.

End of story.

in your oppinion, spin training is encouraged in 'training' aircraft, not the newest front line types which might be more usefully used in actual combat, the spitfire was not dangerous to spin....end of story:rolleyes:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

At least one of you is beginning to realise it.
lol! ;)

[Glider]

AP129 encourages spin training and has a whole chapter devoted to it. Aircraft are placarded against spinning because the specific design had dangerous characteristics.

End of story.

Wrong again. The pilots notes are clear that if you get into a spin the Spitfire will recover normally. You didn't read the words directly after the ones you quoted. Check your own posting 358

Re the P47 practice spins of more than 1/2 turn are banned according to the pilots notes

[Crumpp]

Wrong again.

:rolleyes:

Which part?

About AP129?? No

Or the Spitfire placarded against spinning? PROHIBITED is the word they use...IIRC.

[TomcatViP]

"Normally" does not means that the Spit will recover by itself but that you have to apply normal actions to get out of the spin (note tht there are some planes that recover by them-self).

Your reading is little biased when the line you extracts are only a couple of lines after the one saying that the spin was forbidden.

Limited to 1/2 turn in the 47 means that after half a turn you shld initiate actions to stop the spin and recover. It does not means that you 'd die once the plane past that point. In that case, if the odds are high enough, the Spin IS FORBIDDEN.

Stable spin situation have often a link with an aft CG location. It does not means that you'd die each time you'll get in a spin but more that the time to recover would be too great to be considered a safe practice during training or in a combat situation or might damage the structure.

Anyway, there is nothing to read btw the lines or makes interpretations. Those pilot's notes are written by those that know all about flying a military plane in combat situation.

So, EO Glider, with all my respect, stick by the book or use your imagination to found new ways of pealing the potatoes...

Dismiss !

;)

PS: I hope the joke passed the barrier language. Sgt Tomcat stand ready to eat his hat with some Bearnaise sauce in case it failed

[Crumpp]

Yes, my memory was correct. PROHIBITED is the right word.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9480/spinning2p.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/spinning2p.jpg/)

[CaptainDoggles]

I'm sure someone will be along soon enough to say that when it's the Spitfire we're talking about; the pilot instructions don't count because "it was wartime".

[Crumpp]

Stable spin situation have often a link with an aft CG location.

Most common cause of unrecoverable spins....

Gee, the Spitfire is placarded against spins....

What a coincidence Supermarine narrowed the aft CG limits without the installation of bob-weights!!

Must be a conspiracy to castrate English manhood!

;)

[Crumpp]

Anybody take a guess as to why the Spitfire nose goes down from elevator input when recovery begins, and then for one full turn, goes down farther holding input......and then it recovers??

[taildraggernut]

Anybody take a guess as to why the Spitfire nose goes down from elevator input when recovery begins, and then for one full turn, goes down farther holding input......and then it recovers??

Enlighten me...

[taildraggernut]

interesting account.....

During the Battle of Britain, I often used spins to save my life. I can think of at least four times when
this simple but dramatic manoeuvre of pretending to be shot down came in handy. I used it when I was
attacked by German fighters and had no chance to fight successfully> I usually started with a snap roll,
which culminated in a vertical stabilized spin. I would quickly close and open the throttle, producing
black smoke from the engine exhaust.
To German pilots, a spin was an indication that the Spitfire was out of control. Black smoke confirmed
that the aircraft had been shot down. Why follow and confirm the crash if it meant losing height over
enemy territory? Better to claim one Spitfire shot down!
Evidence after the war indicates that German fighters claimed the destruction of three times more RAF
aircraft than actual RAF losses in combat. So I was spinning happily, recovering at 5,000 feet or so,
and if there was enough gas and ammunition, I would climb again in search of better fighting
opportunities.
One might wonder why anyone would use this manoeuvre. There were situations, especially in the
Battle of Britain, where we were so outnumbered that the Spitfire had no chance. The manoeuvrability
of the Spitfire was so superior to the Me 109 that in a dogfight I considered two or even three Me 109s
equal opponents.

http://www.609wrsquadron.co.uk/Archives/Biographies/PDF_Files/Janusz%20Zurakowski.pdf

Oh but it's another one of those bloody pilots telling stories again....what do they know..:rolleyes:

[NZtyphoon]

Pilot's Notes General AP2095

4. Manœvres not Permitted

(i)Intentional spinning of operational aircraft

(iv)The reasons underlying these prohibitions are partly considerations of strength, partly of control. Aircraft are designed to fulfil their operational role and not to perform manœvres of no operational value.

That 609 Sqn pilot...naughty! Tsssk tssk! :rolleyes:

However pilots were trained to spin in order to learn how to stay calm and recover the aircraft - during WW1 pilots who got into a spin often didn't know how to recover; until a training regime was put in place spinning into the ground was a common cause of death.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Pilot's Notes General AP2095

4. Manœvres not Permitted

(i)Intentional spinning of operational aircraft

(iv)The reasons underlying these prohibitions are partly considerations of strength, partly of control. Aircraft are designed to fulfil their operational role and not to perform manœvres of no operational value.
Bingo!

There were all sorts of 'rules' put to paper..

For example

Performing a victory roll over the air field..

Prohibited to be sure!

For more reason than one!

But does that mean the plane was unable to and/or unsafe while preforming a 'roll' during combat?

Nope!

[Al Schlageter]

"One might wonder why anyone would use this manoeuvre. There were situations, especially in the Battle of Britain, where we were so outnumbered that the Spitfire had no chance. The maneuverability of the Spitfire was so superior to the Me 109 that in a dogfight I considered two or even three Me 109s equal opponents."

Crumpp has claimed in the past that the RAF was not outnumbered in the air battles over south-east England.

[Crumpp]

The reasons underlying these prohibitions are partly considerations of strength, partly of control.

:rolleyes:

[IvanK]

Oh Dear a conundrum .... Spinning Spit II ok if authorised by CO or OTU CFI :)

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Spit2Spin_Authorization.jpg

[Crumpp]

What is the conundrum???

Where is the rest of it, btw?

[CaptainDoggles]

http://i.qkme.me/3q6ytx.jpg

[IvanK]

So we have two references one says Spinning is "Prohibited" presented by Crummp (highlighted with red box to support his Spitfire stability impediment argument), and here another reference saying Spinning is Ok with authorisation from a pilot's CO or CFI in an OTU. i.e. in this reference its NOT prohibited.

What do you mean where is the rest of it ? .... its sitting on my desk as a written publication

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/spit2mnl.jpg

If you want the entire page from which the snippet was taken from here you are:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Spit2Spin_Auth.jpg

[CaptainDoggles]

Found an interesting quote today that seemed very relevant to this thread:

"Nobody believes theoretical predictions but the engineer who computed them; everybody believes experimental results but the engineer who conducted the test."

[6S.Manu]

I've read somewhere that there was another limitation to spin recovery: the pilot has to recover the plane not after 2 turns... I'm going to search for the doc.

Anyway about spinning I've found something interesting: it's not a Spit MkI, but a Spit MkVc... still I think the characteristics were similar to the previous versions.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/articles/spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero.html

Some interesting quotes:

The stall speeds cited apply to straight and level flight at 1G – hardly a realistic scenario in combat, where pilots would typically stall out of accelerated turns. In a modest 3G turn, the Spitfire would stall at 130 knots IAS, which equates to a TAS of 242 knots at 20 000 feet. At 6G (a hard turn or pull out at high speed, with the pilot blacking out), the Spitfire stalled at 184 knots IAS, which equated to 257 knots TAS at 20 000 feet, and 294 knots at 30 000. The latter was only 11 knots less than the Spitfire’s maximum speed at that height (at the emergency power settings of 3000 rpm and plus 2 ½ pounds boost), so it is clear that as height increased, the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall. This helps to explain the high incidence of Spitfires stalling and spinning out of combat turns over Darwin in 1943.

Obviously, the Zero also stalled out under G, but the tests showed it to have superb handling characteristics in hard turns, with no tendency to spin out of high speed stalls (implying that it was superior to the Spitfire in this respect)

These quotes (and many others) still reinforce my thought about the famous prestall warning in combat: it was useful in smooth turns, but in the tightest ones it could not be adverted because the oversensitivity of the elevators: it's the only explanation for RAF pilots been afraid to turn tightly. The pilot needs to be very careful on the stick, to act with precise movements who usually are not available during a situation of danger while, of course, are not a problem if the RAF pilot is actually engaging an unaware enemy.

Sadly we don't know the type of engagement tested during those famous British "109 vs Spitfire" dogfights...


