I dunno, those graphs before, are nice...but lets face it...the Graph for the Spit, the one that shows blazing speed is on 12 pound boost. And that would Cook your engine. So really unless you are in emergency go for broke mode you won't beat an ME-109. And heck In real life emergency power was for just that, not chasing an ME-109 when he's extending all kill crazy. :rolleyes:

Five minutes was more than sufficient for most combats and you could normally go for longer than that should the need arise. You would be very unlucky if everything went very quiet after 6 mins

Quite, 5 minutes was a guaranteed time, a failure was 'possible' after 5 minutes.

Naca & RAE curves describe instrumented flights were the test pilot had to follow a predetermined trajectory. Nothing like what most of the fighter pilot will try to do.

Still it is interesting that it give us an indication that the ctrls were not the one we have in the sim where the Spitfire act like an F18.

Attention to details and imperfections are what makes a great sim.

I hve always said that I do believe that the 109 was more difficult to master than the Spit. It's an evidence for me.

What you told us about your experience in gliders is interesting. Thank you for the feed-back.

I was talking of the travel range in roll that shld be more or less the same as the one in pitch -ie control harmonization - sry for my bad English

It would be interesting (and relatively easy) to hve it implemented in the Spit model.

Hve you seen that in the MkII manual they are talking abt 1min at T.O for the 12lb boost rate ? And did you notice that the MKII had also a new eng fitted ?

I'm saying that if it says 5 minutes in the notes it means you are guaranteed 5 minutes, just like 1 minute = 1 minute guaranteed

I'm not disputing the actual limitations, sorry for the confusion.

Sry myself. I am too sensitive on that file :rolleyes:

You miss Spitfire with 109.

1 minute TO emergency power was allowed for 109 E at 1.4 ( 1.45) Ata,

and 5 minutes was for Emergency power at 1.3 ( 1.35 Ata) - which in CLOD you could used for all day until your fuel is gone.

For Spitfire MK1 100 Octan +12 lbs was definitly 5-minutes emergency power and for SPitfire MK II +12 lbs was probably initialy 3-minutes emergency then also 5 minutes time limit. I see no reason why Merlin XII could not stand 5-minutes emergency power if Merlin III could do it without problem expecially if MErlin XII was designated for 100 Octan fuel more then MErlin III ( which was adopted only).

Exactly - the Merln XII was further developement of the III and with all mods standardised and more robust components it was certainly more durable than the earlier version (Merlin III). Plus the more effective cooling... We must stick to the pilot's notes and I should be noted that the boost cut-out was working on a different principle on the Spitfire Mk.II (throttle gate) than on the Spitfire Mk.I (bowden cable). This has been well discussed in the other threads.

I agree on the 109s raping the 'Afterburner' button with no penalty whereby you will cook your Merlin even if flown by the book at some occasions. :o

The main problem I see in this kind of discussions on a sim forums is that either side (red or blue) simply can't appreciate what the other side is saying or what they are facing in the game. The reason is that majority of the pilots fly exclusively RAF or Luftwaffe (there is absolutely nothing wrong with that) and they simply have got no idea what is going on in the 'others' cockpits or about the game balance, yet they still like to comment on that very topics. As a keen fighter pilot on any side of the Channel, I am often astonished with what some people say in here, e.g. Spitfire is just a faster Hurricane or that Spitfire acts like F-18 :o :o Similar views about the 109s from the red-only perspective.

I know this thread is probably to discuss real life aircraft and not how they're represented in this sim, but still. The FMs and DMs are still very rough and imperfect, game is still fun, even this forum is fun sometimes. But honestly guys, get real, some of you ;)

Ah, but I'm sure those 109 pilots who complain about RAF pilots opening their canopies to use their "sonar" are NEVER the ones "raping" their afterburner buttons! ;)

Hey guys I am flying AS MUCH my beloved Hurri than the 109. It's perfectly even. I was flying on ATAG so you might have an interested look at my stats.

I will fly the Spit when it will eventually fit my expectations. That's it.

And I think that using the 1min boost repeatedly on the 109 is despicable. I am not doing that myself for the same raison that I keep my hood closed right after Take Off in the Hurri.

lol

I was speaking in general, I know that you used to fly the Hurricane quite a lot in the last official patch ;) You wouldn't be that impressed with it in the 1.07 though I guess. :grin:

If you want to get an idea how horrendous it will be, fire up Jane's WWII and have a try.

That was the last time I saw a good FM for that plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Uq_dhWIB0

yeah I still hve got to test the new patch. perfectly true.

