Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)
-   -   Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33720)

jf1981 08-07-2012 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch (Post 452729)
Both true. In fact when I did my dive tests, I pulled out using the trimmer exclusively. In the high speed dives, I need a lot of down trim and a lot of rudder trim, but got up to at least 440mph, maybe 450, but by that time I was more concerned with where the ground was. :grin:

P.S. I also brought prop pitch down to fully coarse, i.e. lowest revs.

Yes but I think they messed also on the aircraft, there's no reason to need rudder trim in such a dive.

IvanK 08-07-2012 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenrir (Post 452662)
Spitfire was known to have high Mach no., bout the .92 (from memory, don't flme if I'm wrong!). The 109 likely does not have such high an ultimate dive speed - where your advantage is, or more precisely should be in dive acceleration; you can bunt and initially outdistance a Spitfire in a 109 but given enough altitude I'd expect the Spitfire to gain eventually.

Also remember the Flight Models are still a work in progress - could be worth testing and taking to the Dev Team.


Dont think we can ever get high enough in CLOD at present to get into Mach number territory :)

Glider 08-07-2012 11:40 PM

I wouldn't set too much store in the 0.92 Mach no. It was reached but it was a test pilot and the machine basically fell apart around him, the prop came off, the engine almost fell out.

Mind you the wings stayed on

CaptainDoggles 08-08-2012 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 452824)
I wouldn't set too much store in the 0.92 Mach no. It was reached but it was a test pilot and the machine basically fell apart around him, the prop came off, the engine almost fell out.

Mind you the wings stayed on

0.89 is the figure I recall seeing quoted as a "typical" dive. Also IIRC in that particular test, the wings stayed on but were bent backwards (i.e. the structure failed).

bw_wolverine 08-08-2012 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 452827)
0.89 is the figure I recall seeing quoted as a "typical" dive. Also IIRC in that particular test, the wings stayed on but were bent backwards (i.e. the structure failed).

Wow. A pilot actually did this test? Did he have to bail out? Surely, he must have.

Was it part of the test or just a 'test' that came out of an accident?

Very cool nevertheless!

SG1_Gunkan 08-08-2012 07:30 AM

The real 109 just need to roll during a normal dive and the Spitfire couldn't follow him. Was so hard for spitfires pilots that they even need using the rudder. But, at the same time this was dangerous and some pilots died because the wings twisted and broke.

I remeber have read too some problems with fabric controls surfaces.

Please correct me if i am wrong or inaccurate.

CaptainDoggles 08-08-2012 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG1_Gunkan (Post 452905)
The real 109 just need to roll during a normal dive and the Spitfire couldn't follow him. Was so hard for spitfires pilots that they even need using the rudder. But, at the same time this was dangerous and some pilots died because the wings twisted and broke.

I remeber have read too some problems with fabric controls surfaces.

Please correct me if i am wrong or inaccurate.

I think the wing-flexing issue was corrected in later marks.

CaptainDoggles 08-08-2012 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 452879)
Wow. A pilot actually did this test? Did he have to bail out? Surely, he must have.

Was it part of the test or just a 'test' that came out of an accident?

Very cool nevertheless!

Yep, it was an actual test. They started from 40 000 feet.

bw_wolverine 08-08-2012 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles (Post 453021)
Yep, it was an actual test. They started from 40 000 feet.

I wonder how many forms the pilot had to sign before that one!

Baron 08-08-2012 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 452879)
Wow. A pilot actually did this test? Did he have to bail out? Surely, he must have.

Was it part of the test or just a 'test' that came out of an accident?

Very cool nevertheless!


I remember reading Pierre Clostermans biography about such an event where he and his wingman (iirc) chased down a high alt recognisances ac. (Do17?) where both spits was condemned after the mission. Wings bent, aluminium sheeting all wrinkled. I seem to remember them both got nose bleeds from the sheer speed and the resulting manoeuvres getting out of the dive. Intresting though, is the fact that the recon must have reach similar speeds before being shot down (not falling apart into a torpedo).

Fast indeed, but everything is relative. Like, can i park the plane afterwards without the wings falling of. :)


Not sure if i remember everything exactly to the letter but the essence is there.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.