And my favourite parts, even if OT:

When RAAF Spitfire pilots like Keith ‘Bluey’ Truscott were posted back to Australia for assignment to the RAAF’s newly-formed Kittyhawk squadrons, they similarly dismissed the heavy American fighter. Alongside the P-40’s trickier handling near the ground, Truscott admitted that it had good combat characteristics, but churlishly complained that you couldn’t ‘make it dance’ like a Spitfire. With all his experience, he should have realised that air combat would not be decided by close-in dogfighting with enemy fighters, whether against the Germans over Europe or against the Japanese over New Guinea. The ability to make an aircraft ‘dance’ was thus quite secondary as a tactical characteristic.

Rightfully, a whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. However, it is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically. As the Germans had showed the RAF fighter squadrons, the most decisive superiority in fighter combat came through some combination of height, speed, and firepower, not tight turning or manoeuvrability. Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria, and that the new Japanese opponent would trump every one of the Spitfire’s purported trademark virtues: in effect, ‘whatever you can do, I can do better’.

[IvanK]

"Darwin Spitfires" is an exceptionally good (though very expensive) book.

On the Spinning side of things Pilots notes (I have) show spinning was permitted on the MKII,V,IX,VIII,XI,XVI,XIV,XIX. Yet to check the other marks.

[TomcatViP]

"Darwin Spitfires" is an exceptionally good (though very expensive) book.

On the Spinning side of things Pilots notes (I have) show spinning was permitted on the MKII,V,IX,VIII,XI,XVI,XIV,XIX. Yet to check the other marks.

Dear IvanK,

Is that a reprint ? Because the 1565B does not have this paragraph :
see here (watch out p9 and 10 are in wrong order):

http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/3400-ap-1565b-pilots-notes-spitfire-iia-and-iib-aeroplanes-merlin-xii-engines


@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.

EDIT: is that this one ?

[6S.Manu]

@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.
EDIT: is that this one ?

I have not that book, but looking at the website it seems the right one.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/

[camber]

Off topic I know but I would add to the recommendations for "Darwin Spitfires" The author is actually local to me, I tried to get in touch but no luck :(

It has quite in-depth analysis of tactics and technical matters. The Australian Spit Vc had two huge technical problems related to the high altitude they fought. Those guys could almost rely on their prop CSUs failing in dives, leading to 4000rpm and rapid engine failure. Their cannons almost never worked, as the heat piping network basically fell apart. They were at a huge distance from the Supermarine supply line, but I think the RAAF staff let down the frontline by not addressing these problems effectively.

But initial pilot attitudes were a problem as well. Disregarding the American warnings, they didn't realise they were now the Messerchmitts, and the Zeros were the Spitfires. Once those lessons were learned, the Spits were effective.

The real RAAF star of the Pacific was the Beaufighter..another recommendation:
http://www.booksforever.com.au/catalog/Whispering_Death.html

camber

P.S Cmon IvanK, $35 isnt too bad for a good book. You'll just have to cut back on beer :)

[NZtyphoon]

Off topic I know but I would add to the recommendations for "Darwin Spitfires" The author is actually local to me, I tried to get in touch but no luck :(

It has quite in-depth analysis of tactics and technical matters. The Australian Spit Vc had two huge technical problems related to the high altitude they fought. Those guys could almost rely on their prop CSUs failing in dives, leading to 4000rpm and rapid engine failure. Their cannons almost never worked, as the heat piping network basically fell apart. They were at a huge distance from the Supermarine supply line, but I think the RAAF staff let down the frontline by not addressing these problems effectively.

But initial pilot attitudes were a problem as well. Disregarding the American warnings, they didn't realise they were now the Messerchmitts, and the Zeros were the Spitfires. Once those lessons were learned, the Spits were effective.

The real RAAF star of the Pacific was the Beaufighter..another recommendation:
http://www.booksforever.com.au/catalog/Whispering_Death.html

camber

P.S Cmon IvanK, $35 isnt too bad for a good book. You'll just have to cut back on beer :)

Thanks for the info on the book Ivank - very interesting.

Flying and fighting at 30,000 feet in a tropical environment in a heavily loaded Spitfire VC (trop) was very different to flying and fighting at 10-20,000 feet over SE England in a more lightly loaded Spitfire I or II.

[IvanK]

Tomcat VIP Yes thats the the book... its truly excellent.

Camber you got it for a steal at $35 !

The Spit IIA notes I have are from the Crecy "Pilots notes series". The copy I have is Revised December 1941 issued with A/L.No 19/F incorporated and further amended to A/L 22H,AL 23J and 25K.

http://www.crecy.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=172

The one on the site you link to is not amended by the look of it.

[taildraggernut]

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?.....or have we already started the new episode with various internet 'memes' and quotes from favourite books?

The things this thread has really taught us:

the Spitfire was 'slightly' longitudinally unstable, a trait shared with several other types of the era, also we have learned that the Spit was truly a 'maneuverable' aircraft but additionally it had a very key quality of being very controlable, these 2 key attributes are what 'famed' the Spitfire for its delightfullness to fly, which was much more than just an ability to perform aerobatics, it meant the aircraft could be pointed around the sky with confidence and ease, ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.
With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread? a bash at the British aircraft industry for not having 'adopted' stability and control standards? despite the fact the standards that were adopted by other nations were heavily based on the work of British engineers.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Tomcat VIP Yes thats the the book... its truly excellent.

Camber you got it for a steal at $35 !

The Spit IIA notes I have are from the Crecy "Pilots notes series". The copy I have is Revised December 1941 issued with A/L.No 19/F incorporated and further amended to A/L 22H,AL 23J and 25K.

http://www.crecy.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=172

The one on the site you link to is not amended by the look of it.

Keep in mind that the not amended paragraphs are from a time when there was no Pilot's Notes General, which was first issued in 1941. It's obvious that's the early Pilot's Notes contain much more general guidelines, which were removed in the later edition as they are covered in the general notes.

IIRC the not amended "handling paragraphs" are the basically the same for Spitfire I and II.

[robtek]

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?.....or have we already started the new episode with various internet 'memes' and quotes from favourite books?

The things this thread has really taught us:

the Spitfire was 'slightly' longitudinally unstable, a trait shared with several other types of the era, also we have learned that the Spit was truly a 'maneuverable' aircraft but additionally it had a very key quality of being very controlable, these 2 key attributes are what 'famed' the Spitfire for its delightfullness to fly, which was much more than just an ability to perform aerobatics, it meant the aircraft could be pointed around the sky with confidence and ease, ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.
With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread? a bash at the British aircraft industry for not having 'adopted' stability and control standards? despite the fact the standards that were adopted by other nations were heavily based on the work of British engineers.

The really amusing thing is how you create this conclusions out of thin air.
And how can presenting facts be recognized as a bashing?
But i am wasting my time, as you still are insist that the Spitfire is the perfect plane with no flaws whatsoever.
Be happy in your delusional world, but also be shure its not shared by so many.

[taildraggernut]

The really amusing thing is how you create this conclusions out of thin air.
And how can presenting facts be recognized as a bashing?
But i am wasting my time, as you still are insist that the Spitfire is the perfect plane with no flaws whatsoever.
Be happy in your delusional world, but also be shure its not shared by so many.

With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread?

:rolleyes:

it seems I share the oppinions of everyone who ever flew the Spitfire.

Crumpp has presented much documentary information and proceeded to misrepresent what it was really saying.

You are indeed wasting your time.

[TomcatViP]

Keep in mind that the not amended paragraphs are from a time when there was no Pilot's Notes General, which was first issued in 1941. It's obvious that's the early Pilot's Notes contain much more general guidelines, which were removed in the later edition as they are covered in the general notes.

IIRC the not amended "handling paragraphs" are the basically the same for Spitfire I and II.

Perhaps...

But edited in June40 and published in July 40, the link to the 1565B that I have posted seems more relevant to me.

Usually operating the plane tend to amend the note book toward more restrictions unless there is a modification in the design.

[taildraggernut]

Thin air indeed......

[TomcatViP]

"to soon or to quickly" - see IVANK post just bellow

Look at page 17 IvanK. That would hve been a point of concern for anyone. In a combat situation, try to imagine yourself trying to understand the meaning of to soon or to quickly when your plane just departed knowing that somewhere around there is a Hun ready to put the pipper on you.

I am not saying that the Spitfire was dangerous to fly, IMOHO and I think that's the real meaning of that thread, the Spitfire was as not as easy to handle as a FBW plane. There is a huge divergence in handling btw what we can read on that plane and was is depicted in IL2.

Many of us have waited years during the old's IL2 days. Now it's enough. Let's end the farce and contribute all to a more representative FM.