You switch yourself to the Spit ?

I fly anything as you know, but as a Squad we fly Hurricanes. I do fly Spitfires too (always did, mainly Ia in the old patch), mainly because you can't start the new Hurricanes on the ground - it takes some 10 minutes of intensive 'I' button hammering. :o

How much time did you spend in the Spitfires then?

That is my biggest take away from all this work and research. The fact being that these sims allow us a sneak peak into 'what it must have been like', and thats about it really. To really simulate the inate virtues and foibles of all these airframes along with all the other vagaries inherent in driving a wing in atmosphere is I think at this point in time asking to much from any sim developer.

Cannot wait to read the 109 information!

Well done!

+1

don't bank on it.

There's a famous account by Brian lane of a turning dogfight with a 109 during the BoB. For me it sums up the Spit vs 109 debate.

Lane found himself on the tail of a 109, which was obviously being flown by an expert, he found it hard, but possible, to stay with the 109 whilst it's pilot 'threw it all over he sky'. The chase progressed and the German pilot started circling to try and get on Lanes tail, and was gaining. Lane then describes 'riding the buffet' and in turn gaining on the 109. He then describes seeing the slats deploy on the 109 and the ailerons starting to snatch. The German pilot knew his situation was getting worse and rolled out and dived away. Lane couldn't catch him.

The reason it sums it up for me is that when 2 pilot's dogfight there's a certain ammount of weighing up of the opponent that goes on, they knew when they were up against someone good, and they knew when they were up against someone bad.

The dogfight starts with the German throwing moves that would have probably shaken off average pilots, that didn't work so he tries to get on the Spit's 6. That makes sense. It's well known that a lot of Spitfire pilot's would back off at the first sign of the buffet, when in fact you could fly through it.

At the point the German realised he was being caught he used the mechanical advantage he had and dived away.

Skill and experience didn't work so at that point he used the plane.

109 and Spit were so close, both had faults, both had pilots that knew how to work round them.

Supposedly Marseille's last combat lasted 15 minutes. 109F vs Spit V Trop.

That Spit should have augured in at the first defensive move it made, at least according to an aviation expert..

I think that's been de-bunked as a myth.

Edit: Let me elaborate: Not sure if you're a member on butch2k's board, but Henning posted a thread not too long ago about an article in the July 2012 edition of Flugzeug Classic, talking about a 15-minute dogfight against a spitfire that Marseille eventually shot down on 29 Sept 1942 and that the pilot of the spitfire was "the best he'd ever met."

The consensus over there is that it's a myth because Marseille's last recorded kill was on the 26th of that month, and his squadron was put on rest leave (or whatever the term is) for the next three days.

Forgot to include the link.

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forum...showtopic=1992

I think the board is set up so that members are required to be sponsored by an existing member. If you don't have an account, send me a PM and I'll sponsor you for one.

Cheers.

"After his last combat on the 26 September, Marseille was reportedly on the verge of collapse after a 15-minute battle with a formation of Spitfires, during which he scored his seventh victory of that day."

One small observation, riding the Buffet doesn't mean flying through it. Its flying on the edge of the buffet, touching it and easing off a fraction.

If you fly in buffet your wing loses its effectiveness and you lose performance. Try to pull through the buffet i.e. tighten further and you will spin out. Riding it is riding the edge

My guess is that what they mean with "riding the buffet" is that they fly along the state when the inner wing sections were basically stalled (or maybe oscillating between stalled and unstalled air flow) creating the famous buffeting sound and vibrations that was used as an indicator by experienced pilots.

Oh okay, we're talking about different things, I guess.

Here's what Geoff Wellum says about it (BoB veteran).

However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it’s a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don’t need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it.

Forget physics....

You have disproved it right here!!

:rolleyes:

The German report also notes the longitudinal instability. It does NOT note the CG position of the aircraft.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

All that proves is that you can have some longitudinal instability and still be faultless in a turn as well as easy to take off and land.

It also says that the Spit wasn't a very steady gun platform

By 'you', do you mean Mr. Wellum, actual Spitfire pilot during actual Battle of Britain? :o:o:o

That's disrespectful and outrageous. Mr. Wellum is still with us, last I heard. He flew Spitfires during the Battle of Britain and as One of the Few did his bit, to borrow from Churchill, to save the world from sinking "into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." Perhaps that's the source of the disrespect?

Let's not turn it into something it is not. Apply some common sense please.