[IvanK]

Some images taken by me from Original source Docs in the UK National archives. I have complete copies (In Hi Res) of these docs. Nothing to dramatic wrt spinning in these reports. ...as the MKI 2 Pitch prop report says .... " The Behaviour in spins is satisfactory" !!

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/X1.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/X2.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/SpitII_Spinning.jpg

[lane]

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?

... ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.

I agree, the case made is a real hack job.

[taildraggernut]

"to soon or to quickly" - see IVANK post just bellow

Look at page 17 IvanK. That would hve been a point of concern for anyone. In a combat situation, try to imagine yourself trying to understand the meaning of to soon or to quickly when your plane just departed knowing that somewhere around there is a Hun ready to put the pipper on you.

.

Presumably the main concern was the Hun that already had their pipper on you that caused tyou to spin.
Concern? it's actually reasonably typical behaviour for most aircraft, thats why you always get the opposite rudder in first in a 'standard' spin recovery.
This is just getting silly now, analysing the finite points of the Spitfire spin qualities, but I guess some of you have gone too far in the debate to back down.

p.s. nicely edited post once you someone posted some great evidence against your original comment.

[winny]

An account of a deliberate spin, in a Spitfire, during the BoB..

The pilot was later KIA.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/8d26db76.jpg

Good job he was KIA because he did something that was forbidden! Tut tut...

[taildraggernut]

An account of a deliberate spin, in a Spitfire, during the BoB..

The pilot was later KIA.

Good job he was KIA because he did something that was forbidden! Tut tut...

Not only that but he did something 'forbiden' for 20,000ft and had the presence of mind to recover correctly despite thinking he had 6 huns with their 'pippers' on him....

[TomcatViP]

p.s. nicely edited post once you someone posted some great evidence against your original comment.

You know TDN, there is also plenty of people with good intentions in that world...

As I said alrdy this thread turned down to paranoia and maniacal
behavior.

Let's get out of that spin

[taildraggernut]

You know TDN, there is also plenty of people with good intentions in that world...

As I said alrdy this thread had turned down to paranoia and maniacal
behavior.

Let's get out of that spin

I would argue the original sentiment of this thread has nothing to do with 'good intention'

I haven't got any sense of paranoia here but maniacal behaviour is becoming very evident among the Spit critics who are taking this thread down some very desparate avenues.

Yes, lets get out of the Spin (with correct technique) and push for the much awaited 109 thread, this one has run it's course.

[Al Schlageter]

As I said alrdy this thread turned down to paranoia and maniacal
behavior.

Yes it started on Page 1 with Post #1.

[6S.Manu]

Sure! Spins there used as defensive manouvres: it was a tactic used by many pilots in many different planes...

Anyway it's clearly a defensive manouvre that sometimes saved the life of that pilot leaving your squad with one less unit in combat, resting with the enemy's decision to follow you.

It keep the pilot alive, but don't make you win the battles.

[taildraggernut]

Sure! Spins there used as defensive manouvres: it was a tactic used by many pilots in many different planes...

Anyway it's clearly a defensive manouvre that sometimes saved the life of that pilot leaving your squad with one less unit in combat, resting with the enemy's decision to follow you.

It keep the pilot alive, but don't make you win the battles.

Aren't you missing the point?.......the idea was apparently the Spitfire was dangerous to spin, now if this post isn't clear evidence of the maniacal and bizarre avenues Spit critics are going.....

Serously, whats the difference between an aircraft that is out of combat because it evaded an opponent and an aircraft that is out of combat because it was shot down?.....that's right, the one that got away will fight again, just like the account winny posted.

[6S.Manu]

Flying and fighting at 30,000 feet in a tropical environment in a heavily loaded Spitfire VC (trop) was very different to flying and fighting at 10-20,000 feet over SE England in a more lightly loaded Spitfire I or II.

IIRC the tropical version had a great disadvantage only at medium-low altitude (under 20k ft).

Sure that Vc was heavier (6900 lbs against 6200 lbs), but the Merlin 46 was more powerful than the Merlin XII. The V climbed better at those altitudes.

Of course the stall speed was higher.

[winny]

Not only that but he did something 'forbiden' for 20,000ft and had the presence of mind to recover correctly despite thinking he had 6 huns with their 'pippers' on him....

For anyone interested in the context of the extract I used.

It was written by John 'Pickle' Pickering an RAF pilot.

All of the accounts in 'Ten fighter boys ' were written during the BoB.

His last entry read : I will now close this line as I have been ordered off again to search for a Hun coming in our direction.

Note - I didn't get him, he ran back home.

The next entry was written by Athol Forbes, a squadron mate.

"Since writing these lines our gallant pickle has, alas! Been killed Whilst flying on active service. Per Ardua Ad Astra".

John Pickering was 20 years old.

[6S.Manu]

Aren't you missing the point?.......the idea was apparently the Spitfire was dangerous to spin, now if this post isn't clear evidence of the maniacal and bizarre avenues Spit critics are going.....

Serously, whats the difference between an aircraft that is out of combat because it evaded an opponent and an aircraft that is out of combat because it was shot down?.....that's right, the one that got away will fight again, just like the account winny posted.

I've never stated it was dangerous to spin in it because of the recovery: conversely I keep claiming that it was prone to spin... and spinning in combat is far from a safe manouvre.

It can save you life once, twice... but air combat is also a matter of numbers! It's really possible that another guy died because his wingman spinned down.

[taildraggernut]

I've never stated it was dangerous to spin in it because of the recovery: conversely I keep claiming that it was prone to spin... and spinning in combat it's far from a safe manouvre.

It can save you life once, twice... but air combat is also a matter of numbers! It's really possible that another guy died because his wingman spinned down.

I know what you were getting at, I just thought it was somewhat tenuous to have brought it up, the thread is about Spitfire stability not about bad decisions made in combat.

[6S.Manu]

I know what you were getting at, I just thought it was somewhat tenuous to have brought it up, the thread is about Spitfire stability not about bad decisions made in combat.
Is being prone to spinning not a control issue?

What about pilots afraid to turn because of the spin?

[taildraggernut]

Been prone to spinning it's not related to a Control issue? Stick forces?

Having the pilots afraid to turn because of the spin?



It is but I believe this thread has conclusively proved the Spitfire was not 'prone' to spin unexpectedly, no more prone to spin than any other aircraft in a high speed stall condition.

Some pilots are just afraid of spinning, not of the Spitfire, note how some conciously chose to spin....what were they afraid of?

[robtek]

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

[taildraggernut]

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

running out of arguments?

[6S.Manu]

It is but I believe this thread has conclusively proved the Spitfire was not 'prone' to spin unexpectedly, no more prone to spin than any other aircraft in a high speed stall condition.

Some pilots are just afraid of spinning, not of the Spitfire, note how some conciously chose to spin....what were they afraid of?

Then we ended with a different conclusion... small stick travel and low stick force required are enough for me. 3G with less than a inch of stick movement...

[taildraggernut]

Then we ended with a different conclusion... small stick travel and low stick force required are enough for me. 3G with less than a inch of stick movement...

Naturally...

We will simply forget the fact the Spitfire 'never' picked up the reputation you are seeking here, there you have it, the Spitfire could simply have not been effective in combat because if it tried to outmaneuver an opponent it went into a spin.....

[6S.Manu]

Naturally...

We will simply forget the fact the Spitfire 'never' picked up the reputation you are seeking here, there you have it, the Spitfire could simply have not been effective in combat because if it tried to outmaneuver an opponent it went into a spin.....

RL combat was a lot different from what we have in these games. If it was then no Spitfire would be claimed by the Germans, since every pilot could ride it easily to its limit.

In real life there were few pilots able to do that, while most would never try to equal those manouvres made by the most brave and skilled... most of the time your only smooth turn would be made during the engaging manouvre, to put you nose on the unaware enemy's six, an enemy who would not turn tight.

Still we have stalling and spinning Spitfires against the Japaneses and pilots not turning tightly against a captured 109 quite surely not flown at his limits.

Were the formers unable to feel the prewarning shaking? Were the latters afraid of what?

[Al Schlageter]

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

Seems more like the anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club can't find any real blemishes.

The anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club struck out on the 100 octane fuel and now have struck out on the Spitfire. One more strike out on the Hurricane to come. They are batting 0.0.

Then there is the question why the OP picks the Hurricane and not the Bf109 for his next topic.

[taildraggernut]

RL combat was a lot different from what we have in these games. If it was then no Spitfire would be claimed by the Germans, since every pilot could ride it easily to its limit.

Really?.....I suppose you know.

if the Spitfire was anything like the portrayal being attempted by the OP then History would need to be re-written because no Spitfire would ever have claimed a 109.

When the term 'easy to fly' and 'a pilot's dream' were coined about the Spitfire it was not aimed at pilots who just wanted to cruise cross country wearing ray-bans, it was for the pilots with some testosterone (including the ladies) who wanted to point it around the sky and have a blast, an aircraft that is likely to spin out is never going to get that reputation, the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so, combat is a stressfull enviroment that can force you beyond the limits because your mind is often overloaded with more to worry about than limits in the pilots notes.

Now, please come back with some pilots reports indicating a tendency to spin unexpectedly etc and help me to change my mind.

[6S.Manu]

if the Spitfire was anything like the portrayal being attempted by the OP then History would need to be re-written because no Spitfire would ever have claimed a 109.
He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

I know it's not easy if many STILL think that the best plane is the more manouvrable (look at my sig).


When the term 'easy to fly' and 'a pilot's dream' were coined about the Spitfire it was not aimed at pilots who just wanted to cruise cross country wearing ray-bans, it was for the pilots with some testosterone (including the ladies) who wanted to point it around the sky and have a blast, an aircraft that is likely to spin out is never going to get that reputation, the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so, combat is a stressfull enviroment that can force you beyond the limits because your mind is often overloaded with more to worry about than limits in the pilots notes.
Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?


Now, please come back with some pilots reports indicating a tendency to spin unexpectedly etc and help me to change my mind.

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...

So why should lose time in doing it?
:-)

Just answer me: how can a 109 outturn a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

[taildraggernut]

He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

He said it was an excellent fighter and the rest of his thread was a big 'BUT it was totally uncontrollable and broke up in spins' and many other variations on an attempt to discredit the Spitfire.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

only he and a few merry followers say it had an 'issue', history does not reflect those oppinions, for some reason he clings to a NACA report on the wrong variant as his proof and wants to make it stick to the entire Spitfire family.

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

Yes I can agree that you are not the Anti British type and I thank you for that rare quality, but I would add that labeling anyone who defends the Spitfire as having a 'tie fighter' agenda is ignorant.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

Sadly there is a need to be defensive on this issue because there are an element that seek to fabricate alternate myths and are of the anti british nature, but I'd like to know exactly what the real Myths are about the Spitfire, it's got to be famous for a reason better than 'it was British and we were on the winning side in the war', personally I believe it was famous because it was one of the best fighters, to be in that category it had to have qualities above others, this thread is an attempt to take away any redeeming qualities.

Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?

Now youre being ridiculous, most aircraft were easy to fly in that sense, the Hurricane was even easier in that sense, it has to be it's qualities in combat that made it famous, nowhere is it written that it was difficult to push to it's limits.

why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109

Not sure what you mean, but the Spitfire was generally better at turning than the 109....not 100% that really depended on who was flying, but certainly for the most part, which includes while in the hands of some of the less skilled RAF pilots.

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...


Really? you think that because those RAAF pilots underestimated the turning capabilities of the Jap planes and ended up in spins because they got caught in turning engagements was proof the Spitfire was prone? almost any aircraft would have spun out if it was turning with a zero.

So why should lose time in doing it?

I don't understand what you mean here?

Just answer me: how can a 109 outturns a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?

[robtek]

He said it was an excellent fighter and the rest of his thread was a big 'BUT it was totally uncontrollable and broke up in spins' and many other variations on an attempt to discredit the Spitfire.

This is only your spin on crumpp's posts, i haven't read that, or could you please quote what i've missed.

[taildraggernut]

This is only your spin on crumpp's posts, i haven't read that, or could you please quote what i've missed.

It's hardly surprising now is it.....

[Glider]

"Normally" does not means that the Spit will recover by itself but that you have to apply normal actions to get out of the spin (note tht there are some planes that recover by them-self).

Your reading is little biased when the line you extracts are only a couple of lines after the one saying that the spin was forbidden.

Limited to 1/2 turn in the 47 means that after half a turn you shld initiate actions to stop the spin and recover. It does not means that you 'd die once the plane past that point. In that case, if the odds are high enough, the Spin IS FORBIDDEN.

Stable spin situation have often a link with an aft CG location. It does not means that you'd die each time you'll get in a spin but more that the time to recover would be too great to be considered a safe practice during training or in a combat situation or might damage the structure.

Anyway, there is nothing to read btw the lines or makes interpretations. Those pilot's notes are written by those that know all about flying a military plane in combat situation.

So, EO Glider, with all my respect, stick by the book or use your imagination to found new ways of pealing the potatoes...

Dismiss !

;)

PS: I hope the joke passed the barrier language. Sgt Tomcat stand ready to eat his hat with some Bearnaise sauce in case it failed

I actually totally agree with you 100%, there there, it can happen. In the same way the P47 wasn't dangerous to spin, neither was the Spitfire.

Its probably fair to say that the Pilots notes were on the side of caution

[CaptainDoggles]

We're losing sight of the "measurable and definable" aspect of things, here.

[taildraggernut]

We're losing sight of the "measurable and definable" aspect of things, here.

Not really..

We have measured and defined that having 'adopted' stability and control standards or not, it seems everybody made aircraft with quirks, maybe it's because everybody was using British engineers theories for the basis?

We have defined the desireable qualities of the Spitfires maneuverability and controlability, and I might add i'd like to see more sensitivity in pitch with better rate of turn modelled in game.

We have defined the spinning characteristics of the Spitfire were not alarming and did not result in airframe failure.

We have defined that the RAF had a 'blanket' ban on intentionally spinning operational aircraft for some rather obvious reasons, nothing to do with imminent failure of the aircraft but more to do with preventing hot headed fighter pilots 'mucking about' with expensive and desperately needed combat aircraft, this has no bearing on the use of spinning in combat as an evasion technique, if your choice is get shot down and die or spin which would you chose?

[6S.Manu]

He said it was an excellent fighter and the rest of his thread was a big 'BUT it was totally uncontrollable and broke up in spins' and many other variations on an attempt to discredit the Spitfire.
Totally uncontrollable? come one...

Could it reach the airframe limit in turn? Of course, many planes had that problem: above all the ones with oversensitive elevators... look at the doc: Spitfire had oversensitive elevators according to NACA.

This only means that pilots should be aware of that more than the ones flying a plane with heavy stick forces... heavy stick forces were a required at highspeed (of course "high" is not a measure)


only he and a few merry followers say it had an 'issue', history does not reflect those oppinions, for some reason he clings to a NACA report on the wrong variant as his proof and wants to make it stick to the entire Spitfire family.
It's often been said that one of the greatest virtues of the Spitfire was that the plane's behaviour didn't changed after every modification... IIRC the Griffon Spitfires lose most of those virtues.

Or is it a Myth?


Yes I can agree that you are not the Anti British type and I thank you for that rare quality, but I would add that labeling anyone who defends the Spitfire as having a 'tie fighter' agenda is ignorant.

Those who actually think that "easy to fly" mean that pilot could have full control of the plane in every condition, knowing that the Spitfire is an war machine and not a touring plane... those are the ones with an "tie fighter" agenda... I'm not claiming that everyone who defends this plane is one of those.

But you know, in forums is always the same thing: black or white, nuthuggers vs haters., syndrome of sorting people by their current idea.


Sadly there is a need to be defensive on this issue because there are an element that seek to fabricate alternate myths and are of the anti british nature, but I'd like to know exactly what the real Myths are about the Spitfire, it's got to be famous for a reason better than 'it was British and we were on the winning side in the war', personally I believe it was famous because it was one of the best fighters, to be in that category it had to have qualities above others, this thread is an attempt to take away any redeeming qualities.

Any redeeming quality? Come on... don't be so extremist.
It's a NACA document about longitudinal stability and control quality.

These are my opinions about the best Spitfire's qualities
1) the RR Merlin.
2) receptive airframe (modifications didn't changed the behaviour)
3) Hispano cannons

Acrobatic skills and turn rate are not there: not really important in a fighter of the WW2, just see the design of the new fighters... so many elliptical wings...

But for that is famous the most? this last one...

Then of course the planes of the winner side (above all those beautiful like the Spitfire and the P51) are most be remembered as symbol of that win... it's dishonest not to admit it at least partially... but at least the P51 (my favourite plane even if too much wordhipped by the american history) had a real advantage in range. The turn rate is still so overrated by many warbirds' fans.

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.