Winny posted that single remark out of context is the subject. Winny, who quoted Mr Wellum, does not understand that CG's move and aircraft change condition of flight.

I am sure Mr Wellum was absolutely right for the condition he is referring too. Just as I am sure the RAE, Operating Notes, NACA, and test pilots are correct for the conditions they measured.


Well the Germans did not take any measurements so it is just opinion.

IIRC, at normal and aft CG the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. Depending on the speed and by careful application, neutral stability could also produce "faultless turns" by careful flying.

Yes it is an opinion, but its the opinion of one of the best German pilots of the time, someone who clearly doesn't have any pro RAF bias.
The German and British test establishments do not disagree with him and neither does as far as I am aware, any of the thousands of pilots of many nations who also flew it, including newly and at times poorly trained pilots.

I have asked a number of times for any examples from you of pilots who thought it difficult or unpleasent aircraft to fly, with no response.

Without any support your theory is just that, an unsupported theory.

What theory??

You mean the measured results? The Operating Note warnings? The Test Pilot confirmation?

Wow....

In 10 seconds the aircraft changed speed by 40 mph.....

After 3 minutes, left to its own devices, the aircraft was changing speed 110 mph and on it way to self destruction.

The oscillation grew larger by 20mph to 40mph each cycle.

A cessna 152 will change that much in about as much time, luckily most people wouldn't be doing 'nothing' after 3 minutes.

BALONEY.

It will dampen the oscillation and the speed change will be non-existent in ~ ONE MINUTE.

Yes a cessna will stabilise quick, you missed my point, we are talking about the Spitfire here, the oscilations that your graphs show are really not vicious, while the cessna is in the process of stabilising I have seen speed fliuctuations of a similar magnitude, of course they are decreasing but a 40mph change in 10 seconds is miniscule, a half dead monkey with no flying training could catch it even if the amplitude was increasing.

You missed the point.

The Spitfire will not stabilize, it will get worse.

That means constant correction and pilot attention is required to fly the plane.

As for the other contention, only the paraniod pointy tin foil hat crowd see this as some kind of attempt to "pork" their favorite gameshape.

The results are measured. I find it very amusing that and quite telling the individuals who cannot accept the results for what they are but insist upon some sort of reassurance to calm their fears.

You missed the point again, I already said I know the amplitude is divergent, I'm saying that the rates of divergence on the graphs you gave are miniscule, mild instability is easy to catch and correct, in terms of emotional reaction I think it is you who seems to react the worst to a difference of oppinion with all these bizarre accusations you keep throwing around.

Again, Argue with the NACA, RAE, and Operating Notes....

The rates were significant enough to prompt a narrowing of the CG limits unless a bob-weight was installed.

Must not have been so insignificant, huh???

:rolleyes:

Nothing to argue, the RAE NACA and notes say it's slightly unstable and the graphs show it, and slight instability is just plain and simly 'no big deal'.

MkI's and MkII's did 'not' have the bob weight or a CoG revision, why they bothered in the MkV is debateable.

:rolleyes:

How the hell is it 'out of context'?
It's a standalone quote from a Spitfire pilot.

Are you saying Wellum is wrong?

And I do understand CG, I also understand that all your NACA data relates to a MK V. Which had a different CG, modified wings, different engine, different AUW and over 300 modifications from a Mk I.

I could also provide quotes from Brian Lane where he intentionally spins a Spitfire, or intentionally stalls one. Both things you have repeatedly said were forbidden. I'm sick of your by the book attitude, for someone who claims to be ex special forces you seem to fail to grasp the context of young men fighting for their lives and what they will do in order not to die.

Anybody who ignores pilot accounts is an idiot. As far as I know they are the only record of what happened when these aircraft were used for what they were designed for, combat.

Your dismissal of Wellum is offensive to me, and disrespectfully to him. Who the hell are you? Nobody.

Edit: I'll give you some more 'context' the preceding 2 sentences and the one after the quote I used...

If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control...
...A 109 can't stay with you.

:rolleyes:

Save your indignity for somebody that cares.

I dismissed you not Mr. Wellum.

They measured a Mk V but the issue existed in all the Spitfire Marks up to the Mk V. It was fixed with the addition of bob weights.

Here is the Mk I and the instructions for the bob-weights to fix the longitudinal instability.

Get a clue. That document is a hack. It is not a Spitfire I loading and C.G. diagram. A.P. 1565E corresponds to Spitfire V documentation. A cursory examination of the text will confirm that to anyone who knows what they are looking at. The 'IA' and 'IB' in the title block are obviously photo-shopped. You should be ashamed, but won’t be I’m certain.