Now youre being ridiculous, most aircraft were easy to fly in that sense, the Hurricane was even easier in that sense, it has to be it's qualities in combat that made it famous, nowhere is it written that it was difficult to push to it's limits.
The Hurricane was not so easy to fly with that stick friction... in landing configuration from the 100mhp to 150mhp it was not the nicest plane.
But please... enough with "made it famous"... M.Jackson was famous to be a pedophile, but was he really? Pavarotti was a famous benefactor but in reality he was f*****g tax evader.

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

About the "easy to fly => easily push to the limit" read below.


Not sure what you mean, but the Spitfire was generally better at turning than the 109....not 100% that really depended on who was flying, but certainly for the most part, which includes while in the hands of some of the less skilled RAF pilots.
But it was easy to fly... how can them not be able to outturn a crap plane like a captured 109E.
Those pilot should be really low skilled to not push the plane at his limits, since it was easy.


Really? you think that because those RAAF pilots underestimated the turning capabilities of the Jap planes and ended up in spins because they got caught in turning engagements was proof the Spitfire was prone? almost any aircraft would have spun out if it was turning with a zero.
No. The one about the Norwegian guy pulling up and turning left only to spin and not recover since its engine stopped.
I just ask... why did many pilots spin? Wasn't the prestall warning enought to plan that? Why didn't they adverted it and continued the turn?

"the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall."

I can speculate that the oversensitive stick control was a reason for that. Those planes were not fully controllable, that's different from totally uncontrollable as no one here stated expect yourself.


I don't understand what you mean here?
"the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so".
So you don't care about reports... why should I find for them.. I doubt to find a number big enough to be indicative.


are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?
:-) <= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.

[6S.Manu]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/flying_spitfire.htm

Aerobatics: “This aeroplane is exceptionally good for acrobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising rpm should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation may occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Stalling:This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.

[Robo.]

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.

You're absolutely right here but I guess but no one in this thread is claiming Spitfire is the best plane in the world. I see lots of defensive activity in here against OPs claims but no praising of the Spitfire.

In game, it is also difficult to fly the Spit on the edge. There are capable pilots and there are not so good pilots and you can tell the difference when you meet them. Same in real life I guess except this is a game. Same goes for any aircraft in the sim so that's fair enough.

As for the issue, yes they have changed something in the FM in the last beta patch as I find the Spitfire is more difficult to stall now (1.07). I prefered the previous version to be honest.

The Hurricane was not so easy to fly with that stick friction... in landing configuration from the 100mhp to 150mhp it was not the nicest plane.

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

Hurricane is very much off topic here, but:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/259/language/en-CA/Flying-the-Hurricane-with-Rob-Erdos.aspx

Leave a trickle of power through the flare or it will drop out from under you. The landing is almost - pardon the pun – a bit of a let-down. It’s easy. The Hurricane’s undercarriage is wide and soft, and the directional stability and response allow adequate tracking through the roll-out.

[taildraggernut]

Could it reach the airframe limit in turn? Of course, many planes had that problem: above all the ones with oversensitive elevators... look at the doc: Spitfire had oversensitive elevators according to NACA.

No sorry wrong, it had 'desireably' light controls

This only means that pilots should be aware of that more than the ones flying a plane with heavy stick forces... heavy stick forces were a required at highspeed

No sorry wrong, heavy stick forces were a penalty for high speed and extensive research was put into remedying the problem, an aircraft with heavy controls is more difficult to control.

It's often been said that one of the greatest virtues of the Spitfire was that the plane's behaviour didn't changed after every modification... IIRC the Griffon Spitfires lose most of those virtues.

Or is it a Myth?

Hard to say, the Griffon Spits were almost a different aircraft but given the eliptical wing and general planform of the aircraft were unchanged, and it's very much the physical shape of the aircraft that defined alot of its flying qualities, then perhaps it's not a Myth, but a Griffon Spit is not the topic here.

Those who actually think that "easy to fly" mean that pilot could have full control of the plane in every condition, knowing that the Spitfire is an war machine and not a touring plane... those are the ones with an "tie fighter" agenda... I'm not claiming that everyone who defends this plane is one of those.

But you know, in forums is always the same thing: black or white, nuthuggers vs haters., syndrome of sorting people by their current idea.

and which conditions do you have evidence for that made the Spitfire particularily difficult? given that NACA said it's biggest shortcoming in combat terms was 'heavy' ailerons at very high speed, so you think the Spitfire was famous for being a 'touring' machine?
at least you realise there is an element of the anti-british/anti-spitfire going on here.....I wonder who it is?

Any redeeming quality? Come on... don't be so extremist.
It's a NACA document about longitudinal stability and control quality.

These are my opinions about the best Spitfire's qualities
1) the RR Merlin.
2) receptive airframe (modifications didn't changed the behaviour)
3) Hispano cannons

Acrobatic skills and turn rate are not there: not really important in a fighter of the WW2, just see the design of the new fighters... so many elliptical wings...

But for that is famous the most? this last one...

Then of course the planes of the winner side (above all those beautiful like the Spitfire and the P51) are most be remembered as symbol of that win... it's dishonest not to admit it at least partially... but at least the P51 had a real advantage in range. The turn rate is still so overrated by many warbirds' fans.

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.

Who said 'THE' best?

The RR merlin was not a unique quality...
Receptive airframe? you have a strange set of rules
Hispano cannons are guns not aircraft, what good is a hispano if it's nailed to a cessna 152?

Aerobatics are useless, aerobatic ability is very usefull, if the aircraft can't cope with aerobatics then it hasn't got a hope in hell of being a fighter....like a PA-28

You make it sound like the Allies have tried to erase all memory of the Germans, if just being the winners was the main influencing factor in aircraft favouriteism then why are there so many LW fans?


The Hurricane was not so easy to fly with that stick friction... in landing configuration from the 100mhp to 150mhp it was not the nicest plane.
But please... enough with "made it famous"... M.Jackson was famous to be a pedophile, but was he really? Pavarotti was a famous benefactor but in reality he was f*****g tax evader.

are you saying that 'fame' only comes from bad qualities?

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

About the "easy to fly => easily push to the limit" read below.

Huh?

But it was easy to fly... how can them not be able to outturn a plane crap plane like a capture 109E.
Those pilot should be really low skilled to not push the plane at his limits, since it was easy.

But the 109 wasn't crap....what medication are you taking?

No. The one about the Norwegian guy pulling up and turning left only to spin and not recover since it's engine stopped.
I just ask... why did many pilots spin? Wasn't the prestall warning enought to plan that? Why didn't they adverted it and continued the turn?

Because in combat you can end up spinning because you just couldnt' hold on to the edge forever and somebody is trying to kill you or the other way around, nothing to do with propensity to spin, or are you saying the Spitfire was the only aircraft that spun in hard turns?

"the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall."

I can speculate that the oversensitive stick control was a reason for that. Those planes were not fully controllable, that's different from totally uncontrollable.

I guess that is really what you are saying....

"the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so".
So you don't care about reports... why should I find for them.. I doubt to find a number big enough to be indicative.

So if I found a report of a 109 spinning I could claim the 109 was unduly prone to it?

<= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.

:rolleyes: ah the punchline for the Lufwhiners.....I mean the unbiassed truthmongers who have nothing but the best interests of historic realism at heart.

[taildraggernut]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/flying_spitfire.htm

Aerobatics: “This aeroplane is exceptionally good for acrobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising rpm should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation may occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Yes, the sensitive elevators were an unusualy rare and desireable quality, it sounds pruden't to give warning for a situation that 'could' arrise

Stalling:This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.

Yes, the sensitive elevators were an unusualy rare and desireable quality, it sounds pruden't to give warning for a situation that 'could' arrise

[winny]

Brian Lane, on stalling...

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/zz147/winistrone/eb1ba1dc.jpg

So he was taught the move at Flight Training School..

[Kwiatek]

Ok what was then? Author surly alive :)

[TomcatViP]

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.


+1

Superbmarine Spitfire : Yes

Remote ctrld WiiFire : NO

;)

[winny]

Ok what was then? Author surly alive :)
:)
Yes, he got away. Basically.. He was followed by 2 109's, twisted and turned, "nearly hitting the water on several occasions" used his boost cut, one of the 109's dived on him from the side, Lane turned into him, fired his remaining ammo, hit the 109 at very close range, the 109 went straight into the sea, the second one wasn't fast enough to catch up with him. He landed safely but badly shaken!

He survived the BoB but never came back from a mission in December '42.. He was last seen giving chase to two Focke-Wulf 190 fighters. Listed as MIA

[6S.Manu]

Unbelievable... It's like talking to a wall... Good job on playing the 3 little monkeys.

TDN: After been called anti-british (good job!), luftwhiner (of course!) and under medication (knowing who's the one here with serious problems of comunication, and I'm not talking about a language issue, as I already witnessed in a thread about the BoB), after asking clear questions who "strangely" you don't understand (the one about "fame" is really a good one) I'm going to ignore you.

Robo: I know nobody claimed that; The statement below was to imply that, as many other planes, it had some issues. I'm sending to you a link by PM. See you after the next patch. ;-)

[taildraggernut]

Unbelievable... It's like talking to a wall... Good job on playing the 3 little monkeys.

I know the feeling oddly enough....and from the same discussion.

After been called anti-british (good job!)


Yes I can agree that you are not the Anti British type and I thank you for that rare quality, but I would add that labeling anyone who defends the Spitfire as having a 'tie fighter' agenda is ignorant.

luftwhiner (of course!)

If you can relieve yourself of the burden of paranoia you might also realise it was not directed at you but more at the general group that I am facing here.

and under medication (knowing who's the one here with serious problems of comunication, and I'm not talking about a language issue, as I already witnessed in a thread about the BoB)

Funny how communication problems are never interpreted as anything positive and given benefit of the doubt, but I'm very sorry if it offended you deeply.

(the one about "fame" is really a good one

You brought up paedophiles and tax dodgers.....:rolleyes:

I'm going to ignore you.

OK

[bongodriver]

Dafuq did I get banned for!!?:shock:

[Al Schlageter]

Dafuq did I get banned for!!?:shock:

Welcome back bongo. I was afraid you had gotten the big vacation, as another did.
I am still waiting for the reason I got some demerit points (now gone).

[winny]

Dafuq did I get banned for!!?:shock:

Balance? Probably.

I love forum bans, they're like temporary martyrdom.. Except you get reincarnated a week later.. Funny.

[bongodriver]

This video has a very intersting part at 3:20, listen very carefully to what the late Mark Hanna says, I know MH434 is a Mk9, but that is no less unrelated than a Mk5, but the point is this is how people who have flown any marque speak about the Spitfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgn7oaTmMYQ&feature=g-vrec

[robtek]

Yep, it's a Mk IX, and the difficulties of the early marks were reduced to non-problems by i.e. artificially increasing the stick forces with the bob-weights since the Mk V.
Later marks didn't have the extreme low stick forces (elevator) anymore.
They were still 'desirable light', though.

[bongodriver]

Yep, it's a Mk IX, and the difficulties of the early marks were reduced to non-problems by i.e. artificially increasing the stick forces with the bob-weights since the Mk V.
Later marks didn't have the extreme low stick forces (elevator) anymore.
They were still 'desirable light', though.

only the Mk5 was ever fitted with a bob weight, the Mk9 was not.

[Crumpp]

What is the pilot to do if the airplane does not recover by 5000 feet?

[Crumpp]

We will simply forget the fact the Spitfire 'never' picked up the reputation you are seeking here

Wow, the instability only existed in the early marks.

Not all Spitfires were Mk I, II, or early Va's.

However ALL Spitfires were fixed with the addition of bob-weights or other design changes to eliminate the instability.

[IvanK]

What is the pilot to do if the airplane does not recover by 5000 feet?

It doesn't actually say must be recovered by 5000feet it says recovery must be initiated by 5000feet. Its minimum altitude guidance to the pilot implying that up to 5000feet might be required for full spin recovery.

[Crumpp]

Right Ivan....

Did you read the recovery characteristics??

Again, answer the question.

What is the pilot to do if recovery does not begin by 5000 feet?

[IvanK]

Crummp read the exact words. "Recovery must be STARTED not lower than 5000 feet" !!!!

Its like in any aeroplane that the pilot has a means of escape, (Ejection seat or parachute). Its a judgement call if out of control there comes a time where the pilot must decide stick with it and attempt a recovery or step over the side.

Did you read the AVIA test reports on spinning behaviour posted earlier ... ?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/recovery.jpg

[DC338]

Right Ivan....

Did you read the recovery characteristics??

Again, answer the question.

What is the pilot to do if recovery does not begin by 5000 feet?

The simple answer is continue with the spin recovery that you have already initiated and you should come out of the spin in the next turn or so. Allowing you sufficient room to pull out.

[camber]

Robtek and Manu,

Thanks for participating and sorry if you feel like you are being whacked in the face repeatedly by a 1/24 scale Spitfire.

I have an emotional connection to the Spit, I always go and give my one a pat (Mk19) whenever I am back in my home city (Perth, Aus), and marvel at it's very odd rudder trim tab.

Despite that, I agree with most of what you say, as I agree with the core of Crumpp's argument as I see it:

The early marks of Spitfire had specific measured control characteristics, involving slight longitudinal instability, neutral stick stability and light control forces. These should be implemented as well as possible in simulation.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with that actually. I am disappointed that it is tricky to even acheive a high speed stall in current CloD Spitfires.

Crumpps qualitative interpretation on top of that that the Spit stability is a large weakness (reading back through the thread it still seems clear to me but not so much in the original post) is not supportable, unless you can legalistically exclude all opinions by pilots, which are legion. Especially when the NACA standard is admissable, which unlike the stability data it is based on, is an expert but qualitative judgement on top.

That said there are some odd side issues added in by Crumpp, like the assertion that buffet is effectively binary in the sense that either the Spitfire is out of the buffet, or stuck in a hard buffet with a massive turn degredation. This does not seem to fit with the historical record or IvanK's and Glider's flight experience of buffet onset sensing than unloading slightly.

The MkV bobweight attributed as a cure for dangerous instability in MkI and II is not supported by the historical evidence as I see it.

I could certainly believe that accidental spins out of combat turns occurred often in the Spitfire, as they are amply documented. Recovery is clearly straightforward, which should give one caution of using instructions in Pilot's notes as proof that certain actions endanger the Spitfire more than other fighters of the time.

I could certainly believe that Spit instability decreased it's ability as a gun platform, as this is supported by the historical record.

I really don't think that arguing as if the other side have had a special meeting and share all the same arguments is constructive. It's a shame though, the disscussion moderates always disappear (at least not literally, like in a civil war :)), or get mad and become extremists, leaving the latter as the last men standing.

I also wish the mods could have a script that deletes any post that use the eyes rolling icon. And perhaps over a certain% of bold. But not smileys :):)

camber

[DC338]

The problem that we are faced with despite 46 pages of post is how you would implement these "issues" In a game that you can modify control curves etc. Yes the spit should be sensitive in pitch and less sensitive in roll but with adjustable curves how you do it. Also we have joystick that are not even close in length and therefore throw compared to a real life aircraft. We also cannot sense G in game or for those without force feedback any hint of buffet. We can ask for aircraft that perform in speed, turn rate, RoC, etc but how do you simulate control feel? Even in multi-million $ sims that I have flown control feel in the sim is not the same as in the aircraft, and these are aircraft that have artificial feel as part of the control system.

We all want accuracy but how do we achieve it? Quantifiable performance (speed, RoC's etc) is much more important to get right to begin with than control feel. Get aircraft (be they blue or red) first to perform to the numbers (which we don't have at present.) The you can deal with secondary issues.

At the end of the day the spitfire had a good reputation amongst those who flew it in combat. It was not an "ensign eliminator" or a "son of a Bi%^ch second class" it may have had some issues with longitudinal stability, yet was known as an aircraft that was a joy to fly.

[camber]

The problem that we are faced with despite 46 pages of post is how you would implement these "issues" In a game that you can modify control curves etc.

I totally agree, not only is it technically questionable how one could do it, but I consider the chance of devs attempting it is nil. I don't mean that as a criticism of the devs. I do think some improvements could be made within the limitations of different control gear, response curves etc.

So it seemed to me that the thread was more a historical discussion of Spitfire handling, which has thrown up a range of interesting historical sources. Somewhere along the lines of, how would the perfect sim model stability?

camber

[CaptainDoggles]

The problem that we are faced with despite 46 pages of post is how you would implement these "issues" In a game that you can modify control curves etc.

No matter how you set up your curves, you'd still need to reduce pressure on the stick to avoid the aircraft tightening up the turn by itself.

That right there would go a long way towards the correct "feel".

[DC338]

No matter how you set up your curves, you'd still need to reduce pressure on the stick to avoid the aircraft tightening up the turn by itself.

That right there would go a long way towards the correct "feel".

So how do you determine from in game that you are close to xxxxxx value that you need to reduce the back pressure? You can't feel the G increasing, you don't get feedback through the stick and if your head is cranked you are unlikely to to notice the increasing rate of turn. So how do you do it? You don't have the tacit indicators that are available in a real life aircraft.