You are absolutely right!!! AP1565 A & B are the Spitfire Mk I and II.

Here is where I got the document!!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=21

It was presented as evidence the NACA could not do a weight and balance on the Spitfire.

Funny how you still used a suspect document as your own evidence though.

Still waiting for the test pilot confirmation

Except Jeffrey Quill and Alex Henshaw, who don't count because they did not have Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering.

We are still waiting on the Stability and Control characteristics of the Bf109.

The only hack there is metric conversions of the moments because it was used to create Spitfire model for Targetware:

http://target4today.com/forum/viewto...&showtopic=581

The late war documentation for the early Spitfires (I, II and V) is basicly same.

As usual, Crumpp misinterpret the content of the table. It actually shows that the use of the bob weighs (inertia device) depends on CoG, propeller and tail configuration. Note that his original argument was that Bob-weights have absolutely nothing to do with CG limits:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=245

And it was the RAE report 2535 which proves that the NACA MAC calculation was in error (see dimensions p. 7), just like NACA admited the possibility in the their Spitfire report.

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/dl...rc/rm/2535.pdf

Anyway, you can continue to argue with him as long as you will, no matter what evidence you use, he will come back...

Don't forget Molders, Galland and the German test establishment. After all JQ and AH might be seen as biased

Crumpp
I believe the ball as they say is firmly in your court.

Not really...

The game has been over for quite a while. You and some others continue to play on because you do not realize it as you do not understand the information presented.

You don't really want to understand and I am not going to force you either.

Ah yes, Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering - I guess it must be so frustrating being the only person who knows all there is to know about these subjects, while the rest of the world is made up of ignoramus'. What a shame that Reginald Mitchell did not have the benefit of Crumpp's vast capabilities - the Spitfire would have been a much better aircraft. And Jeffrey Quill could have done with Crumpp's abilities as a pilot on the Supermarine test pilot's team...*sigh* such might have beens.

Do you mean like he could hve designed the E-model wing right on the drawing board ?

NzTyphoon,

The longitudinal stability and control characteristics of the early mark Spitfires is very well documented. It is used as an example in many college and university programs.

It is not some emotional based issue or even obscure if you understand stability and control. No amount of fan based wishing will change it. It is what it is and anybody who went to school for it can look at the measurements to tell exactly how the aircraft will behave.

Yes, it is quite obvious you don't understand it. Just as you did not understand percentage MAC, concocting a pointy tin foil hat theory and arguing for pages and pages about a non-dimensional proportion.

It is not my fault you don't care to learn about it.

Bad loosers always switch to attack the person or the persons reputation instead staying with the facts.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim; if the Spitfire's longitudinal and stability characteristics are the subject of so many college and university programs then some documented evidence from such programs would be absolutely ideal for a proposed bugtracker report. Examples and documented evidence of such college and university programs please

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/series/....asp?code=CAES

About the third book down, NzTyphoon, is the one quoted.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3...sairplanes.jpg

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/7...airplanes2.jpg

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4...airplanes3.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6...shspitfire.jpg

Oh goody, one of "many" - can we see some more of the many? And well done, Crumpp has just contradicted himself - again - with his comments on the DC-3...


And here's another interesting fact; both the Typhoon and Tempest Pilot's Notes say that they were longitudinally unstable, and neither were as manœvreable as the Spitfire, while Alex Henshaw says that the so-called unstable gun platform of the Spitfire was a myth, so Crumpp can quote from as many books as he likes, there are other opinions.

NzTyphoon,

Do you need the DC-3 report from the NACA?

Nothing in the college text, NACA report, or what I have said is contradictory.

What this does show is a second-hand report on tests conducted by NACA, proving that the authors have read the same reports as presented in this, and other threads. In fact, the way Crumpp has quoted extensively from from this one book shows that most of his information on aerodynamics comes from here which can also be found (minus some pages) on googlebooks.

Nor is it an unimpeachable source, as witness the comments on the longitudinal stability of the Typhoon and Tempest, both of which have Pilot's Notes stating they were longitudinally unstable.

I don't suppose you could say which college and university programmes could you?

My Alma Mater.....Go Eagles!!!! :grin:

You know we have a great football team?

Cambridge
Naval Academy
USAF Academy
MIT
GA Tech

Read it. You might learn something.

Locked for 24hrs so you guys might get the message.........

Thread open again.. gents please stay civil. Next time several of you will incur 5 point general infractions or worse if you cant keep it from getting personal.