[CaptainDoggles]

So how do you determine from in game that you are close to xxxxxx value that you need to reduce the back pressure? You can't feel the G increasing, you don't get feedback through the stick and if your head is cranked you are unlikely to to notice the increasing rate of turn. So how do you do it? You don't have the tacit indicators that are available in a real life aircraft.

The same way you know how much to pull now.

[6S.Manu]

You don't have the tacit indicators that are available in a real life aircraft.
We miss many informations about the feeling and sensations of our avatar.

In many other games there is a HUD that shows to the player the real conditions of the virtual pilot. For example the human body feels accellerations... you need only a little transparent square on the screen, with a disc inside who move according to the G forces/directions and change color according to the force power.

If we want a combat simulator then these informations need to be displayed on screen (think about the stamina bar in RO, or the gasping in ArmA): some can find them invasive, but in that case probably they don't care about a combat sim, but only a flight sim.

Anyway we're OT, we should open another thread to discuss this matter.

[TomcatViP]

May I suggest that we open a new thread for that with precise suggestion to the devs based on our sim experiences/lifetime real flight and Math knowledge. Then they will only have to pick what suggestions fit their agenda regarding the Sim.

Manu, regarding your post for the visual acquisition range some months ago, I suggest you'd be the one opening that thread.

[6S.Manu]

May I suggest that we open a new thread for that with precise suggestion to the devs based on our sim experiences/lifetime real flight and Math knowledge. Then they will only have to pick what suggestions fit their agenda regarding the Sim.

Manu, regarding your post for the visual acquisition range some months ago, I suggest you'd be the one opening that thread.

I'm going to open it under "Technical threads".

EDIT: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=447848#post447848
Sorry again for my bad english.

[bongodriver]

No matter how you set up your curves, you'd still need to reduce pressure on the stick to avoid the aircraft tightening up the turn by itself.

That right there would go a long way towards the correct "feel".


You just don't have the evidence that that is actually what happened for a start, and even if it did happen it only would have happened when the CoG was at the point it created the 'slight' instability i.e. with a full fuel tank, so the effect you talk about would be dependent on fuel burn, the less fuel in the tank the lesser the effect.

[TomcatViP]

no, the tank is frwd of the CG

[bongodriver]

no, the tank is frwd of the CG it's rear of the next biggest mass (the engine) an according to at least 1 diagram it is 14 inches behind the datum point, when the tank is full the CoG comes back.

[CaptainDoggles]

You just don't have the evidence that that is actually what happened for a start, and even if it did happen it only would have happened when the CoG was at the point it created the 'slight' instability i.e. with a full fuel tank, so the effect you talk about would be dependent on fuel burn, the less fuel in the tank the lesser the effect.

It's unstable unless the CG is in the forward position.

We just spent 46 pages hashing this out so I'm not going to get into it with you; don't bother replying.

Go back and read the thread; it's all there. This thread has devolved into fanboys re-interpreting the presented evidence into "merely a slight" instability because their egos can't handle it, so I'm not going to perpetuate it.

Ta ta

[bongodriver]

It's unstable unless the CG is in the forward position.



Which is pretty much what I said


it only would have happened when the CoG was at the point it created the 'slight' instability i.e. with a full fuel tank


A full fuel tank is what makes the CoG move back, as the fuel empties the CoG shifts forward and the aircraft becomes more stable, it's got nothing to do with fanboyism, it's just plain and simple facts, I do CoG calculations as part of my day job remember.


This thread has devolved into fanboys re-interpreting the presented evidence into "merely a slight" instability because their egos can't handle it


No the pilot's notes also say it is 'slightly' unstable

[robtek]

The fuel tank is right above the line between the first and the second third of the wing, thats where the cog usually lies, so if it gets lighter the cog doesn't move at all, afaik.

[bongodriver]

The fuel tank is right above the cog, so if it gets lighter the cog doesn't move at all, afaik.


CoG is not a stationary datum, the CoG is dynamic and will shift with change in weight, the datum you are talking about is the AC aerodynamic centre, the point at which all the forces act, if the CoG is behind the AC then the aircraft is unstable and vice versa, so....given the Mass of the engine sits ahead of the AC and the fuel is sligtly behind then any reduction in the combined weight will bring the CoG forward.

Sorry my mistake, AC is where lift acts and CoG where weight acts, but the point is the same.

I meant to add, the reason I believe this is the effect is because the only Weight and balance diagrams I have seen of the Spitfire place the fuel tank moment just behind the datum point, as fuel reduces then the moment weight is offset by the constant moment weight of the engine which I think we can all agree is ahead of the datum.

[Glider]

I know this is going to sound rather foolish but can someone point me in the direction of the test report that mentions 3/4 in of travel for 3 G.

Its in here somewhere but I cannot find it, any hunts welcome

[bongodriver]

I know this is going to sound rather foolish but can someone point me in the direction of the test report that mentions 3/4 in of travel for 3 G.

Its in here somewhere but I cannot find it, any hunts welcome

I can't find it either, I'm not as sure I ever saw it but I just assumed nobody was making it up.
Here is robteks first reference to it and it seems he was working from his own recollection of things, prior to this post I saw nothing with regards to that figure.

The necessary Stick movement (elevator) to induce a 3 g load at cruise speed was three quarters of an inch in the Spitfire, afaik, very easy to get unintended reactions there if your arm isn't completely fixated.

[TomcatViP]

I meant to add, the reason I believe this is the effect is because the only Weight and balance diagrams I have seen of the Spitfire place the fuel tank moment just behind the datum point, as fuel reduces then the moment weight is offset by the constant moment weight of the engine which I think we can all agree is ahead of the datum.

You've probably seen a doc related to the AFT mounted tank of the spitfire, scarcely used on fighters but primal on the reco version.

[bongodriver]

You've probably seen a doc related to the AFT mounted tank of the spitfire, scarcely used on fighters but primal on the reco version.

No it was the diagram on this thread, and let's face it, if the fuel tank was forward of the datum then the Spitfire could not have possibly been unstable, so in this case I am argueing 'for' your cause.

[Al Schlageter]

If the early Spits were so tail heavy then why did the MkVIII have 22.5lb added (weight and mount) to the tail? moment arm 175.5"

[Al Schlageter]

Go back and read the thread; it's all there. This thread has devolved into fanboys re-interpreting the presented evidence into "merely a slight" instability because their egos can't handle it, so I'm not going to perpetuate it.

Ta ta

So a NACA engineer is a Spit fanboy?

"FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds. "

Some fanboys have a short memory.

[NZtyphoon]

I know this is going to sound rather foolish but can someone point me in the direction of the test report that mentions 3/4 in of travel for 3 G.

Its in here somewhere but I cannot find it, any hunts welcome

Page 9 of the NACA report:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/SpitfireVAControlCharacteristics-page-011a.jpg

One report not yet mentioned is the Spitfire VA Stalling Characteristics by NACA: Where the Spitfire II Pilot's Notes warn about buffeting at the stall NACA sees this as "Good Stall Warning" and the Spitfire's stall characteristics "more desirable in some respects than those of any pursuit-type airplanes formerly tested in a similar manner.":

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/SpitfireVAStallCharacteristics-page-003a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/SpitfireVAStallCharacteristics-page-004a.jpg

The main undesirable characteristic noted was the "uncontrollable rolling instability" with the gun ports open and in a steeply banked turn.

[bongodriver]

Interesting, thanks typhoon, the boxed extract sounds almost identical to what Mark Hanna was describing.

The main undesirable characteristic noted was the "uncontrollable rolling instability" with the gun ports open and in a steeply banked turn.

It also adds that there was 'unmistakeable' warning in the form of buffet.

[Crumpp]

You just don't have the evidence that that is actually what happened for a start

Ahh....

You can look at the slope of the Cm/CL curve.....

Ahhh, elevator oscillation graphs....


Ahhh, Abrupt pull up characteristics.....

Elevator angle / Acceleration / stick force graphs....

It is very cut and dry. No emotional involvement required.

Here is the stick travel requirement the Spitfire did not meet.....

You guys need a copy of the report?

[Crumpp]

While CG location will effect the stall velocity, stall behavior is not stability.

It is apples and oranges.

"Being flown" in the stall buffet is not the same as "turns great in the stall buffet" either.

Carry on

[IvanK]

An ode to stability and buffet with apologies to Plt Off Gillespie Magee

Oh How I thought I'd slipped the surly bonds of earth
I've danced and rolled and slipped and pulled and done a thousand things
I pulled once more .....Buffet flick ... oh no the lift has gone from my wings.

My Spit MKI yawed and clanged and bucked and pitched
The stability of this Spit MKI is such a bitch !

This I fear must be a spin
Time for me to put my best effort in.

I pulled the throttle back to Idle
I centralised the controls as I had been taught
Its times like these that things get a little fraught

I smoothly pushed on opposite rudder
But my Spit MKI she continued with the judder

I eased the stick progressively forward
smoothly smoothly son and you will get your reward.

And then it happened out she popped
All the banging and the clattering had stopped
as 90 degrees nose down my Spit MKI had flopped

But there I was at even lower Alt so very close to the heather.
Time for me to pull my best turn ever

But what should I do ?
Alas I had no clue

A fervent prayer to Crumpp Patron saint of the NACA
Surely he will guide me through this delicate matter

"Pull smoothly lad but don't let it Buffet" said Crumpp
I did as I was told ....... until I felt the fatal Thump
Impact ! .........bummer .....I was in the Hawkinge dump.

And that was that I was dead
I knew I shouldn't have listened to what got in my head

Now I really had slipped the surly bonds of earth
Up and up I went until there I was nearing heaven listening to the mirth.

When I got there what did I see ?
A raucous bunch of forum guys all from 1C

One by one they began to chant .... "Another victim of Turning room available is less than turning room required"
I hung my head in shame .... how could I have been so dumb? ..... How could this have transpired ?

At last a sign of hope, along he came Pontius ..... the world famous Pilate
Take heart young man .... my advice and gift today will make you smile a lot

The trick is to pull until you feel the "buzz" then hang on to it like glue
Only this young lad will keep you out of the Poo.
and now a gift .... a second chance at life for you.

In flash there I was 90 degrees nose down over Hawkinge
Time to do my stuff .... no time to grumble or to whinge

I smoothly pulled to the Buzz... Pilates words ringing in my ears like a bell
Boy o boy my Spit MKI she is turning well
And then there I was above the ground .... Gee that was swell.
Good on you Pontius your advice today has done me well.

So pilots all if you want to turn
pull to the buzz ..... lest you burn
Dont always listen to a Boffin
That just might lead you to a coffin.

And to the mods out there
its time to put this all to bed
please please .... close this bleeding thread !

[NZtyphoon]

While CG location will effect the stall velocity, stall behavior is not stability.

It is apples and oranges.

"Being flown" in the stall buffet is not the same as "turns great in the stall buffet" either.

Carry on

So I guess that your comments

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940.

What do you think the "violent shudder" is.....hint....PRE-STALL BUFFET.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/page15j.jpg

and those that you posted on the PN's are worthless to this discussion and not worth bothering with? I take it the NACA report on the Spitfire's desirable stall behaviour was wrong because according to you the PNs say otherwise? Thanks for contradicting yourself again Crumpp...:rolleyes:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Thanks for contradicting yourself again Crumpp...:rolleyes:
Good point!

[camber]

Oh How I thought I'd slipped the surly bonds of earth
I've danced and rolled and slipped and pulled and done a thousand things
I pulled once more .....Buffet flick ... oh no the lift has gone from my wings.



Many threads deserve an epic poem,
Very few get one.
Thank you IvanK.

[Robo.]

IvanK that was epic! :grin:

[bongodriver]

Ahh....

You can look at the slope of the Cm/CL curve.....

Ahhh, elevator oscillation graphs....


Ahhh, Abrupt pull up characteristics.....

Elevator angle / Acceleration / stick force graphs....

It is very cut and dry. No emotional involvement required.

Here is the stick travel requirement the Spitfire did not meet.....

You guys need a copy of the report?

I can look at your graphs all day, it doesn't change the fact that the same report from NACA gives avery different picture to yours, next time quote me in context, I was talking about the apparent need to push the stick forward in the turn, I had no problem accepting the stick 'travel'......I said I assumed nobody was 'making it up'.
Like I said to Doggles, if there was a case where the Spit needed to have the stick 'pushed' in the turn it would have been subject to when the CoG was in the unstable region, and this would have been a temporary condition subject to fuel burn.

Does anybody have a good Spitfire weight and balance schedule? I just can't find one.

[NZtyphoon]

IvanK that was epic! :grin:

+1 - Brilliant!

[ATAG_Snapper]

IvanK that was epic! :grin:

+1

Great way to start the day. :)

[Al Schlageter]

bongo, 'Spitfire: The History' has some, but not for the MkI.

[robtek]

So I guess that your comments


http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/page15j.jpg

and those that you posted on the PN's are worthless to this discussion and not worth bothering with? I take it the NACA report on the Spitfire's desirable stall behaviour was wrong because according to you the PNs say otherwise? Thanks for contradicting yourself again Crumpp...:rolleyes:

You seem to forget that there is a very distinct difference between slow speed stall behavior, which is desirable, and high speed stall behaviour, which might result in a flick roll and is undesirable.

You just mix the resulting explanations as you like.

[Crumpp]

You just mix the resulting explanations as you like.


That is the case.

Does not matter what the facts or that all of this is definable unlike anecodotes.

The bugtracker post is almost finished. I will submit it in the next day or so.

[Crumpp]

I can look at your graphs all day, it doesn't change the fact that the same report from NACA gives avery different picture to yours

Well so far, you all have been quoting a different report on a different subject.

It does not make any sense but I guess it keeps you happy and feeling like you are contributing.

[bongodriver]

Well so far, you all have been quoting a different report on a different subject.

It does not make any sense but I guess it keeps you happy and feeling like you are contributing.

I believe I was refering to the text boxed in NZtyphoons post which is the same NACA report you are refering to, it does feel good contributing to the facts.

[bongodriver]

You seem to forget that there is a very distinct difference between slow speed stall behavior, which is desirable, and high speed stall behaviour, which might result in a flick roll and is undesirable.

You just mix the resulting explanations as you like.

Look again and you will see they clearly talk about 'accelerated flight'...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/SpitfireVAControlCharacteristics-page-011a.jpg

[Glider]

If the early Spits were so tail heavy then why did the MkVIII have 22.5lb added (weight and mount) to the tail? moment arm 175.5"

The very very early spits and I am talking about the first two bladed version, not the mk 1a as per BOB, were tail heavy and had weights in the nose. This ws soon countered as the additional equipment and natural growth common in almost any aircraft did away with the need.

[bongodriver]

bongo, 'Spitfire: The History' has some, but not for the MkI.

Thanks Al

[Crumpp]

Look again and you will see they clearly talk about 'accelerated flight'...



It is a completely different report.

However, if you read the paragraph right below the one you highlighted, it says exactly the same thing I pointed out from the NACA measurements on flying qualities AND what is repeated in several warning found in the early mark Spitfire Operating Notes.

You want me to highlight it for you or can you find it?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You seem to forget that there is a very distinct difference between slow speed stall behavior, which is desirable, and high speed stall behaviour, which might result in a flick roll and is undesirable.

You just mix the resulting explanations as you like.
So let me see if I understand you correctly..

When a spitfire experiences a high speed stall that results in a 'flick roll' it is undesirable..
When a Fw190 experiences a high speed stall that results in a 'flick roll' it is desirable..

Interesting..

Because we have all heard heard the stories of the German Fw190 pilots that used this technique to evade someone on their six, where they would intentionally cause a high speed stall (acc stall) that would cause the Fw190 to 'flick roll' onto its back to preform a fast split-s maneuver.. Which was a good (desirable) trait as far as the German Fw190 pilots were concerned..

So it appears that you have a double standard..

Spit does it it is a bad thing
Fw190 does it it is a good thing

Which IMHO sounds like you are the one who will just mix the resulting explanations as you like

[bongodriver]

It is a completely different report.

However, if you read the paragraph right below the one you highlighted, it says exactly the same thing I pointed out from the NACA measurements on flying qualities AND what is repeated in several warning found in the early mark Spitfire Operating Notes.

You want me to highlight it for you or can you find it?

No I can also see it, sounds like a real bind having to re center the stick by 3/4 inch or so, how did those RAF chaps ever manage to do it with all that vibration and shaking from the 'PRE-STALL' buffet giving ample warning?, they must have had to be real geniuses to remember to push the stick a 'bit'.

[bongodriver]

So it appears that you have a double standard..



yes but it is adopted and measured and defineable.....so it's ok.

[JtD]

I don't understand why folks are going nuts about the Spitfires longitudinal instability, it wasn't a problem for any pilot or how NACA put it "the well know long period oscillations have no correlation with the handling qualities of an airplane". Basically, it doesn't matter.

[Glider]

I don't understand why folks are going nuts about the Spitfires longitudinal instability, it wasn't a problem for any pilot or how NACA put it "the well know long period oscillations have no correlation with the handling qualities of an airplane". Basically, it doesn't matter .

Slightly pithy but pretty much on the nose.